4 ms·

It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) ... What exactly is

by waps 13y ago

It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) ... What exactly is your problem with it ? What is the problem with retrospective-scare-quoted studies ? I personally have more problems with non-retrospective studies for obvious reasons. Like all academic papers there are loads of problems with the research and conclusions, mostly stemming from an inability to do real experiments on humans and limited budgets, and of course these do introduce caveats. But if you're going to start judging papers on sample size ... first you don't understand statistics, secondly these guys are using more people than most (because it's such a widespread phenomenon, it's easy to get a big sample size of course, but still). And frankly, artificially limiting your intake of different foods ... results in some chemicals not being available to your body ... first of course results in weight loss (because a lot of these require a lot of chemical energy to manufacture, or can't be manufactured at all) ... and then result in bigger problems. It is only outside of medical circles that the benefits of modern food are in question. Nobody in the medical establishment doubts that processed, meaty and fatty foods are pretty much the best nutrition possible for the human body. Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. It wasn't, it was contaminated grain that made it into bread, was effectively invisible, and quite deadly. For obvious reasons this grain was grown perfectly natural, if only because modern stuff didn't exist yet. Yes, it makes you fat. Yes, there are historical screwups (not nearly as much screwups as with "natural" food of course, but somehow the screwups with industrial food are judged infinitely more important). And yes, there are some, including medical researchers and so on, that doubt the morality of processed foods. I find this distasteful. Medical research and all science should first and foremost be value-free. Morality should be shut out (with the potential exception of describing methods to do direct large scale damage, ie. I find it acceptable that the exact gene sequence and samples for say the bubonic plague does require you to sign a letter you won't use it for nefarious purposes, even if I would have major problems with similar requirements for the cure).

molecule 13y ago
> Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. Are you referring to the 20th century, which is currently the last century?
lutusp 13y ago
> It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) As retrospective studies go, it's not bad. But retrospective studies have a well-deserved and terrible reputation for confusing causes and effects. > But if you're going to start judging papers on sample size ... I invite you to locate the sentence where I complained about the sample size. > Nobody in the medical establishment doubts that processed, meaty and fatty foods are pretty much the best nutrition possible for the human body. Apart from your obviously false claim, The "medical establishment" are not scientists and are not competent to make that call. They are not researchers, they are practitioners of methods developed by others. > I find this distasteful. That's your argument? Please -- in a discussion of science, one is expected to produce something resembling evidence, not emotion. You need to learn why retrospective studies have the poor reputation they do. You need to learn that they cannot distinguish causes and effects, and why. You need to learn how science works.
- waps 13y ago
  > As retrospective studies go, it's not bad. But retrospective studies have a well-deserved and terrible reputation for confusing causes and effects. So do the double-blind studies you appear to be advocating. Ever thought of what exactly the placebo effect is and what some causes might be ? > Apart from your obviously false claim, The "medical establishment" are not scientists and are not competent to make that call. They are not researchers, they are practitioners of methods developed by others. The medical establishment are people who treat the sick, mostly. They observe that they regularly have people who come in with nutritional deficiencies because they are vegetarians and didn't follow the diets properly. One look at such a diet tells you exactly why this happens. Second is that you observe that vegetarianism and eating disorders go hand in hand. You know what contains every single substance your body needs on a daily basis, all vitamins, minerals, calcium, you name it and will prevent nearly every food disorder, and it's hypo-allergenic (meaning perfectly safe for very nearly every patient you have) ? A 150gr steak. The only thing it doesn't have is sufficient calories, so you should also have something starchy with it. (And to be pedantic, it's the fatty tissue in the steak that's the main source of it's good properties. And yes, we're talking a rare to medium steak here) You know what vegetarian food contains every single substance your body needs on a daily basis ... None. What should a vegetarian eat daily ? * Nuts * Beans * Spinach or soy (or tofu, even if that's less ideal) * Sunlight (yes, really), or Vitamin D supplements * Vitamin B12 supplements Needless to say, this list is very much not hypo-allergenic, there is a significant fraction of the population (not that many, granted, but you have to check) that will swell up and start convulsing if you feed this to them. There are obviously other vegetarian diets, but they have similar problems. True, missing one of these for a day is very much unlikely to kill you, but prolonged shortages will. Also keep in mind that you should never raise a kid vegetarian, because that is much riskier than being vegetarian as adults. There have been cases of kids dying because of vegan diets. What I find extremely convenient is the physical symptoms of low-level protein deficiency. First : it's really, really bad for you. But the initial symptoms are sleeping more, weight loss and tissue loss (ie. not just fatty tissue). That's imho why people do this : because it slims you down. Incidentally, the one thing that is confirmed to slim you down by removing fatty tissue is cold. And if you don't overdo it (e.g. go swimming in a 24 degree water pool) it is quite safe. It's not about feeling cold, merely about increasing your body's heat loss. [1] http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8373.pdf http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8373.pdf

by waps 13y ago

molecule 13y ago

> Just yesterday I read an article about what everyone thought was an epidemic of the plague, at the end of the last century in Chicago. Are you referring to the 20th century, which is currently the last century?

lutusp 13y ago

> It's a peer-reviewed journal, accredited academic researchers, thorough methodology (probably better than average actually, not badly done) As retrospective studies go, it's not bad. But retrospective studies have a well-deserved and terrible reputation for confusing causes and effects. > But if you're going to start judging papers on sample size ... I invite you to locate the sentence where I complained about the sample size. > Nobody in the medical establishment doubts that processed, meaty and fatty foods are pretty much the best nutrition possible for the human body. Apart from your obviously false claim, The "medical establishment" are not scientists and are not competent to make that call. They are not researchers, they are practitioners of methods developed by others. > I find this distasteful. That's your argument? Please -- in a discussion of science, one is expected to produce something resembling evidence, not emotion. You need to learn why retrospective studies have the poor reputation they do. You need to learn that they cannot distinguish causes and effects, and why. You need to learn how science works.

waps 13y ago
> As retrospective studies go, it's not bad. But retrospective studies have a well-deserved and terrible reputation for confusing causes and effects. So do the double-blind studies you appear to be advocating. Ever thought of what exactly the placebo effect is and what some causes might be ? > Apart from your obviously false claim, The "medical establishment" are not scientists and are not competent to make that call. They are not researchers, they are practitioners of methods developed by others. The medical establishment are people who treat the sick, mostly. They observe that they regularly have people who come in with nutritional deficiencies because they are vegetarians and didn't follow the diets properly. One look at such a diet tells you exactly why this happens. Second is that you observe that vegetarianism and eating disorders go hand in hand. You know what contains every single substance your body needs on a daily basis, all vitamins, minerals, calcium, you name it and will prevent nearly every food disorder, and it's hypo-allergenic (meaning perfectly safe for very nearly every patient you have) ? A 150gr steak. The only thing it doesn't have is sufficient calories, so you should also have something starchy with it. (And to be pedantic, it's the fatty tissue in the steak that's the main source of it's good properties. And yes, we're talking a rare to medium steak here) You know what vegetarian food contains every single substance your body needs on a daily basis ... None. What should a vegetarian eat daily ? * Nuts * Beans * Spinach or soy (or tofu, even if that's less ideal) * Sunlight (yes, really), or Vitamin D supplements * Vitamin B12 supplements Needless to say, this list is very much not hypo-allergenic, there is a significant fraction of the population (not that many, granted, but you have to check) that will swell up and start convulsing if you feed this to them. There are obviously other vegetarian diets, but they have similar problems. True, missing one of these for a day is very much unlikely to kill you, but prolonged shortages will. Also keep in mind that you should never raise a kid vegetarian, because that is much riskier than being vegetarian as adults. There have been cases of kids dying because of vegan diets. What I find extremely convenient is the physical symptoms of low-level protein deficiency. First : it's really, really bad for you. But the initial symptoms are sleeping more, weight loss and tissue loss (ie. not just fatty tissue). That's imho why people do this : because it slims you down. Incidentally, the one thing that is confirmed to slim you down by removing fatty tissue is cold. And if you don't overdo it (e.g. go swimming in a 24 degree water pool) it is quite safe. It's not about feeling cold, merely about increasing your body's heat loss. [1] http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8373.pdf http://anrcatalog.ucdavis.edu/pdf/8373.pdf