Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds • Hacker News Board

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#301

Post by aa111111111 » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:18 AM UTC

dahidahi1 wrote: post #251

Elrac wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to chime in to the growing chorus of HNers trying to explain to you why you're wrong. There's no such thing as "any other science." There is science as developed and practiced by qualified researchers all over the world - including India - and it's all one and the same science, which is a set of protocols for rigorously checking the relevance of what you're seeing, and the huge body of useful human knowledg…

Agreed that there is no "any other science". But human (Western) prejudices have made Vedic sciences (as in science originating from India) the lesser science, which is what I am trying to clarify. The reasons for this prejudice are too many, but it has a religious angle, an angle that the Church has pushed for too long that people have forgotten any other angle. Also the angle of Islamic destruction, which has ensur…

There are 3 kind of logic systems 4 corners(chatuskoti), 3 corners(trikoti), 2 corners( binary logic). Entire western civilization is build top of binary logic. Only one god, america has friends(5 eyes) and enemies but no nutral parties(there are occasional cat paws ). From western binary logic they can't even explain zero(mathematically). One reason is science is not global thing it's creation of given culture(In current case western culture). Because western main philosophy is binary one and as per there binary logic they thing there are only one science. And since west control the world for half millennia and still control the world they teach us there are only one global/universal science. example if you change Euclid's main assumptions you get entirely different geometry. In some comments says that ayurved is joke or useless fact is I know(and probably OP know's) it can cure series illnesses like cansces/diabetic and etc. Trying to understand ayurvedic methods using modern western apothecary teaching is absolutely useless.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#302

Post by martingoodson » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:20 AM UTC

sov wrote: post #220

hannob wrote: post #152

Small study, probably not preregistered (didn't find anything about it in the description). Likely Publication Bias or p-hacking. I'm starting to get interested when it's been independently replicated.

> Small study Almost entirely irrelevant, provided it's properly powered--and based on the effect size and p-values, it is. Furthermore, for an 18 month trial, 40 people is larger than most. > probably not preregistered I mean, true, and we should definitely promote pre-reg, but, 1. so few are preregistered that I'm not sure it's prudent to disregard a study based on this and 2. it's an academic study, neither a clin…

>> Small study

>Almost entirely irrelevant, provided it's properly powered--and based on the effect size and p-values, it is.

Sorry to state this so strongly but I feel it's important to point out that this is misinformation of the most egregious kind.

There is no examination of statistical power in this article whatsoever so there is no basis for your claim that this study is properly powered.

Large effect sizes are not evidence of adequate statistical power. Quite the opposite is true. E.g. See this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrn3475/figures/5

'Effect inflation is worst for small, low-powered studies, which can only detect effects that happen to be large.'

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#303

Post by nf05papsjfVbc » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:21 AM UTC

danielvinson wrote: post #168

dboreham wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That papaya might not be safe though.

Why wouldn't a papaya be safe? Everything I've seen says that the seeds are always edible.

In fact they have been used to adulterate stocks of black pepper since a long time.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#304

Post by fauigerzigerk » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:22 AM UTC

ksk wrote: post #187

dahidahi1 wrote: post #45

Turmeric has been used in India since ancient times. There are many references to it in Ayurveda - the Indian/Hindu medical sciences. Ayurveda believes in using food as medicine to non only prevent a large majority of human diseases, but also to cure several of them — all with almost zero side effects. Turmeric is just one such extremely powerful & healthy food item that Western science seems to be playing catch up o…

>There are many references to it in Ayurveda - the Indian/Hindu medical sciences. Ayurveda believes in using food as medicine to non only prevent a large majority of human diseases, but also to cure several of them — all with almost zero side effects. Homeopathy also has zero side effects (apart from having zero effects). There is no medical wisdom in any of the old texts (from any culture) that are relevant in 2018.…

>When it comes to their health, people will go where there are results.

Isn't that exactly what you are disputing?

I think we have to allow for the possibility that some of the correlations identified over thousands of years may actually be real.

I would never follow any of that advice, because I agree that the scientific process we have today is vastly superior and supercedes traditional medicine.

"Try things and see what works" wasn't invented yesterday though. That's why people were successfully using citrus fruits against scurvy long before double blind trials became a thing.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#305

Post by dumbneurologist » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:29 AM UTC

hannob wrote: post #152

Small study, probably not preregistered (didn't find anything about it in the description). Likely Publication Bias or p-hacking. I'm starting to get interested when it's been independently replicated.

agree that replication is important and that it's too early to believe fully, but when a study size is small and you still find a difference, then it implies the effect size is large.

If you meet statistical significance, then diminishing n means increasing clinical significance.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#306

Post by dumbneurologist » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:32 AM UTC

pjmorris wrote: post #150

dumbneurologist wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a neurologist. this is actually the exact opposite of what you should care about, which is "does it work to treat ___" In this trial, and 99% of other trials, there is no mechanism provided by the study, only a measurement of causality (which is the same thing as effectiveness). The authors may think they know based on other, prior, basic science research (as they are postulating here), but it does not affect th…

I am having trouble accepting your argument. Judea Pearl presents [0] the debate over whether smoking causes cancer as an illustration for why correlation is not sufficient. Two plausible, contradictory, models ('smoking causes cancer', 'no it doesn't, something else does') could not be settled by observing correlations. The debate was resolved through the addition of an explanatory mechanism, and a test of the mecha…

none of this applies to a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial (which is what this article is).

the reason it's the gold standard for medicine is because the only thing that is different in aggregate between the groups is the intervention. Therefore, it is the strongest possible evidence of causality we have, and does say something about causality (rather than correlation).

It's important to replicate, but the points made by Pearl are not relevant here and the mechanism is moot when you have a causal link shown by RCT.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#307

Post by eni » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:40 AM UTC

wastedhours wrote: post #289

eni wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's not turmeric, it's curcumin, which is about 2% of turmeric by mass (so, you'd need to eat ~4.5g turmeric daily to match study doses) Typical Indian cooking uses turmeric in pretty much everything. I wouldn't be surprised if daily consumption of turmeric is very close to the figures you mentioned.

Interestingly, one of the recent fads I've been seeing has been for "turmeric lattes" - maybe can reach that level even if you're not keen on Indian cuisine?

"turmeric lattes" :)

My kitchen medicine for running nose, soar throat is hot milk with turmeric. Works for me most of the times.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#308

Post by dumbneurologist » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:42 AM UTC

randomsearch wrote: post #144

dumbneurologist wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a neurologist. this is actually the exact opposite of what you should care about, which is "does it work to treat ___" In this trial, and 99% of other trials, there is no mechanism provided by the study, only a measurement of causality (which is the same thing as effectiveness). The authors may think they know based on other, prior, basic science research (as they are postulating here), but it does not affect th…

The problem with “is this true?” Investigations is that there are tons of potential pitfalls and a combination of experimental limitations, poor academic incentives, and insufficient statistical and scientific training make this very hard to do well. I think it’s bad science, that will one day retrospectively be viewed as invalid scientific method. I think the way to combat this is to avoid studies that solely attemp…

  there are tons of potential pitfalls and a combination of 
  experimental limitations

you provided some, which are at least partially addressed by the study design. (I don't think it's your point, but let me agree that "the scientist can cheat" is always true).

  poor academic incentives,

this is addressed because it is double-blind

  insufficient statistical and scientific training

this is (partially) addressed by peer review, and the availability of the data. you can't make this general criticism of the paper at hand: find the place where the design or statistics used were in error.

  I think it’s bad science, that will one day 
  retrospectively be viewed as invalid scientific method.

that's a claim without any evidence to back it p.

  I think the way to combat this is to avoid studies 
  that solely attempt to demonstrate an effect, but to 
  complement that part of an investigation with additional 
  studies that demonstrate a plausible explanation. This 
  reduces the risk of false positives and increases our 
  confidence in the result.

If you have a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial then what can the mechanism possibly add? Is an effective medication less effective because we don't understand how it works? If you want an amazing example, read about the mechanism of action of general anesthesia: we have many ideas about how it works, but nobody really knows. Nobody gets caught up by this when their appendix ruptures. I hope, for your sake, that you will lower your standards in the event that you need surgery.

  The additional studies could take the form (for example) 
  of deliberately intervening such that the effect should 
  be manipulated by the intervention in a predictable and 
  measurable way. Essentially, come at the hypothesis “from 
  another angle”.

If you have a properly designed and executed randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial, then you have measured the effect of the intervention, and only the intervention. You can repeat it in order to gain confidence, but you have to decide when the diminishing returns of "more confidence" are not worth your study dollar. And for curcurmin, which is cheap and has low side effects... it's probably not that far away.

edit: fixed formatting

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#309

Post by dumbneurologist » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:49 AM UTC

jeffdavis wrote: post #210

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously you don't understand HN.. everyone here is a "very smart software engineer" and knows far better than a simpleton like you with your decades of medical training and experience.

The neurologist wants what's best for his patients today, which is to know whether a treatment is likely to work or not. Others may value the mechanism more for very legitimate reasons. For instance, if you underatand the mechanism it leads to further research that could utilize a related mechanism or perhaps see potential side effects that would otherwise be hard to identify. You really need both. "Is it true?" is a…

completely true.

the problem is that efficacy studies (like I want) are not that exciting to report. as a result, the lay press reports only mechanism studies (because their readers like to be "wowed" and think about things, like the poster I originally replied to).

that wouldn't matter at all, but we all get sick. and when a person gets sick with this mentality that they need to understand the mechanism, then they start overthinking the treatments that are available today, drawing all kinds of spurious conclusions, and making medical decisions that are unjustified at best and harmful at worst. and in my experience, the smarter the patient is, the more willing (and insistent) they are to take this approach (witness Steve Jobs). This is absolutely not the patient being "dumb" or stubborn: it's completely understandable given how they understand science. But it hurts them, which no physician likes to see.

let's note how incredible it is that we are having this conversation in the setting of some incredibly expert scientists (albeit in other fields). it really shows how hard science can be to understand sometimes.

Re: Curry spice turmeric boosts memory by nearly 30%, eases depression, study finds

#310

Post by sideshowb » Thu, Jan 25, 2018, 10:54 AM UTC

martingoodson wrote: post #302

sov wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Small study Almost entirely irrelevant, provided it's properly powered--and based on the effect size and p-values, it is. Furthermore, for an 18 month trial, 40 people is larger than most. > probably not preregistered I mean, true, and we should definitely promote pre-reg, but, 1. so few are preregistered that I'm not sure it's prudent to disregard a study based on this and 2. it's an academic study, neither a clin…

>> Small study >Almost entirely irrelevant, provided it's properly powered--and based on the effect size and p-values, it is. Sorry to state this so strongly but I feel it's important to point out that this is misinformation of the most egregious kind. There is no examination of statistical power in this article whatsoever so there is no basis for your claim that this study is properly powered. Large effect sizes are…

Am I right in thinking that statistical power is the true positive rate, so a test that always rejected the null hypothesis (whether correctly or incorrectly) would have the highest possible statistical power?