Author Topic: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.  (Read 3649 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #120 on: July 17, 2019, 11:48:46 PM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.
Self-described nerd.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #121 on: July 18, 2019, 12:39:27 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #122 on: July 18, 2019, 01:00:25 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.

I don’t have a particularly high opinion of all peer-reviewed publications.  A peer-reviewed article in a journal isn’t necessarily correct.  It’s just not obviously wrong to its reviewers, whoever they may be.  Even reputable highly regarded journals publish rubbish from time to time.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #123 on: July 18, 2019, 02:01:55 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.

You clearly have a different definition of "shlock journalism" than I do.
Self-described nerd.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #124 on: July 18, 2019, 02:08:33 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.

You clearly have a different definition of "shlock journalism" than I do.


A more likely explanation is that, as a biostatistician with a famed theoretical chemist as a partner, I am more scientifically literate than you, and therefore better able to detect bad science reporting.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #125 on: July 18, 2019, 02:18:23 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.

You clearly have a different definition of "shlock journalism" than I do.


A more likely explanation is that, as a biostatistician with a famed theoretical chemist as a partner, I am more scientifically literate than you, and therefore better able to detect bad science reporting.

Well like I said, it's intended for a nonprofessional audience, so it's obviously going to gloss over many details. If you want detail, you read the peer-reviewed publications. As you point out, I am not even remotely qualified to read any more than the simplest of papers, so I have to rely on journalists to summarise it for me. And the journalists at New Scientist are better at science reporting than those at the nonspecialised newspapers. Or especially what I describe as shlock journalism, the Daily Mail and similar tabloids.

So if you'd prefer, I'll rephrase and say that New Scientist is a better source of scientific information than the Daily Mail. Not that that's a particularly high bar.
Self-described nerd.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #126 on: July 18, 2019, 02:23:37 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.

You clearly have a different definition of "shlock journalism" than I do.


A more likely explanation is that, as a biostatistician with a famed theoretical chemist as a partner, I am more scientifically literate than you, and therefore better able to detect bad science reporting.

Well like I said, it's intended for a nonprofessional audience, so it's obviously going to gloss over many details. If you want detail, you read the peer-reviewed publications. As you point out, I am not even remotely qualified to read any more than the simplest of papers, so I have to rely on journalists to summarise it for me. And the journalists at New Scientist are better at science reporting than those at the nonspecialised newspapers. Or especially what I describe as shlock journalism, the Daily Mail and similar tabloids.

So if you'd prefer, I'll rephrase and say that New Scientist is a better source of scientific information than the Daily Mail. Not that that's a particularly high bar.


It is not that they gloss over details.  It is that they go for sensationalism at the expense of accuracy.  As I said, there is an alternative: sciencedaily.com .
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online bachfiend

  • Not Any Kind of Moderator
  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 2886
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #127 on: July 18, 2019, 02:38:56 AM »
It’s magical thinking supposing that there’s a single ‘best’ diet.  The best diet for a person is the one the person can keep to for years and decades, providing adequate (but not excessive calories), adequate essential amino acids and fatty acids, and adequate minerals and vitamins, while attaining and maintaining a healthy body weight and body fat percentage.  A person shouldn’t ‘diet’ short term to lose weight, because short term diets never work.  Nor do short term exercise programs.

If a diet fulfills the necessities I’ve listed above, then it’s a good diet for that particular person.  But it’s not the best diet for everyone.

Which is also the conclusion of the New Scientist article I referred to.

So occasionally ‘New Scientist’ gets it right?  I stopped subscribing to ‘New Scientist’ after they published their notorious ‘What Darwin Got Wrong’ issue, and the Young Creationists in my pathology department celebrated (admittedly, they weren’t the sharpest knives in the cutlery drawer, and weren’t particularly good lab assistants, let alone science literate).

They also clearly didn't actually read the article.

New Scientist is pretty good in my opinion - I've been reading it for years. But you have to remember that it is not a peer-reviewed publication, it's science journalism. It's written by journalists for a scientifically literate but nonprofessional audience.


New Scientist is schlock journalism.  sciencedaily.com is similarly targeted, but has much higher journalistic standards.

You clearly have a different definition of "shlock journalism" than I do.


A more likely explanation is that, as a biostatistician with a famed theoretical chemist as a partner, I am more scientifically literate than you, and therefore better able to detect bad science reporting.

Well like I said, it's intended for a nonprofessional audience, so it's obviously going to gloss over many details. If you want detail, you read the peer-reviewed publications. As you point out, I am not even remotely qualified to read any more than the simplest of papers, so I have to rely on journalists to summarise it for me. And the journalists at New Scientist are better at science reporting than those at the nonspecialised newspapers. Or especially what I describe as shlock journalism, the Daily Mail and similar tabloids.

So if you'd prefer, I'll rephrase and say that New Scientist is a better source of scientific information than the Daily Mail. Not that that's a particularly high bar.


It is not that they gloss over details.  It is that they go for sensationalism at the expense of accuracy.  As I said, there is an alternative: sciencedaily.com .

One of the recent articles sciencedaily.com published is:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190715094918.htm

Probably if ‘New Scientist’ had an article on it, the headline would have read ‘what Darwin got wrong,’ since he hypothesised that humans evolved in Africa. 

An article’s headline is important, since it’s probably the only thing a reader is going to read (or remember, if the article was actually read).  Sciencedaily’s headline was reasonable, since it’s accurate.
Gebt ihr ihr ihr Buch zurück

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #128 on: July 18, 2019, 02:56:26 AM »
When sciencedaily.com publishes a paper magazine, then I'll read it.
Self-described nerd.

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #129 on: July 19, 2019, 01:06:05 AM »
Okay, friends, if you don't like New Scientist, here's a blog post - admittedly an opinion piece but it appears to have relevant citations - that basically hits the same points that the article does. And it's not behind a paywall.

Nutrition Science Is Broken. This New Egg Study Shows Why.

Quote
IT’S BEEN A TORTUOUS PATH FOR THE HUMBLE EGG. For much of our history, it was a staple of the American breakfast — as in, bacon and eggs. Then, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it began to be disparaged as a dangerous source of artery-clogging cholesterol, a probable culprit behind Americans’ exceptionally high rates of heart attack and stroke. Then, in the past few years, the chicken egg was redeemed and once again touted as an excellent source of protein, unique antioxidants like lutein and zeaxanthin, and many vitamins and minerals, including riboflavin and selenium, all in a fairly low-calorie package.

This March, a study published in JAMA put the egg back on the hot seat. It found that the amount of cholesterol in a bit less than two large eggs a day was associated with an increase in a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease and death by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The risks grow with every additional half egg. It was a really large study, too — with nearly 30,000 participants — which suggests it should be fairly reliable.

So which is it? Is the egg good or bad? And, while we are on the subject, when so much of what we are told about diet, health, and weight loss is inconsistent and contradictory, can we believe any of it?

Quite frankly, probably not. Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”

Click the link for the full article.
Self-described nerd.

Online CarbShark

  • Poster of Extraordinary Magnitude
  • **********
  • Posts: 13390
  • "I ain't no doctor with degrees" - Think
    • View Profile
Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #130 on: July 19, 2019, 01:10:43 AM »
Are you trolling JT512?? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
... and Donald Trump is president of the United States

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #131 on: July 19, 2019, 01:41:44 AM »
Okay, friends, if you don't like New Scientist, here's a blog post - admittedly an opinion piece but it appears to have relevant citations - that basically hits the same points that the article does. And it's not behind a paywall.

Nutrition Science Is Broken. This New Egg Study Shows Why.

Quote
IT’S BEEN A TORTUOUS PATH FOR THE HUMBLE EGG. For much of our history, it was a staple of the American breakfast — as in, bacon and eggs. Then, starting in the late 1970s and early 1980s, it began to be disparaged as a dangerous source of artery-clogging cholesterol, a probable culprit behind Americans’ exceptionally high rates of heart attack and stroke. Then, in the past few years, the chicken egg was redeemed and once again touted as an excellent source of protein, unique antioxidants like lutein and zeaxanthin, and many vitamins and minerals, including riboflavin and selenium, all in a fairly low-calorie package.

This March, a study published in JAMA put the egg back on the hot seat. It found that the amount of cholesterol in a bit less than two large eggs a day was associated with an increase in a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease and death by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The risks grow with every additional half egg. It was a really large study, too — with nearly 30,000 participants — which suggests it should be fairly reliable.

So which is it? Is the egg good or bad? And, while we are on the subject, when so much of what we are told about diet, health, and weight loss is inconsistent and contradictory, can we believe any of it?

Quite frankly, probably not. Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”

Click the link for the full article.


You're defending New Scientist with an even more dubious source.  What's the point?
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #132 on: July 19, 2019, 01:47:24 AM »
You're defending New Scientist with an even more dubious source.  What's the point?

I'm not defending New Scientist, I'm using a different source to make the same point, which is that a lot of what we think we know about nutrition doesn't have a lot of evidence.

Furthermore, I already acknowledged that this was an opinion piece.
Self-described nerd.

Online jt512

  • Frequent Poster
  • ******
  • Posts: 3010
    • View Profile
    • jt512
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #133 on: July 19, 2019, 01:51:07 AM »
You're defending New Scientist with an even more dubious source.  What's the point?

I'm not defending New Scientist, I'm using a different source to make the same point, which is that a lot of what we think we know about nutrition doesn't have a lot of evidence.

Furthermore, I already acknowledged that this was an opinion piece.


Well, if two sources of junk science agree, who am I to argue.
Ich verstehe nur Bahnhof.

Online arthwollipot

  • Reef Tank Owner
  • *********
  • Posts: 9771
  • Observer of Phenomena. Pronouns: he/him
    • View Profile
Re: Why is food such a damn blind spot for so many.
« Reply #134 on: July 19, 2019, 02:51:57 AM »
You're defending New Scientist with an even more dubious source.  What's the point?

I'm not defending New Scientist, I'm using a different source to make the same point, which is that a lot of what we think we know about nutrition doesn't have a lot of evidence.

Furthermore, I already acknowledged that this was an opinion piece.


Well, if two sources of junk science agree, who am I to argue.

Fine then.
Self-described nerd.