Skip to content 
Scientists make an observation, which leads to a research question. From this, they form a hypothesis, see what other research exists on the topic, and then design an experiment.
Only by reading the complete paper one judge the context and the details of the research, the funding behind it, its strengths and limitations, and how it compares to past studies.
Scientists, like everyone else, are humans. They are susceptible to mistakes in judgement, can be misled by biases, the inaccuracies, the misinterpretations, the exaggerations, the misleading quotations and can be fooled by evidence that appears to be “too good to be true.”
To prevent these dangers, papers are subjected to a screening procedure known as “peer review” once they are submitted for publication to a journal.
The scientific approach is a lengthy process. It took 100 years from iodine discovery as an effective treatment for goiter until public health programs recognized it.
However, on the other side of the coin, there is also a dark area due to which it is necessary to read and analyze the complete study paper. This dark area is less within the paper but more outside, people who misunderstand or misinterpret the findings of a study due to complexities in the research methodology or technical language used in the paper or represent it through their perception (cherry-pick) or to support and shape their belief, biases or agenda by ignoring other relevant information that might provide a more balanced understanding. I often call this “Half-Baked Truth”.
Sometime, Researchers themselves may have biases that influence how they conduct and interpret their studies. Many times, Media outlets or individuals may sensationalize research findings to attract attention or promote a particular product, viewpoint.
Medical science has generally been highly regarded by the public, who have rarely questioned its findings because it is perceived as helping to improve mankind’s lot. It will come as a surprise to many readers to learn how many studies of diet, Training, or supplements are poorly designed and conducted, how many did not produce the results that have been claimed for them and have been quoted irrelevantly or misleading, and how many published studies exist whose results seriously question or contradict but are never acknowledged or quoted. Some of these tactics are not only misleading, but also sometimes amount to scientific fraud.
Objectives: This section of the abstract discusses the research question or questions, as well as, in many cases, what motivated the research.
Procedures: This section provides information on the size and characteristics of the sample group, the testing methods used, and how the results were measured. It frequently introduces shortcuts that are later utilized throughout the article (e.g., CRP for C-reactive protein). The number of persons researched is referred to as in this situation. So, if the research has 23 participants, it will indicate (n = 23).
Results: The results of the statistical analysis of the data collected during the study are presented in this section. It also mentions which (if any) showed an importance and what that importance was.
Discussion: What most of us are truly interested in is how the findings may be used in the real world.
Unfortunately, many people use this section on its own as proof for or against whatever argument they are making. Reading through the report in its entirety, on the other hand, is essential for individuals who want to truly understand the complexities of the research.
Introduction/Background: This section often provides a summary of the present literature as well as the reason for the research example, it may say what information is lacking from previous research or what current research the study seeks to recognize.
Reproducibility is a fundamental principle of scientific research: if findings from one study cannot be repeated under similar conditions, the original findings are called into doubt.
Materials and Methods: This section contains details of how participants were chosen and allocated to treatments or a control group (if one was employed), as well as information regarding the treatments (doses, timing, washout period, etc.). This degree of information may appear unnecessary, but it allows future laboratories to replicate the processes.
Results/Outcomes: This section describes the data analytics techniques used, including the computer program and version; the sampling techniques, calibration, and manufacturer of the machines used in the lab; how the samples were prepared and stored (including test tube type and how long separated by centrifugation); and, occasionally, charts and tables of the main outcomes.
You will also get information and explanations for any negative outcomes, such as how many volunteers dropped out of which group(s) and an explanation for any data that was removed from analysis.
(Note: Excluding data is acceptable if it was troublesome or if there were problems in its gathering, but it is not acceptable if the results simply did not fit with what researchers intended to find.)
Discussion/Conclusions: In this section, the research authors explain and summarize the findings and argue why they are important (and to whom).
They also make recommendations on what, if anything, should be done in response to the results. This part may also include (or be followed by) a “strengths and limits” section written by the researchers, as well as recommendations for further study.
Strengths may include how broadly applicable the conclusions were and how consistent the data was; weaknesses may be connected to data that was incomplete, unavailable, difficult to grasp, or difficult to explain with prior studies.
Typically, there will also be an explanation of where the money for the study came from, as well as any potential conflicts of interest (for example, if a researcher has a financial interest in the study).
This is not to say that the study is incorrect, but it may lead you to compare it to other studies conducted by scientists with “neutral” funding sources to see if they got the same results.
Tight budgets apply to all research. Supplies, equipment, testing, and staff and volunteer pay all add up. Typically, funding comes from private or public grants or research organizations, but it can also come from businesses or corporations that manufacture a certain product.
These must be noted as potential conflicts of interest at the conclusion of the article.
Laboratory research is frequently seen as more trustworthy than field research, since it allows for better control over samples and sampling than field research. Temperature, air pressure, and humidity are kept constant in the lab to keep instruments calibrated during each testing session. Tissue or body fluid samples can be examined right away or processed for long-term preservation.
Statistical significance indicates that the differences discovered during analysis are most likely genuine, with only a tiny possibility that the effect is due to chance. In most circumstances, statistical significance or, in certain cases, a tendency toward significance in the data is required for publishing.
However, just because something is statistically significant does not always indicate that the information is relevant, and vice versa. It is difficult to say whether or not anything is “important.”
Training differences between the top three medalists in an Olympic sport, for example, are often not statistically significant, but that difference may be highly valuable to others who wish to compete with them.
Is there any Placebo group involved in the study?
(seaweed extract worked as a myostatin inhibitor in Vitro only)
Vitro: The purpose of this study is, you can mix your compound of interest with the testing compound.
Most of the time, it is metabolites of a parent compound that have a biological activity. They often act through signaling pathways by binding protein and triggering biological activity, so it is difficult
to explain this pathway.
For example, many people over age 40 have Anabolic Resistance, in which they are not able to absorb protein
without a problem, but the amino acid uptake into muscle isn’t as effective.
5 billion intestinal bacteria instead of 20 billion, less omega 3, less vitamin E.
How the compound injected inside the body in animal or human through food or injection?
How many total participants enrolled and how many gets dropout and have the researcher mention the reason. Reasons of dropout can be
1) Time commitment
2) Moved from the area where study was getting conducted.
3) Change of job or home location
4) Allergy from specific food or compound used in study.
5) Occurrence of Health problems during study.
6) Participants currently enrolled in a commercial weight loss program or taking weight loss medication or supplements.
7) Participants experienced a weight change >5 pounds in the prior 30 days, might be hidden or underlying health problem.
8) Using tobacco products or have utilized such products in the past year or consuming ≥14 alcoholic drinks per week.
9) Participants who had thyroid disease and either stopped taking medication or had a dosage change within the prior 6 months or a history of major surgery or surgical procedure for weight loss within the 3 months prior to enrollment or a history of heart problems (Eg, myocardial infarction and bypass surgery) within 3 months of enrollment.
10) Participants diagnosed with type 1 or type 2 diabetes or uncontrolled hypertension (≥140/90 mm Hg) or with orthopedic limitations that would interfere with moderate regular physical activity or with a history of gastrointestinal disorders or diagnosed eating disorders, history, or presence of cancer.
11) Women who were pregnant, lactating, or trying to become pregnant.
12) Allergy to sucrose, HFCS, fructose, or glucose as well as lactose intolerance or gluten or nuts or any other significant food allergy.
Is it Rat, mice or any other animal study?
To safely state that the findings of a research apply generally to “everyone,” the persons studied must be different in terms of age, gender, and ethnicity. Large studies frequently separate data by cohort, with each cohort referring to a group of participants having any unique feature (e.g., age, sex, ethnicity, type of illness).
What Was The Size Of The Sample Being Studied?
Some studies are quite large and look at a wide range of people (varying in age, sex, ethnicity). Others involve a limited sample of a certain population of interest (e.g., people of a certain age, gender, and/or ethnicity, or people with a certain health problem).
Crossover studies provide for greater statistical power while using a lower sample size. For these, experts compare the same people against themselves under a variety of conditions in a random order, with a “washout” time in between. This reduces the number of participants required by half (or more) while producing findings on a variety of treatments.
In any event, in order to address a research topic, a study must provide statistically significant results.
How Long Did The Study Last?
A study may look at treatments over a lengthy period of time in some circumstances. In others, the entire research is simply a few weeks long or involves only a few lab visits. It’s not that one is more superior than the other, but the time period may influence how it works for your clients (or not).
In order to prevent bias, researchers will often conduct a systematic review. Personal bias is avoided in this form of review by using objective criteria, describing the search words used to find research in databases, and explaining which papers were eliminated and why. (Because of this focus on neutrality, systematic reviews are the most reliable sort of review study.)
The purpose is to study and synthesize “all” that is known about a specific issue. A meta-analysis is frequently included in systematic reviews, in which researchers apply a statistical model to “translate” their collected data into quantitative conclusions that are more clear.
A peer review is a process in which an article is examined by scientists who work in the same area as the study’s authors. Because the procedure is blindfolded, these experts have no idea whose study it is. Internal validity, or how sound the research is, a marker of its quality whether the researchers’ data are accurate and reliable, whether appropriate controls and methods of analysis were used, and so on is examined by the reviewers.
They then ask questions to the authors, who respond with responses and changes until the reviewers are satisfied.
Interestingly, studies that find a negative outcome (the intervention or treatment had no effect) are significantly less likely to be published. This is known as publication bias, and it means that we may never know about these research, since their authors did not bother submitting their article for peer review.
This style of article is also authored by experts, but it is more “user-friendly” for non-scientists due to simple English. Review articles often provide a detailed overview of the problem at hand before summarizing the different results of previous publications on the subject.
Because of the authors’ inclusion bias, which means they may only include papers that they find interesting.
Journal article reviewers may be quite demanding, requiring authors to justify everything from research design through execution and analysis. The technique isn’t perfect, but it protects against data misinterpretation or “cherry-picking,” as well as jumping to conclusions based on evidence that isn’t available.
Even if a study passes the test, it doesn’t ensure it will be relevant to you and your clients. Its significance will be determined by a number of factors.
What Were The Questions Being Asked In The Journal?
A scientific study can consist of one question or multiple questions.
What Population Was Being Studied?
Young or old (Yes, effects seen in younger men may apply to older women (and vice versa), but we can’t be sure).
Athlete or Normal
Trained or Untrained
Obese or lean
Men or women
Healthy or illness
NOTE:It is crucial to remember that recruiting people to engage in research adds selection bias because those who participate may differ significantly from those who refuse to enter a lab or complete a survey.
However, major studies that follow a large number of people over a long period of time, known as prospective research, typically provide a lot of extremely good data.
In research abstracts, you may have come across the terms controlled, randomised, single-blind, and double-blind.
Only some of the participants in a controlled study get the treatment or intervention—for example, in a medical experiment, half may receive a placebo, or a fake medication. The control group is the group that does not get treatment.
In a randomized trial, participants are selected to either the experimental or control group at random. Using randomized controls helps to guarantee that an experiment’s results are not biased.
The hiding of information from researchers or participants in an attempt to avoid personal biases from influencing the results is referred to as blinding.
Only one group of people knows who is getting which therapy in a single-blind trial.
Meaning, neither the study participants nor the staff members knew who was ingesting the actual product.
In a double-blind study, neither the researchers nor the participants are aware of who is receiving what until the data is collected. (At that time, the researchers must know who was in which group in order to examine the data.)
Double-blind study is regarded the gold standard, since the researchers’ beliefs about what works can impact their behaviors and hence that of the participants.
1) Differences in study methodologies (No. Of participants, Targeting different body parts like whole body or only legs in resistance training studies, different protein supplementation blends or whey,
2) Differences in dosages
3) Not taking other parameters, Eg: the ratio of omega 6:3
4) Observational study
5) use of other supplements
6) Timing
7) Age group (Age below 50 or above 50)
8) Clinical people
9) Healthy people
10) Trained
11) untrained (Untrained subjects gain muscle, no matter how they train, since the first three months of training involves an improvement in neuromuscular coordination that inevitably results in strength gains, no matter what type of system is used)
12) not enough studies
13) few studies
14) Family history & genetics
15) Stress, anxiety, depression
16) Gastrointestinal infection
17) Imbalance of gut microbiota
18) Studies on Aged people (Low nutrient absorption, dental problems)
19) Lack of Well-designed studies, often called “randomized clinical trials,” cost a lot of money, and since these herbal substances are natural, they are not subject to patent protection.
20) Copycat products research
21) Proprietary formulas. (Labels that list the active ingredients, but not the precise dose).
22) No long-term studies
23) Anything that boosts the sex drive is bound to produce Testosterone.
24) what works in a rat or mouse doesn’t always do the same thing in humans because of physiological barriers.
25) Selling these products is to list the results obtained from animal studies in their ads for the products, often giving the impression that the results came from human studies. Consumers assume the products must be scientifically verified, which they are not.
26) Don’t accept anecdotal evidence, such as “it worked for me.”
27) Testimonies offered by champion bodybuilders or celebrities, all of whom have been paid to push the products, and who often don’t use the products themselves.
28) Which phase were the female subjects in? Their menstrual cycle luteal phase
29) whether the training was isokinetic?
30) whether the training was monoarticular (Isolation Movement)?
31)When is training performed? Morning, afternoon, or evening.
A research method used to gain an in-depth understanding of a particular process or topic by exploring the experiences, perspectives, and behaviors of individuals through methods such as interviews, observations, and analysis of textual or visual data.
