Aromas while sleeping spark cognitive increase: study
sciencedaily.com
sciencedaily.com
It surely is important to note that `The study was supported by Procter & Gamble.`
Corporations and industry are the only ones willing to sponsor all sorts of studies. Can you at least show us some sort of historical convergence rate of industry vs non-industry funded studies? Is it 10%? 90%? If you have such a fatal knee-jerk response just seeing the funding, you must be able to do that, surely.
Frankly, I'd expect industry to simply discard studies that don't support their product (null or negative result) and publish the studies that do promote their products. Either way, I'm left reading the methodology no matter who publishes a study.
> Frankly, I'd expect industry to simply discard studies that don't support their product (null or negative result) and publish the studies that do promote their products.
There could have been a hundred attempts at this study before, all with a negative result, and none of them got published because they didn't have the result industry wanted. We simply don't know. But theoretically, this is something peer review should be able to fix: Researchers without industry support should be able to get the same results if they run the same methodology. Until then, being skeptical of the result seen, even if the methodology is sound, is completely reasonable.
You could level this criticism at any study much simpler. "Oh, the researchers just wanted this to be true." Why even bother singling out industry interest?
It's why meta-analyses are at the top of the evidence hierarchy: they look at multiple studies from varied sources.
But I'd still like to know how much industry funded research converges with non-industry-funded findings. Else you're doing the equivalent of dismissing, say, observational research even though it converges with RCTs 60%+ of the time which I think definitely takes some wind out of the sails of the "observational research is BS" knee-jerk.
As you said, corporations have lots of money, and people who find results that support the corporation’s desired outcomes often get relationships and additional funding. Those who don’t, don’t get relationships and additional funding.
This has at least two consequences:
1) There is a strong and ongoing financial incentive to fudge results in these studies.
2) Those who refuse to do so may not get funds that would allow them to continue in their field at all.
And the methodology means very little. There are tons of ways to cheat and skew the results, while the description of the methodology used remains the same.
Who cares?
What's the point of your comment? Verytrivial's comment had a purpose and utility. Not that it's required. I also would have upvoted your comment if it added anything of value to the discussion.
My bedroom usually smells of farts; my own farts, my girlfriend's farts and my dog's farts.
I wouldn't mind it so much if I knew it was helping me keep dementia at bay.
I accept the flatulence.
Heat recovery ventilation, also known as HRV or mechanical ventilation heat recovery (MVHR), is a system that works by transferring heat from outgoing exhaust air to incoming fresh air. Here's a simple step-by-step process:
1. Stale air from the inside of a building is expelled through the system. 2. As the stale, warm air leaves, it passes over a heat exchanger. 3. Fresh, cool air from the outside is drawn into the system, passing over the same heat exchanger. 4. The heat from the outgoing air is transferred to the incoming air without the two air streams mixing. 5. The pre-warmed fresh air is then distributed throughout the building.
This process ensures a constant, controlled supply of fresh air, maintains indoor air quality, and conserves energy that would otherwise be lost in the ventilation process.
Enjoy
Then suspiciously, they found one significant result on trial 5 of the verbal learning test but little to no improvement on the other trials. That makes no sense.
Finally the brain changes had a p-value of 0.046, which is barely significant by even the weak 5% threshold, and the changes weren’t correlated with the test result improvements.
Perhaps interesting but only if replicated.
maybe this could be a job for AI, the LLM reads studies and highlights ones worth replicating and funding, sparing the rest of us from every seeing them at all
would probably be better than the politics involved with getting recognized
It is known for a longer time that reproducing knowledge is somewhat better when it occurs in the same environment as learning took place. This might capitalize on that, but not really, as odor in learning and testing doesn't score well. But I agree, it might also be a fluke, bad design, drawer effect, etc.
The statistics are not convincing. When I look at the difference between LS and LST on the last day, LST has a lump in the middle, which would mean most learners didn't benefit. LS is on average lower, but one or two bad learners in that group would account for the whole difference. So I'm not convinced.
And then there's the "no significant differences in sleeptime" spiel, which is 100% bollocks.
>The study was supported by Procter & Gamble.
Neat if true, but... I'm not holding my breath.
In seriousness though, I've come across decently plausible information in the past that suggests that the volatile chemicals given off by natural wood has calming effects.
Of course! After all you'd want to take in all the aromas!
That could be true, def can't be harmful. So I hoped people would lean towards natural aromas after reading. Like opening the window to the garden, more flowers in the garden, etc.
Frankly, if true it would be a great product opportunity for P&G, as well as a social good, so I don’t begrudge the study.
Here's one such paper:
I was trying to find information about lavender cancer causing properties and instead stumbled on this contaminated aerosol:
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/lavender-spray-wa...
So I'd suggest better not to buy sprays, rather buy pure stuff and use a diffuser.
It probably couldn't hurt to get a diffuser and some oils. If it doesn't work, oh well. It's not going to hurt anything, and it's probably nicer than smelling onions. If it works by placebo, great! I'll take improved cognitive performance even if I'm tricked into it. And if it actually works, all the better!
It reminds me of another study I read years ago that claimed people who were full-time caregivers could reduce their cortisol levels back to the level of non-full-time-caregivers by stopping every three hours to take three slow, deep breaths. Even if the study was flawed, and it very well may have been, there's no risk to breaking for 60 seconds every 3 hours to take 3 deep breaths. Might as well try it!
How did you come to the conclusion that this couldn't hurt? If you believe it could help, that means you believe it has a psychoactive effect and therefore you should also believe that it could hurt.
The don't specify the actual scents? Just that there was a selection of seven.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnins.2023.1200...
Perhaps this is why people smelt posies during the plague because it increased their IQ, or is there some sort of antipathogenic effect in the odour?
That said, I've wondered if the flowers thing selected in favour of people with hayfever - if you're producing more mucus and expelling it, that might lower your exposure. I've never seen a study on it, though.
You wont, the scientific community perfectly represent the Thomas Pynchon saying "'If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers"
Besides (UK) Govt water quality legislation creates a massive health and cancer industry!
Makes a mockery of the so called intelligence of the law!
However serotonin does have a positive effect on the immune system, so is there an indirect effect smelling and seeing a nice bunch of flowers?
But I would be curious if a dog at that age is better or worse for the immune system.
Although I have no doubt that the industry enjoys this misconception.
For example a tree-like aroma which you use only in the night after you've spent the day hiking, a lemon-like aroma the night after you've deep-cleaned the house, or a "fresh-air"-like aroma after you've had an extremely productive day.
So you start to "Pavlov" yourself with aromas and then if one night you want to get productive dreams you use the "fresh-air" aroma, or the tree-like aroma if you want to dream of traveling.
I wonder if this would work.
Literally have woken up retching twice in the last week.
Sounds straight from the Dept. of Things Too Good to be True. Also - "The study was supported by Procter & Gamble."
It's worth noting that P&G sells an electronic smart home fragrance diffuser.