Comments on: Easy way to learn to search the medical literature http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/ A critical look at nutritional science and anything else that strikes my fancy. Mon, 12 Mar 2012 21:02:21 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.2 By: Mary Titus, Orange California http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-175300 Mary Titus, Orange California Wed, 17 Sep 2008 22:56:33 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-175300 I like pubMed. I am glad you recommend it and if there is ever anything doubtful, or if there is anything worth discussing, I know where to come. I like pubMed. I am glad you recommend it and if there is ever anything doubtful, or if there is anything worth discussing, I know where to come.

]]> By: Rawgrip.com http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-170153 Rawgrip.com Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:41:10 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-170153 Actually a great post, i was looking for something similar online but you beat me to it. Antanas Sleckus www.Rawgrip.com <em>I'm glad you enjoyed it.</em> Actually a great post, i was looking for something similar online but you beat me to it.

Antanas Sleckus
http://www.Rawgrip.com

I’m glad you enjoyed it.

]]> By: Ricardo Carvalho http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-168719 Ricardo Carvalho Sat, 30 Aug 2008 19:10:37 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-168719 For searching free on-line papers from most relevant medical journals, the best search engine currently available is HIGHWIRE (from Stanford University). Please visit and bookmark this essential link: http://www.highwire.org "A division of the Stanford University Libraries, HighWire Press hosts the largest repository of high impact, peer-reviewed content, with 1170 journals and 4,832,584 full text articles from over 140 scholarly publishers. HighWire-hosted publishers have collectively made 1,921,363 articles free. With our partner publishers we produce 71 of the 200 most-frequently-cited journals". These are my suggested links regarding medical and sports scientific papers: In english: http://www.highwire.org (HighWire Press, Stanford University Libraries) http://books.google.com (Google Books) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pmc (Pub Med Central) In portuguese: http://www.bvs.br (Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde) http://www.scielo.br (Brazilian scientific journals) http://www.scielo.oces.mctes.pt (Scielo Portugal) http://www.arquivosonline.com.br (Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia) http://www.ibpefex.com.br (Revista Brasileira de Nutrição Esportiva) http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com (Ordem dos Médicos de Portugal) In spanish: http://www.nexusediciones.com/buscador.asp (Publicaciones Nexus Ediciones, S.L.) <em>Thanks for the links. The link to HighWire press (which I use often) is the Protein Power Journals page as well.</em> For searching free on-line papers from most relevant medical journals, the best search engine currently available is HIGHWIRE (from Stanford University). Please visit and bookmark this essential link: http://www.highwire.org

“A division of the Stanford University Libraries, HighWire Press hosts the largest repository of high impact, peer-reviewed content, with 1170 journals and 4,832,584 full text articles from over 140 scholarly publishers. HighWire-hosted publishers have collectively made 1,921,363 articles free. With our partner publishers we produce 71 of the 200 most-frequently-cited journals”.

These are my suggested links regarding medical and sports scientific papers:

In english:
http://www.highwire.org (HighWire Press, Stanford University Libraries)
http://books.google.com (Google Books)
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pmc (Pub Med Central)

In portuguese:
http://www.bvs.br (Biblioteca Virtual em Saúde)
http://www.scielo.br (Brazilian scientific journals)
http://www.scielo.oces.mctes.pt (Scielo Portugal)
http://www.arquivosonline.com.br (Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia)
http://www.ibpefex.com.br (Revista Brasileira de Nutrição Esportiva)
http://www.actamedicaportuguesa.com (Ordem dos Médicos de Portugal)

In spanish:
http://www.nexusediciones.com/buscador.asp (Publicaciones Nexus Ediciones, S.L.)

Thanks for the links. The link to HighWire press (which I use often) is the Protein Power Journals page as well.

]]> By: Regina Wilshire http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-168349 Regina Wilshire Fri, 29 Aug 2008 15:39:53 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-168349 I'll pipe in that sometimes when searching it's less effective for results to use layman terms - instead of "high blood sugar" it's easier to search for "hyperglycemia"....instead of "fat" use "lipids".....instead of "high blood pressure" use "hypertension - since many of the journals are targeting medical and scientific readers used to the medicalese. Another nice feature of PubMed is that you can click on the tab "Limits" and refine your search to include only human studies, particular age groups, gender specific, etc. - the "limit" function definitely helps when you are searching for something with thousands of hits and you really only want to cull through certain types of studies. <em>Good points, Regina. Thanks. You're always welcome to pipe in. Cheers-- Mike</em> I’ll pipe in that sometimes when searching it’s less effective for results to use layman terms – instead of “high blood sugar” it’s easier to search for “hyperglycemia”….instead of “fat” use “lipids”…..instead of “high blood pressure” use “hypertension – since many of the journals are targeting medical and scientific readers used to the medicalese.

Another nice feature of PubMed is that you can click on the tab “Limits” and refine your search to include only human studies, particular age groups, gender specific, etc. – the “limit” function definitely helps when you are searching for something with thousands of hits and you really only want to cull through certain types of studies.

Good points, Regina. Thanks. You’re always welcome to pipe in.

Cheers–

Mike

]]> By: Jeremy http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167881 Jeremy Wed, 27 Aug 2008 17:17:57 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167881 Awesome. Just what I had asked in another post, but a more thorough answer. Thanks! Awesome. Just what I had asked in another post, but a more thorough answer. Thanks!

]]> By: gabe http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167640 gabe Wed, 27 Aug 2008 01:54:46 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167640 Mike, I found the article from 1996 interesting but somehow not very convincing when I read the conclusions. I'm not sure either that we could safely say that the comparison was between Protein Power and The Zone. Maybe I'm being too purist! When I think of Protein Power, which I've followed for years, I think not only in the low-carbohydrate part (which does fall between 12-15% carbohydrate intake), but also in the 'adequate protein intake' as well. By adequate, and strictly adhering to Protein Power, I mean a protein intake that is calculated based on lean body mass and level of physical activity. The article set the protein intake to whatever it fell after carbohydrate and fat intake were decided. True, the article did want to keep the amount of calories at 1000, which doesn't make much sense as weight loss is expected anyway at that low caloric level. So, it is unclear if the authors wanted to really compare the effect of carbohydrate intake knowing that there could be benefits just by reducing caloric intake. At least they were wise enough to also measure insulin, triglycerides, HDL and glucose, even if they fell to recognize that a lower carbohydrate intake brings about more benefit than a higher carb intake. The conclusion that it is caloric intake what did the trick and not dietary composition, at least in my opinion, is not water-tight. However, I have to concede that we know more about the effect of protien now than back then. Protein is not even mentioned there, probably because protein intake wasn't at all that different. When I read old studies, I sometimes go through the exercise of thinking how would I do the same study today with what we know today. First, I would really compare Protein Power as described, regardless of the final amount of calories. The reason? the calorie rule doesn't necessarily apply when the menus are truly ala-PP. When carbohydrates are that low (around 15%), one cannot think of the calorie rule in the same way because oxygen consumption is different as more fat is being used for fuel. This changes the respiratory quotient and caloric intake determined by the standard calorie rule may overestimate the amount of calories really needed under low-carb consumption (when fat is used more than carbohydrate, the respiratory quotient decreases by 25%). Second, I would not set the caloric intake and I would carefully record what is the actual consumption of calories. As many studies have shown, caloric intake is not likely to increase but to decrease. I speculate that it is because of the effect of the protein in the diet but that, precisely, is what I would try to find out in such a study. More recent studies (well, maybe not that recent but a couple of years old, maybe three...), suggest that fat oxidation is increased when there is more protein in the diet, which could also explain why protein-rich diets in which there is no effort in restricting fat intake, bring about so much benefit in terms of weight loss (of course when carbohydrates are kept low as well but regardless of energy intake). To me what the article shows is that enough reduction of carbohdyrates improves the 'invisible parameters' as I like to call them (plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol and triglycerides). The conclusion that it is caloric intake is not convincing to me because the caloric level is too low anyway... sort of saying that 'when you kill something you can always show that it dies..." Setting caloric intake 'loose' would really say something about dietary composition. Had not been for the inpatient setting, I doubt that people could have stayed in a 1000-cal/day diet for too long. What I like about the study, nonetheless, is that everything was done under rigorous supervision (the dietitians were present during meal consumption!) and in an environment as controlled as they could have it, in an inpatient setting as opposed to letting patients to figure out how to follow their assigned diets. I also like that it was done 12 years ago! Which once again shows that what we talk about here is anything but new, but these results have somehow been ignored and not refuted with evidence. This study could be the basis for another, better designed one, that could really show if it is caloric intake, rather than dietary composition, what matters in terms of weight loss WITH improvement in those 'invisible parameters', not just weight loss per se. <em>Hey Gabe-- The reason I like this study is that naysayers can't blame it all on a reduction in calories. So many times low-carb diets bring about all kinds of positive changes, but people say it's only because of the reduction in calories. In this case the calories were exactly the same, yet the low-carb diet brought about significant changes in all lab parameters. Cheers-- Mike</em> Mike, I found the article from 1996 interesting but somehow not very convincing when I read the conclusions. I’m not sure either that we could safely say that the comparison was between Protein Power and The Zone. Maybe I’m being too purist! When I think of Protein Power, which I’ve followed for years, I think not only in the low-carbohydrate part (which does fall between 12-15% carbohydrate intake), but also in the ‘adequate protein intake’ as well. By adequate, and strictly adhering to Protein Power, I mean a protein intake that is calculated based on lean body mass and level of physical activity. The article set the protein intake to whatever it fell after carbohydrate and fat intake were decided. True, the article did want to keep the amount of calories at 1000, which doesn’t make much sense as weight loss is expected anyway at that low caloric level. So, it is unclear if the authors wanted to really compare the effect of carbohydrate intake knowing that there could be benefits just by reducing caloric intake. At least they were wise enough to also measure insulin, triglycerides, HDL and glucose, even if they fell to recognize that a lower carbohydrate intake brings about more benefit than a higher carb intake.

The conclusion that it is caloric intake what did the trick and not dietary composition, at least in my opinion, is not water-tight. However, I have to concede that we know more about the effect of protien now than back then. Protein is not even mentioned there, probably because protein intake wasn’t at all that different.

When I read old studies, I sometimes go through the exercise of thinking how would I do the same study today with what we know today. First, I would really compare Protein Power as described, regardless of the final amount of calories. The reason? the calorie rule doesn’t necessarily apply when the menus are truly ala-PP. When carbohydrates are that low (around 15%), one cannot think of the calorie rule in the same way because oxygen consumption is different as more fat is being used for fuel. This changes the respiratory quotient and caloric intake determined by the standard calorie rule may overestimate the amount of calories really needed under low-carb consumption (when fat is used more than carbohydrate, the respiratory quotient decreases by 25%). Second, I would not set the caloric intake and I would carefully record what is the actual consumption of calories. As many studies have shown, caloric intake is not likely to increase but to decrease. I speculate that it is because of the effect of the protein in the diet but that, precisely, is what I would try to find out in such a study. More recent studies (well, maybe not that recent but a couple of years old, maybe three…), suggest that fat oxidation is increased when there is more protein in the diet, which could also explain why protein-rich diets in which there is no effort in restricting fat intake, bring about so much benefit in terms of weight loss (of course when carbohydrates are kept low as well but regardless of energy intake).

To me what the article shows is that enough reduction of carbohdyrates improves the ‘invisible parameters’ as I like to call them (plasma glucose, insulin, cholesterol and triglycerides). The conclusion that it is caloric intake is not convincing to me because the caloric level is too low anyway… sort of saying that ‘when you kill something you can always show that it dies…” Setting caloric intake ‘loose’ would really say something about dietary composition. Had not been for the inpatient setting, I doubt that people could have stayed in a 1000-cal/day diet for too long.

What I like about the study, nonetheless, is that everything was done under rigorous supervision (the dietitians were present during meal consumption!) and in an environment as controlled as they could have it, in an inpatient setting as opposed to letting patients to figure out how to follow their assigned diets. I also like that it was done 12 years ago! Which once again shows that what we talk about here is anything but new, but these results have somehow been ignored and not refuted with evidence. This study could be the basis for another, better designed one, that could really show if it is caloric intake, rather than dietary composition, what matters in terms of weight loss WITH improvement in those ‘invisible parameters’, not just weight loss per se.

Hey Gabe–

The reason I like this study is that naysayers can’t blame it all on a reduction in calories. So many times low-carb diets bring about all kinds of positive changes, but people say it’s only because of the reduction in calories. In this case the calories were exactly the same, yet the low-carb diet brought about significant changes in all lab parameters.

Cheers–

Mike

]]> By: mrfreddy http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167531 mrfreddy Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:20:38 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167531 I could probably use Mr. Jameson's help, but most of the folks who write these articles need to get some help from Mr. Strunk and Mr. White. <em>True dat. (Sorry, I've been watching too much of The Wire.)</em> I could probably use Mr. Jameson’s help, but most of the folks who write these articles need to get some help from Mr. Strunk and Mr. White.

True dat. (Sorry, I’ve been watching too much of The Wire.)

]]> By: Robert http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167511 Robert Tue, 26 Aug 2008 21:41:09 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167511 I have always admired those who can go through the med literature and come up with good ,applicable stuff. I can find good articles but was statistically challenged in school. I leave the epidemiology stuff to someone much better and figuring it out like you or Dr. Dean Edell ;-). Thanks for doing this for us. How about Google Scholar? Someone mentioned about the fact that they include journals which Medline doesn't. The link above made me think of this article... http://www.metametrix.com/resources/content/LearningCenter/Articles/IM-1(1)38-44.pdf I guess when you understand biochemistry and realize that everyone's starting to recommend fish oils plus the media's scorn of vitamin E and the ever present PUFA's in our SAD diets, I can see why you have started to recommend krill oil. I can see the others above creating the perfect storm (with a little elevated insulin levels added in for flavor). And definitely stay away from that "vegetable ghee"! What the Hades is that? Poor Ahmed giving up his steaks to kneel at the pagan altar of Ornishites. <em>I've never been real happy with Google Scholar. I've found the full-text version of a couple of papers there that I couldn't get access to through my university affiliation, but for the most part, I've found it less than optimal. PubMed should contain ALL the papers in the medical scientific literature. Cheers-- MRE</em> I have always admired those who can go through the med literature and come up with good ,applicable stuff. I can find good articles but was statistically challenged in school. I leave the epidemiology stuff to someone much better and figuring it out like you or Dr. Dean Edell ;-) . Thanks for doing this for us. How about Google Scholar? Someone mentioned about the fact that they include journals which Medline doesn’t.

The link above made me think of this article…

http://www.metametrix.com/resources/content/LearningCenter/Articles/IM-1(1)38-44.pdf

I guess when you understand biochemistry and realize that everyone’s starting to recommend fish oils plus the media’s scorn of vitamin E and the ever present PUFA’s in our SAD diets, I can see why you have started to recommend krill oil. I can see the others above creating the perfect storm (with a little elevated insulin levels added in for flavor). And definitely stay away from that “vegetable ghee”! What the Hades is that? Poor Ahmed giving up his steaks to kneel at the pagan altar of Ornishites.

I’ve never been real happy with Google Scholar. I’ve found the full-text version of a couple of papers there that I couldn’t get access to through my university affiliation, but for the most part, I’ve found it less than optimal.

PubMed should contain ALL the papers in the medical scientific literature.

Cheers–

MRE

]]> By: Gys de Jongh http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167503 Gys de Jongh Tue, 26 Aug 2008 20:19:13 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167503 If you want to stay on top of the literature than you could create your own page at Pubmed.There you can create your personal interests which will be mailed to you as easy links to Pubmed each week for instance :) Goto : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez In the upper right hand corner is a small Sign In/Register link for accessing your page.The manual is here : http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=helpmyncbi.chapter.MyNCBI <em>I've not done this myself, but it sounds like a good idea.</em> If you want to stay on top of the literature than you could create your own page at Pubmed.There you can create your personal interests which will be mailed to you as easy links to Pubmed each week for instance :) Goto :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

In the upper right hand corner is a small Sign In/Register link for accessing your page.The manual is here :
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?rid=helpmyncbi.chapter.MyNCBI

I’ve not done this myself, but it sounds like a good idea.

]]> By: gregory http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/tutorials/easy-way-to-learn-to-search-the-medical-literature/comment-page-1/#comment-167430 gregory Tue, 26 Aug 2008 13:33:30 +0000 http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/?p=1476#comment-167430 Off topic with regard to this post, but relevant to the blog, see this story in the Independent: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/features/why-ill-never-eat-a-fryup-again-908395.html The good doctors recently commented on their appreciation of the Great English Breakfast, which this misinformed party seems to have missed. I'm flabbergasted that even today the culprit is the saturated fat and not the great gobs of bread and rice, etc., that would have been eaten by poor Ahmed. <em>What a totally misinformed article.</em> Off topic with regard to this post, but relevant to the blog, see this story in the Independent:
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-wellbeing/features/why-ill-never-eat-a-fryup-again-908395.html

The good doctors recently commented on their appreciation of the Great English Breakfast, which this misinformed party seems to have missed. I’m flabbergasted that even today the culprit is the saturated fat and not the great gobs of bread and rice, etc., that would have been eaten by poor Ahmed.

What a totally misinformed article.

]]>