it is often said that statistically different doesn't not always mean statistically important. What does this mean in terms of biological studies and experiments? if your results were statistically significant explain how this may not be biologically important.

answer

watching

views

For unlimited access to Homework Help, a Homework+ subscription is required.

You have 0 free answers left.
Get unlimited access to 3.8 million step-by-step answers.

Get unlimited access

Already have an account? Log in

Jarrod RobelLv2

6 Mar 2018

Unlock all answers

Get 1 free homework help answer.

Already have an account? Log in

Related questions

I know that power analysis is the statistically valid way toensure you use the correct numer of samples or repeats in anexperiment. But I have never seen any biologist actually conduct apower analysis. Mostly, researchers seems to use a rule of thumb(three technical, three biological replicates is a common one).

Should I be doing a power analysis each time I design anexperiment, or can I just use one of the common biology rules ofthumb? If not, what are the consequences for the validity of myresults? And is there a situation where I will be required to usepower analysis, which makes it advantageous to get used to doing itnow?

1. Would the currents of the North Atlantic be different if thebasin was narrower? like it was 100 million years ago?How would itbe different and why?

2. What importance do currents play in biological oceanography? Howare currents important in chemical oceanography?

3. In terms of currents, how is the North Pacific different fromthe North Atlantic?

What is the overall summary of this paragraph? Do you think that the structure of the two components of starch has any thing to do with the study results? Why? Why not?

Guezennec et al. (1993) studied the difference in carbohydrate oxidation during exercise when amylose and amylopectin were consumed prior to exercise. Amylopectin was oxidized more quickly during exercise than was the amylose. Goodpaster et al. (1996) tested whether high amylose or high amylopectin foods fed prior to endurance exercise had different effects on metabolism or performance when compared to placebo or glucose feedings. A lower glycemic response was seen for both starches compared to glucose during the 30 min prior to exercise. However, in contrast to the results of Guezennec et al. (1993), the starches did not differ from one another in their glycemic responses in this pre-exercise period. Furthermore, all carbohydrate treatments increased the reliance on carbohydrate as a fuel during exercise. When compared to the placebo, the high-amylopectin starch was as effective as the glucose feeding in enhancing endurance performance but, in spite of similar glycemic effects of the two starches, the increased amount of work done during the 90 min performance test when the high-amylose starch was consumed was not statistically significant from the placebo. The authors felt that the lower digestibility of the high-amylose starch contributed to its reduced benefit on exercise performance. This study did not support a benefit of a lower glycemic food, i.e., starch, over a higher glycemic food (glucose) fed prior to exercise.

rubywasp541

Weekly leaderboard

Home

Homework Help 3,900,000

Biology 460,000

it is often said that statistically different doesn't not always mean statistically important. What does this mean in terms of biological studies and experiments? if your results were statistically significant explain how this may not be biologically important.

Unlock all answers

Related textbook solutions

Molecular Cell Biology

Biology: Science for Life with Physiology

Biology

Concepts of Biology

Essentials of Biology

Related questions

Related Documents

BIO361H5 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Statistical Power, Statistical Significance, Null Hypothesis

BIO120H1 Chapter Notes - Chapter B: Significant Figures, Scale Factor, Scientific Notation

BIO375H5 Lecture Notes - Lecture 9: Trade Secret, Adme, Statistical Significance

Weekly leaderboard