| >N=36 Since you seem so certain, I have to ask: have you done the math to show that 36 isn't enough to tell you anything in this case? Depending on the effect size and probability distributions involved, N=36 can give you a pretty respectable picture. It's not good enough to be the final word on the matter, but most papers aren't aiming to be that, nor should they. It seems to me these researchers were trying to scientifically test an idea that floats around coffee communities (I've heard specifically that theanine in your coffee will do this). There's no reason to "go big" right away when doing such a study. You start small to see if there's any hope for the idea, then try to get funding for a larger study by publishing. >4 servings over a short period of time The definition of "a short period of time" is relative. In this study, what you're defining as a short period of time seems ludicrous. The participants were given the servings on entirely different *days*, which is far past the amount of time that caffeine or theanine are active. Finally, the article on HN the other day about bad research was not about small sample sizes, it was about outright fraudulent data. It's certainly possible that this study is a fraud, but, even if we grant that the sample size is small and the delay between administration is too short, that's not evidence of fraud. |