Gregory's Server@NerdRage42 @davidaugust Also, the page states that they only tested 64 individuals over TWO days. Minus the control group that only drank water, it might have been maybe 40 individuals. That is a very small group and a very short time. I think it's best not to jump to conclusions. Apparently, this is also not the first study "finding" this connection: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7698499/
|
2 comments
 @NerdRage42 @Lilimapute Thank you for sharing that! And nothing wrong with waiting more than 3 days for things to get peer reviewed too. 😉 If a sample size bears out statistically sound notable results, study sizes do not need to conform to our preference for higher numbers. That's a big if, yes. This study may not satisfy it, but we don't need to discount a study based on a participant number we don't _feel_ like is big enough either. |
@Lilimapute @davidaugust oh yeah. I missed that. See, these sample sizes are so small and then they're reported on like it's a huge breakthrough. I mean, I'd love to have said coffee saved my life. 🤣