I’m all bent out of sorts since I decided to write about the green coffee extract paper popularized by Dr. Oz.
Here’s the problem: in my last post I attempted to unpack the data presented in the article describing a weight loss trial using this supplement. Yet, the closer I examined the data, the more clear it was to me that the data presented in that paper does not support any conclusions.
This does not mean that the supplement is effective or not. It doesn’t even mean that the group is lacking in data that would answer the question. It merely means that the numbers they present and the descriptions of their methods do not allow one to scrutinize the data in a way that supports or refutes their claims.
For anyone interested in a fun discussion of statistics and what they mean, I strongly recommend the classic text, How to Lie with Statistics, by Darrell Huff.It’s a bit out of date, but still a lot of fun to read and educational for those who have not spent much time analyzing figures.
One thing the Mr. Huff’s book does well is brings the reader into the discussion of data and how to present it. A lot of his focus is on how advertisers manipulate their graphs and language in order to obfuscate the truth.
I don’t think this coffee extract paper is intentionally obfuscating the truth, rather, I think the confusion comes from an inability of the authors to present their data clearly (even to themselves perhaps). I’ve worked in a number of labs with a number of scientists in my life and I can say with conviction that not all scientists ability to analyze their data is the equal. In fact, I have seen a number of presentations where the presenter clearly did not understand the results of their own experiments. I can say that sometimes I have not understood my own data until presenting it before others allowed us to analyze it together (i.e. I am not exempt from this error).
I would love to have the opportunity to examine the raw data from these experiments to determine if they really do address the question – and whether, once addressed, the question is answered. I’m going to appeal to both the journal and the authors for more clarification on this and will report my findings here.