Read on Twitter
In this twitter thread, I am going to show you how charlatans can use 'research' to convince you to believe the OPPOSITE of what the research actually shows by cherry picking & using logical fallacies. Make sure you save this one (1/n)
Let's take anti-oxidants and muscle hypertrophy as an example of something that I can get you to believe the opposite of what the research says through cherry picking. After presenting my 'logic' and studies, I will then show you what the hard data says (2/n)
Claim: anti-oxidants can help you build more muscle! Check out this research demonstrating that people who have higher levels of anti-oxidants like vitamin E have greater muscle mass
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33499166/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31436047/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33499166/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31436047/
(4/n) Now check out this research in rodents demonstrating that anti-oxidant supplementation improve muscle quality: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30866573/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26943770/
(5/n) Even more convincing, check out this research demonstrating that anti-oxidants can improve muscle protein synthesis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18936220/
(6/n) This makes sense as reactive oxygen species can impair muscle protein synthesis: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31574345/
(7/n) Now this is super relevant for people who want to build muscle because when you resistance train, you increase ROS/free radicals, which will inhibit MPS. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18046185/
(8/n): Therefore, if you want to grow the most muscle possible, you should take anti-oxidants because they will decrease ROS and improve your anabolic response to exercise. Seems reasonable right? Now here is where I break down how you were mislead
(9/n): Anti-oxidants do NOT increase muscle mass in healthy people. In fact, they actually impede adaptations to resistance training:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31267859/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23181439/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638792/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31267859/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23181439/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26638792/
(10/n): Notice that I did not 'lie' about any of the studies I cited, I simply cherry picked them to form a narrative. I neglected to mention that all of the studies showing benefits to supplemental anti-oxidants were in elderly, who have increased ROS & reduced anti-ox capacity
(11/n): When we examine the HARD DATA to the claim of 'anti-oxidants increase muscle mass' we see that it is not supported by the data. But by ignoring the hard data & concocting a story based on cherry picked mechanistic data, I could easily convince many people
(12/n): a comparable example would be Paul Saladino claiming that PUFAs increase the risk of heart disease because they are more easily oxidized than saturated fats and we know that oxidized LDL is more atherogenic. Therefore PUFAs = Bad & Saturated fat = good
(13/n): But THAT IS NOT WHAT THE HARD DATA SHOWS! The hard data shows that PUFAs DECREASE LDL-ox while saturated fat increases LDL-ox and lowering saturated fat, reduces LDL-ox
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10958817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26118785/
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10958817/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26118785/
(14/n): So, in this way it is possible for anyone who can search pubmed to concoct a mechanism to support what they wish to be true, then hack together cherry picked studies to support their argument
(15/n): When viewing any claim as the following:
-Compared to what?
-What does the HARD data say?
-At the cost of what?
(Thanks to @ThomasSowell for this quote)
-Compared to what?
-What does the HARD data say?
-At the cost of what?
(Thanks to @ThomasSowell for this quote)
(16/n): so if someone says 'hey vegetables are toxic because of oxalates'
-Toxic compared to what?
-What hard data do you have demonstrating vegetables actually cause 'toxic' responses in humans?
-If we cut out vegetables to avoid this 'toxic' response, what is the cost of that?
-Toxic compared to what?
-What hard data do you have demonstrating vegetables actually cause 'toxic' responses in humans?
-If we cut out vegetables to avoid this 'toxic' response, what is the cost of that?
(17/n): Just to touch up on this subject
-You could argue that nearly anything is toxic in the wrong dose or using a cherry picked metric. I could argue that saturated fat is toxic
-People who eat more veggies tend to live longer... consistently across MANY studies
-You could argue that nearly anything is toxic in the wrong dose or using a cherry picked metric. I could argue that saturated fat is toxic
-People who eat more veggies tend to live longer... consistently across MANY studies
(18/n): Don't get sucked into this trap with people who concoct mechanisms, then hack together cherry picked 'research' so that they can push their narrative. Don't get distracted by hand waving arguments. Examine the root of their claim. Does the HARD evidence support it?
(19/n): I hope this thread has been helpful. If you wouldn't mind retweeting or liking it so that other people can get this information... that would be very appreciated!
