3 ms·

>> but I sincerely doubt that reducing sugar intake will cure depression And yet you can find people whose depression went away after going low carb, search tw

>> but I sincerely doubt that reducing sugar intake will cure depression And yet you can find people whose depression went away after going low carb, search twitter and youtube.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
smokel 2y ago
Yes, but those anecdotes don't prove much, do they? I prefer to take my scientific input from peer reviewed papers, not Twitter or YouTube. One random counterexample for your claim: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584702/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584702/
- NotGMan 2y ago
  >> Yes, but those anecdotes don't prove much, do they? Are you sure? Because it's exactly REAL WORLD N=1 examples that clearly demonstrate that for some people these diets are akin to magic. How can you dismiss REAL WORLD EXAMPLES? Yes, they don't work for everyone: but so now people shouldn't try them just because some people don't get better on them? What kind of logic is that? Real world examples are all that matter! If it works: great, your problem is gone! If it doesn't: back to the drawing board!
  - smokel 2y ago
    I find that I have to repeat myself. You seem to be using a kind of reasoning that I don't think is very productive. Are you aware of this? I could spend some time explaining where I think you go off the rails, but I'm afraid you prefer trolling over learning. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, and I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
    - NotGMan 2y ago
      Why are real world examples "counterproductive"? Do you not see that some people are healed by this? What is hard to understand about real world people healing? So because in a study of eg 200 people 170 don't improve at all but 30 do this now obviously means that on average the thing studied doesn't work: so the study concludes "X doesn't work" even thought 30 people got completely cured. So you'd now prefer for no-one to get cured because "on average" treatment X doesn't work. Perhaps your reasoning is not productive? It's really simple: these things work for SOME people: should they not have tried this and instead remain ill? A human life is not the average + confidence interval in a study: humans are different, an individual is a VERY REAL N=1, not "the average study participant".
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]

>> but I sincerely doubt that reducing sugar intake will cure depression And yet you can find people whose depression went away after going low carb, search twitter and youtube.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

smokel 2y ago

Yes, but those anecdotes don't prove much, do they? I prefer to take my scientific input from peer reviewed papers, not Twitter or YouTube. One random counterexample for your claim: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584702/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36584702/

NotGMan 2y ago
>> Yes, but those anecdotes don't prove much, do they? Are you sure? Because it's exactly REAL WORLD N=1 examples that clearly demonstrate that for some people these diets are akin to magic. How can you dismiss REAL WORLD EXAMPLES? Yes, they don't work for everyone: but so now people shouldn't try them just because some people don't get better on them? What kind of logic is that? Real world examples are all that matter! If it works: great, your problem is gone! If it doesn't: back to the drawing board!
- smokel 2y ago
  I find that I have to repeat myself. You seem to be using a kind of reasoning that I don't think is very productive. Are you aware of this? I could spend some time explaining where I think you go off the rails, but I'm afraid you prefer trolling over learning. Please let me know if I'm mistaken, and I'd be happy to continue the conversation.
  - NotGMan 2y ago
    Why are real world examples "counterproductive"? Do you not see that some people are healed by this? What is hard to understand about real world people healing? So because in a study of eg 200 people 170 don't improve at all but 30 do this now obviously means that on average the thing studied doesn't work: so the study concludes "X doesn't work" even thought 30 people got completely cured. So you'd now prefer for no-one to get cured because "on average" treatment X doesn't work. Perhaps your reasoning is not productive? It's really simple: these things work for SOME people: should they not have tried this and instead remain ill? A human life is not the average + confidence interval in a study: humans are different, an individual is a VERY REAL N=1, not "the average study participant".
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]