Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91


Sugar- and Artificially Sweetened Beverages and the Risks of Incident Stroke and Dementia

http://stroke.ahajournals.org/content/early/2017/04/20/STROKEAHA.116.016027

I love how you pooh pooh epidemiology when it conflicts with your dogma, but embrace it when it suits your bias

Actually, I'm not embracing this. I posted it for information only.

Also, I probably need to make my position on AS clear, again.

I am not opposed to them, but I think they mask, perpetuate and facilitate a serious issue (sugar addiction).

Which is why I suggest people go thirty days with no sugar or artificial sweeteners or anything remotely sweet in their diets, then add artificial sweeteners back, if they like.

After the thirty days you won't need/want as much sweetness in your foods/drinks. All your food will taste better and your sugar habit/addition will be under control.


Sent from my SM-N910T3 using Tapatalk

92
Suggestions / Re: Podcast Topic suggestions
« Last post by jeffgdotorg on April 25, 2017, 10:53:25 AM »
[This post is an expansion of my reply on an episode thread, apologies for the duplication]

Hi, I'm a new listener working backwards through the episode catalog. I've tried out several generalist skeptic podcasts, and yours is the first one that really suits me. I appreciate the relatively soft touch, the variety of backgrounds (if not surnames  ;)) among the presenters, the predictable publishing schedule, and the great production values. Especially with five presenters, I know that the last two are hard to achieve. Thank you all for pouring your time and energy into this important vehicle.

The discussion of dark anti-vax conspiracy theories in episode 310 (starting at 35m30s) really hit near home for me, as I have a family member who is way down the rabbit-hole. It started with an evidence-backed exercise therapy method that brings a strong anti-surgical slant, progressed to essential oils, and has spiraled into electromedicine (specifically Rife) with anti-vax being just one facet. I agree that a promising strategic approach is to target highly visible conspiracy promoters, limiting their ability to reach unwary marks. I'm doing just that via a professional board action against one promoter (an MD) whose influence was a big factor. Bringing the action feels good, and I know it's a public service that stands to make a real difference down the road, but what about the people already harmed? I'm wondering what the panel and community think are generally the best ways to help those already lost in Wonderland. As a corollary, how do we deal with the damage done to relationships when our loved ones decide that their skeptical family members are in on the conspiracy? Counseling surely plays a huge role in addressing both points, but it may be impossible to get the family member to consent to it.
93
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Last post by estockly on April 25, 2017, 10:36:02 AM »
Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/

I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.

I will read this, but it's nothing new (although the article might be). Hall has been saying this for years (since "Good Calories Bad Calories."  Apparently Taubes was rude to her.

Before reading the article, this is what she's said in the past:

The hypothesis based on insulin's role as the body's of fat storage and energy portioning driven by blood glucose levels is an oversimplification. And then in the same article she'll revert to some form of the calories in/calories out hypothesis for regulation of fat storage, which is not only a greater oversimplification it's not accurate.

Then she'll say that Taubes is proposing changing from an approach and way of thinking we adopted with incomplete science to a new approach and way of thinking with incomplete science.

But that's not what Taubes is proposing, and ignores a major point. Not only is the mainstream position an incorrect way of thinking about nutrition that was not based on science, it is also an intervention that we have been doing to our population for 40 years without good science to support it. And not only hasn't been working (in preventing CVD and chronic disease) it has made things worse and caused a terrible side effect (the obesity epidemic).

Taubes doesn't want to change one unscientific intervention with another. He wants us to end the current intervention. And start from scratch based on what we know now (many key parts of the dietary guidelines have already been debunked but are still promoted at every level) and pursue further research based on a null hypothesis.


94
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: Any good terms for a Mars like planet?
« Last post by Henning on April 25, 2017, 10:15:22 AM »
Going along with what arth said, I think a description of the planet's characteristics would be most helpful. Most striking about Mars to me are the massive features clearly shaped by water, contrasted with the complete lack of water (or is there??), or how the red colors everything--dust in, on, around everything as the fierce winds slowly erode the surface. The planet seems abandoned, dead. Unlike the gas giants--which are what they are, and always have been--Mars seems like it used to be alive.

Describe stuff like that, and I'll definitely see Mars in my head, regardless of what you call it.

We're obsessed with these things because Mars is in our backyard and the only other planet we have studied in such detail. I don't think DF's characters would care about such things. They would have seen a lot of planets like this and would be into quickly classifying them by more relevant factors than color and former water. What details are unique and relevant?
You kind of wanna look into the future when we have full reports on tens of thousands of exoplanets, what are the chances Mars is still special?
95
Just a false premise if the thing is actually being done.

Usually I see it in the form of...
"Something needs to be done about X!"
"We're actually doing this this and this."
"Well... uh... something else needs to be done!"

...in which case, moving goalposts.
96
Isn't it just a false (hidden) premise (the premise being "this is not being done")?
97
Forum Games / Re: Fact or Crap? 2017 Edition
« Last post by PANTS! on April 25, 2017, 09:18:04 AM »
My aunt died last night.  I will post all of this week's questions today of tomorrow.
98
This shit better not be true or I'm screwed.  I drink about 5 diet sodas a day.
99
Health, Fitness, Nutrition, and Medicine / Re: LCHF and healthy eating
« Last post by Billzbub on April 25, 2017, 08:34:36 AM »
Harriet Hall from Science-Based Medicine just published an article about Gary Taubes and his crusade against sugar:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/gary-taubes-and-the-case-against-sugar/

I expected the article to be a debunking of Taubes, but it really isn't.  Basically, Hall just says that Taubes is probably over-simplifying something that is more complex, and that Taubes himself admits that the evidence he's found is not conclusive.  It is just the type of article where we could argue with each other for days about it's significance one way or the other.
100
Skepticism / Science Talk / Re: Any good terms for a Mars like planet?
« Last post by The Latinist on April 25, 2017, 08:18:36 AM »
I would say "marginally habitable".
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
personate-rain
personate-rain