While I agree with the article, publishing this where the evidence is solely based on a trial of 134 people in Pakistan, is pathetic poor journalism

▲

Maxion 2 days ago | parent | next [-]

I am not sure if you're entirely familiar with how science works?

The study has a fairly large effect size, there's plenty of other research into body chronology that shows similar effects and differences between people. The methods in the study look solid, as does the analysis. There's also nothing weird with how the interpreted the results.

Now, should you go out and alter health guidelines for an entire country based off of one study? Hell no. But that also does not mean that you dismiss the study.

Research funding does NOT work in such a way, that scientist A comes up with an interesting idea and immediately gets funding to recruit 200 000 participants from 20 countries.

▲

sammy2255 2 days ago | parent [-]

134 is a pathetically small sample size

	▲	yourusername 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		In excercise science many of the studies are based on 20-30 college aged male athletes. 134 is a bigger sample than many.

▲

timbaboon 2 days ago | parent | prev [-]

How many countries should be included before it should be published?

▲

sammy2255 2 days ago | parent [-]

A mixture of haplogroups, not just one

▲

timbaboon 2 days ago | parent [-]

I see, yes, you need to have two, otherwise science cannot happen

	▲	sammy2255 a day ago \| parent [-]
		They don't even mention it in the article. So that's already poor science perspective