DCUK NewsBot
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 4,059
personally I prefer to get research reports in this fashion although I agree it can be difficult to ascertain how well research has been carried out, there always seems to be a reference to who carried out the study and the numbers involved. This is far superior to the alternative of reading the advertising weighted snippets in a comic like the Daily Wail. If there is a general issue with the credence to be given to reports maybe administrator could add a standard form checklist identifying the duration of, numbers, gender, age, reliability (peer reviwed?) and listing supporting and contra reports. You know, all the stuff the hacks of the press say they do!Without being able to see the study it is not possible to draw any conclusions..
I'm getting a bit worried about the way some of this new is being reported @Administrator
The site seems to simply rehash bad news reports from other places with no critical input which in a community of Diabetics is not really very good. Can we have a review of the way this is being done please?
It would be helpful if they provided a link to the paper they are writing about. However, I think I found it:
http://jn.nutrition.org/content/145/4/736.long
You're right, it's not the right paper, but same idea.I'm not convinced that is the same study. This one used 4 different breakfasts including a high GI low fibre one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?