@JoeBo I wasn't denying the articles' credibility. The fact that they're peer reviewed doesn't make them "direct evidence", though. I don't know how it is in medicine, but in ecology we're taught to be wary of "grey literature" - that is, reviews of original studies, personal communications, etc. and to use reviews as a starting point to find the original studies or at least use them in conjunction with original literature if you are writing a paper or giving a presentation. Also, I am aware that reviews often make original research easier to understand, so I understand why it would be better to link those rather than the original papers. My comment was solely about semantics, and it bothered me much in the same way you'd get bothered if one tile of a floor wouldn't fit in with the rest of the pattern. Perhaps we just have a difference of opinion about what is considered "direct evidence" and what isn't.
I definitely like learning new things, though, so thank you for explaining about the glucose pathways. Do the exercise-activated glucose pathways operate on just an on/off basis, or it possible to have a cumulative effect? What I mean is, if you regularly exercise, would that make it easier for insulin-resistant individuals to utilize glucose more effectively? Sorry if that's a dumb question...
I do understand that spreading misinformation about health-related matters can be dangerous. What I meant was, I think you could have worded your post in a more tactful way. Perhaps you did not intend this, but your opening remark seems a little aggressive, and if people feel like they're being attacked they may be less willing to listen to or read anything else you have to say.
Even better though, would be to contact Humon directly and ask her to either add a note in the description of the comic, or remove the comic completely to avoid misinformation. I just don't think that simply commenting on the comic would necessarily help to stop the misinformation. How many people would read this post thoroughly? How many readers would even look at the comment section? I know I don't always read comments for the webcomics I read. I apologize if you have already tried this approach.
0
@JoeBo I wasn't denying the articles' credibility. The fact that they're peer reviewed doesn't make them "direct evidence", though. I don't know how it is in medicine, but in ecology we're taught to be wary of "grey literature" - that is, reviews of original studies, personal communications, etc. and to use reviews as a starting point to find the original studies or at least use them in conjunction with original literature if you are writing a paper or giving a presentation. Also, I am aware that reviews often make original research easier to understand, so I understand why it would be better to link those rather than the original papers. My comment was solely about semantics, and it bothered me much in the same way you'd get bothered if one tile of a floor wouldn't fit in with the rest of the pattern. Perhaps we just have a difference of opinion about what is considered "direct evidence" and what isn't.
I definitely like learning new things, though, so thank you for explaining about the glucose pathways. Do the exercise-activated glucose pathways operate on just an on/off basis, or it possible to have a cumulative effect? What I mean is, if you regularly exercise, would that make it easier for insulin-resistant individuals to utilize glucose more effectively? Sorry if that's a dumb question...
I do understand that spreading misinformation about health-related matters can be dangerous. What I meant was, I think you could have worded your post in a more tactful way. Perhaps you did not intend this, but your opening remark seems a little aggressive, and if people feel like they're being attacked they may be less willing to listen to or read anything else you have to say.
Even better though, would be to contact Humon directly and ask her to either add a note in the description of the comic, or remove the comic completely to avoid misinformation. I just don't think that simply commenting on the comic would necessarily help to stop the misinformation. How many people would read this post thoroughly? How many readers would even look at the comment section? I know I don't always read comments for the webcomics I read. I apologize if you have already tried this approach.