Metastudy Puns

I recall a study that looked into a few dozen attempts to use blockchain and found literally zero instances in which blockchains had any advantage over traditional tech.

I can’t find the study, though.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31142-9/fulltext

That is the abstract to a metastudy (multiple studies are combined and compared to identify the general trend) on masks showing that they are effective. This is one of those articles I have bookmarked to show to friends and frenemies that say things like masks don't work.

Cuz I feel like it takes less time to build up the game knowledge and skill required to climb out of each subsequent division (would take the longest to climb from Iron IV to Bronze IV, slightly less to climb from Bronze IV to Silver IV, slightly less to climb from Silver IV to Gold IV etc.)

But then it also feels like there would be a point (maybe around Platinum IV to Diamond IV, or Master to GM) where it slows down again, and it takes genuinely longer to climb through those ranks. I feel like maybe such a slow at Master to GM or GM to Challenger would be attributable to the sheer lack of players in the divisions, and the number of games played on a server at those divisions. If there's 5,000 games per patch, and only the top 100 ranked people are playing in them, that's only 50 games/player/patch at Masters/GM/Challenger.

Does anyone know if there's been such a study? And/or what the results were, and/or if the data has been released by riot to perform a study of this kind on it?

Thought some of you might find the research interesting, especially since it runs counter to the popular advice of "Eat small meals frequently":

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22608008 > Mice under tRF consume equivalent calories from HFD as those with ad lib access yet are protected against obesity, hyperinsulinemia, hepatic steatosis, and inflammation and have improved motor coordination. The tRF regimen improved CREB, mTOR, and AMPK pathway function and oscillations of the circadian clock and their target genes' expression. These changes in catabolic and anabolic pathways altered liver metabolome and improved nutrient utilization and energy expenditure. We demonstrate in mice that tRF regimen is a nonpharmacological strategy against obesity and associated diseases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26318578 >Our data demonstrate that there was an improvement in motor coordination and learning response with decline in protein oxidative damage and recovery in expression of energy regulating neuropeptides

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25818175 >The results suggest that IF in both ages would reduce the risk for deficits on brain function and neurodegenerative disorders linked to inflammatory response in the CNS.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26306884 > tl;dr - ketosis is neuroprotective and benefits may possibly be achieved by significant stretches of fasting/carbohydrate-restriction

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4391809/ >Popular advice for weight control advocates the consumption of small, frequent meals. However, the science supporting this as an effective weight control strategy is lacking...We conclude that increasing meal frequency from three to six per day has no significant effect on 24-h fat oxidation, but may increase hunger and the desire to eat.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9155494 >More importantly, studies using whole-body calorimetry and doubly-labelled water to assess total 24 h energy expenditure find no difference between nibbling and gorging. Finally, with the exception of a single study, there is no evidence that weight loss on hypoenergetic regimens is altered by meal frequency

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4079942/ >Eating only breakfast and lunch reduced body weight, HFC, fasting plasma glucose, C-peptide and glucagon, and increased OGIS, more than the same caloric restriction split into six meals. These results suggest that, for type 2 diabetic patients on a

I was browsing through a list of studies on beneficial effects of alcohol, and ran across this study. Abstract states that

> Of 4235 studies reviewed for eligibility, quality, and data extraction, 84 were included in the final analysis.

That's less than 2% of the studies, which seems surprisingly small. Is that normal?

Also, am I correct in assuming that with such small fraction, even a slight change of study selection criteria may substantially affect results?

Nowadays I'm having difficulties of making sense of all the supplements with proven workings, based on multi-year meta studies, and what the the correct ways to take them are and potential benefits?

As an example, Coffee has been hyped the last couple of days, but further analysis of the studies cited show that they are likely less significant then claimed.

In contrast, Curcumin has several long studies behind it BUT has to be taken together with something to help absorption.

It is difficult to make sense of it all. Any help in figuring out all recommended/beneficial supplements that are based in facts and solid studies?

I see that /r/India has just discovered one of the old metastudies that claims to show homeopathy is no more effective than placebo. Give someone a headline, and they assume they know the subject well enough to discuss it.

The thing about metastudies is this...anyone can play, but not everyone can play well. So before proclaiming them as proof of anything, it behooves one to look at the nitty gritty of the study design.

Here's an excellent example of the types of weaknesses that become revealed on closer study.

Static stretching can briefly inhibit the ability to generate power. So if you reach for your toes and hold that position, tautening your hamstrings, you might not then be able to leap as high or start a sprint as forcefully as if you hadn’t stretched.

Those undesirable effects were generally found, however, only if each stretch was held for more than 60 seconds and the subject then immediately became fully active, with no further warm-up. Those are hardly real-world conditions, says Malachy McHugh, the director of research at the Nicholas Institute of Sports Medicine and Athletic Trauma at Lenox Hill Hospital in New York, who is the study’s co-author. Outside the lab, he says, most people are unlikely to hold a warm-up stretch for longer than about 30 seconds. The review found few lingering negative impacts from these short stretches, especially if the volunteers followed that stretching with several minutes of jogging or other basic warm-up movements. In fact, these short static stretches turned out to have a positive correlation. People who stretched in this way for at least five minutes during a warm-up were significantly less likely to strain or tear a muscle subsequently.

Read more here: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/01/21/stretching-back-to-the-past/

Over the Summer I decided to experiment with acid. I had been searching for months for L but could never seem to get my hands on it, so I decided to say fuck it and just drop a tab 25i. It was a pretty fun and new experience, definitely challenged my mind and incurred a lot of nice thoughts for me. 2 week later, at my one (and only) rave I decided to take it as a party drug since I already had experience with it.

Never done it since, never will do it again. I'm a huge hypochondriac and this kind of thing scares me. I'm wondering if my brief use could have possibly damaged any tissue, serotonin receptors or brain cells. Thank you.

http://www.brainstimjrnl.com/article/S1935-861X%2815%2900964-X/abstract

Original piece of crap by Horvath et al
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028393214004394

Now I'm just waiting for Flavio Frohlich's IQ study to get similar appropriate treatment...

I just did a quick metastudy of over 56000 people and found that 3400 of them have a space in their name, roughly 6% of the population.

Of this population 900 of these people (2%) have a hyphen in their name.

I earned approximately $20 figuring out this information this morning.