Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and that, furthermore, people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money. When 23andme started (until Google bought interest in it), was under threat of being shut down. This year, Genentech (a large division of Roche) paid $60M to access the genetic data of 23andme for medical research.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?19 -
Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?20
-
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that A) the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and
people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?
I read about medical experts cautioning people against drawing conclusions about one's medical future based on DNA results (especially when specific DNA markers aren't yet validated by clinical results and they may just be associations or related to additional disease drivers), but I haven't seen any "massive resistance" to genetic testing itself. Maybe that means I have my head in the sand, although I find that in debate when someone doesn't know something I'm familiar with I usually find it more useful to share my source of information rather than go straight to insults.
At the same time, we see medicine using certain DNA results for cancer screening/treatment (or other things, as others have noted), so I'm not sure why you would conclude this is resistance to DNA results themselves instead of just prudence about integrating them into diagnosis and treatment. How do you explain why DNA is used in some screening and treatment if medicine is hostile to it?
If someone says they're worried about inaccurate information or that people may benefit from genetic counseling to help them put DNA results in context, how do you determine that isn't what they really think and it's really about money? I'm curious as to how you can get inside an individual's head like that and be so confident that your perception is reality and their stated motivation is false.7 -
I think this is called moving the goalposts. Is it not enough to have shown conclusively that there's hinky justification for all sorts of holistic diagnoses and treatments?6
-
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
LOL, go for it.
Aspartame is one of, if not the most studied additive in the history of the food industry. There are hundreds (thousands) of unsquashed studies and the "big food/pharma is trying to kill you" squad has been trying to prove it is harmful for over 50 years with no success.
The public has decided, because they don't know how to read, understand, and vet scientific studies and research. I will say, if I was a rat I would avoid having a constant and overwhelming volume of aspartame pumped into my bloodstream, because that is the only time aspartame has been proven dangerous.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »@ janejellyroll -- there was massive resistance to 23andme genetic testing when it came out. You'd have to have your head in the sand not to have heard about it. The opposition's argument was that the information was going to be inaccurate (which has proven to be wrong) and that, furthermore, people couldn't handle genetic information without counseling. When in reality it's about control of money. When 23andme started (until Google bought interest in it), was under threat of being shut down. This year, Genentech (a large division of Roche) paid $60M to access the genetic data of 23andme for medical research.
@ GottaBurnEm... -- I agree. But anyone that knows about pharmaceutical testing/safety knows for every study released to the public, four or five are squashed. This is common knowledge. Round-Up was released on the public based on one (I think) 3 month test on rats. That's it. Aspartame was released on the US public for years while some (a small minority of scientists) had concerns. Recent research has shown strong correlation (not direct causation) that those that use Aspartame regularly have more health issues. Should we all wait for what the cause is? Or is it more prudent not to drink diet sodas? Based on the dropping sales of diet sodas and Pepsi/Coke changing business models, the public had decided on this one for corporations. Why do we hold any Holistic leaning finding to a much higher standard of scrutiny?
Which kinds of people are most likely to opt for artificial sweeteners like aspartame? Overweight people trying to lose weight.
What condition is proven to increase your risk of getting a whole medical book's worth of health issues?
Being overweight.
9 -
rheddmobile wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »I just wish that more traditional medicine embraced things that potentially could help people, like DNA testing. When 23andme came out, the medical community was dead set against it. It's turning out that some of the research based on this genetic testing has already helped with some new innovations/therapies.
As I understand it, the medical community was against people getting DNA information about heightened risk for certain scary diseases (or less risk) on your own, without medical advice explaining what it means and, in many cases, that it is not a death sentence (slightly higher risk of Alzheimers does not mean "I might as well stop bothering, as I am getting Alzheimers"). I think this makes sense.
I also believe (as janejellyroll pointed out) that DNA screens are used for various things. In other cases, they may not be necessary -- I am at heightened risk of hemochromatosis, as my mother has it, but rather than testing for it they can just test for iron, which they do.
Most things DNA doesn't help much with yet, although it is interesting. I've had a DNA test (for family history) and did some of the medical type screens because I was curious, and it told me some things I already knew (not lactose intolerant) but mostly just somewhat different risk levels or "this gene is thought to be one of various related to this."
Amusingly, one of the things you can do with DNA tests is have it predict your eye color. The prediction for mine was a light-ish blue that looked like my dad's eyes. But mine are green. ;-) It's all quite complex, and that's without getting into something that has a variety of other inputs too (as with things like tendency to gain weight, addiction, etc).
The DNA analysis told me mostly stuff I already knew - that my mom is in no way lactose intolerant despite her claims (after reading the results she finally admitted that she just hates milk, after 80 years of lying about it!), that we carry genes associated with heart disease and obesity, etc.
It's interesting that I also have green eyes and the prediction also missed them, and thought my eyes looked like my blue eyed mother's. I wish I had gotten my dad's DNA before he died - his were like mine but with enough brown to be more hazel than green. It seems that one of the genes they have yet to identify is the one that makes your eyes and mine green!
Fun! Which I think is the point - 23and me and ancestry were not able to show enough good and consistent results to gain approval to get medical info. It's not that it's being kept from us, it's that the results are at this point too sketchy to base anything other than fun personal facts on.
Poor mom, technology ended her charade!
I've been tempted to do one of them for giggles, but I'm hesitant to send something as personal as my DNA to a corporation for no reason. I've seen too many futuristic movies, I guess there's a little tin hat in me as well
That's a reasonable worry - there have already been cases where Genealogy sites were used in criminal cases. But on the other hand, the database is also being used to research and develop new treatments.
In my case, I have one of those stories that end up on the commercials - testing my mom's DNA and comparing it to our cousins led to the discovery that the man she had believed to be her father was not, and her biological father was the man she had grown up believing was her stepfather. Since both men are long deceased and she loved her stepfather and thought of him as her "real" father, this discovery caused no embarrassment for anyone and was a pleasant discovery for my mother. But you never know what you might discover, so it's best to be prepared for anything.3 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.13 -
Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.24
-
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Haven't read any of the thread have you?7 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Oh my God . . .6 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
None of this in anyway supports the bilge peddled by the School the OP attends and I have no idea why you keep repeating this bollocks other than the old 'I know more than you do' self promotion schtick that people do on forums8 -
fionawilliamson wrote: »Don't let people get you down. I have been learning recently too and you are on the right path. I love it when people say where's the proof? it's everywhere and whoever thinks that good nutrition won't impact their health have drank the kool aid. Food is medicine. People need to wake up and figure it out.
Weird statement, since literally no one in this thread's 30 pages has said nutrition doesn't impact health.8 -
GaleHawkins wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
@MikePfirrman thanks for the current medical link. It seems some may be posting using dated medical sources perhaps. I know my autoimmune issues started to resolve in just 30 days after I cut out all added sugar and all forms of all grains Oct 2014.
Like me three years ago some still do not want to accept their health issues may be from the way they eat. A leaky gut can lead to premature death I now understand. What I was eating clearly was a cause of my failing health since three years later after stopping sugar and grains cold turkey my health continues to improve.
I still question everything, even if from a Holistic doc. All sometimes we have to go on is how our own bodies react and the information we find on our own. Even Holistic docs will use people with chronic conditions as cash cows.
I was involved years ago with some Algae to biofuel start-ups. One of the companies that I was trying to steal people from was the Algae start-up that created Astaxanthin. Back then, they really didn't know how good of a supplement it was. It's since blown up to be huge. I knew it was a super carotenoid. That's it. I gave it to a dog of mine that was slowly dying from Prednisone he had to take for really bad genetic hip dysplasia. When this dog was 2, I was told we'd be lucky if he lived till 8. He ended up living to be age 12. For the last 3 years of his life, the vet had him on heavy prednisone for pain. I gave him Astaxanthin regulary. The vet could not understand, for the life of him, why his liver enzyme counts were always (until near the end) so good. Just last year, there was a study pointing to Astaxanthin being a really good potential liver therapy for those with bad enzyme counts from too many prescriptions. I have no regrets about giving that dog a supplement I thought might help him. Same with my wife. I'll help myself or those I love anytime when medical science has not caught up yet.
Most Holistic therapies have no money to support their research. There is just simply nuggets you have to pick and choose. It's pathetic that our government can't support more research for the common good and leaves it up to the pharmaceutical companies to pay for all the R&D. When that happens (most of the time), the research we see is cherry picked and favorable to expensive drug intervention.
France's Meterone just declared that France will ban Round-Up within 2 years. I guess their scientists are seeing things that our American scientists aren't seeing. Anthony Samsel / Stephanie Seneff (the two MIT researchers that have put together a lot of information on how potentially bad Round-Up is) are being attacked by Monsanto (and many paid professional writers) as whackos. They never seem to attack the science, but the individuals. There is a ton of money going into discrediting/condemning these two. When you really look at what they've put out (along with Seralini from France, who won a libel suit against Monsanto in Europe), there's a lot of smoke out there. Perhaps why Monsanto is being sold to Bayer?? Only scientists near retirement take on Monsanto. They know if they do, it can kill your career (Monsanto is so powerful in the US).
14 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
No you are conflating the two. Increased intestimal permeability is a real condition, but it is the result of another condition, such as Crohns. Increased intestinal permeability has not been proven to cause other disease. Whereas "Leaky Gut" and "Leaky Gut Syndrome" are supposedly the cause of numerous human ailments, but both are fake diseases diagnosed by fake doctors which requires useless supplements to "treat."6 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-04-evidence-linking-leaky-gut-chronic.html
Here's another article on a study demonstrating "Leaky Gut" by a scientist at Harvard Medical School. The only information I could find (recent) debunking leaky gut was just opinion blog (no scientific backing) by Gastroenterologist associations that just call it "quackery" based on five or ten year old information. Of course, they have nothing (money) at stake.
Here is the actual study. It's in mice and nothing to do with leaky gut.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/28423466/
Did you miss this part of your own link:A professor of Pediatrics at Harvard Medical School, Fasano explains that, while some alternative health care practitioners use the term "leaky gut syndrome" to describe a variety of health problems ranging from gastrointestinal complaints to neurological symptoms, he prefers the concept of loss of intestinal barrier function. "Leaky gut syndrome has been blamed by some non-mainstream practitioners as the reason for almost everything that is wrong with a person. With the development of this mouse model to study inflammation, we'll be able to separate science from speculation," he says.
Seems to me he doesn't support the fake disease known as leaky gut.
Do you actually have any evidence proving leaky gut is a distinct condition and separate condition from increased intestinal permeability? So far your failing miserably.
Since "leaky" and "permeable" are synonyms, I'd say a study demonstrating Permeability is good enough. I was debating if the gut could be leaky, not how to necessarily fix it (though I personally believe that eating a whole food plant based diet is a good start). That's how asinine these discussions get. You are saying a study that's conclusive about the gut being permeable has nothing to do with the gut being "leaky". Alrighty then...
I think what you're confusing is that I'm agreeing with the Chiropractors telling people to drink Bone Broth to fix their "leaky gut". I've said I don't agree with that so I'm not sure what you're arguing. Leaky doesn't mean permeable (and had nothing to do with it according to you). Well, most dictionaries would disagree.
https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/is-leaky-gut-real
By the way, Healthline isn't the most pro Holistic site in the world. But this article does a nice job admitting that the gut can be permeable but that a lot of the information put out by (some) Holistic docs is suspect. And that no causation (yet) can be determined.
I (think) what you meant is that "leaky gut" and "leaky gut syndrome" aren't the same thing? You are saying that "leaky gut syndrome" is something of a diagnosis that has suspect fixes (I agree with you!). However, the quote you linked from my article does not say that a gut can't be leaky. These are quite different statements.
No you are conflating the two. Increased intestimal permeability is a real condition, but it is the result of another condition, such as Crohns. Increased intestinal permeability has not been proven to cause other disease. Whereas "Leaky Gut" and "Leaky Gut Syndrome" are supposedly the cause of numerous human ailments, but both are fake diseases diagnosed by fake doctors which requires useless supplements to "treat."
Wow, can't literally argue with that logic. You win!
4 -
VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.5 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
"The results were adjusted for variables such as age, sex, caloric intake, diet quality, physical activity and smoking. (For those seeking more detail, the study is downloadable in its entirety.)"
12 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?14 -
janejellyroll wrote: »MikePfirrman wrote: »GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »VintageFeline wrote: »Oh good. Aspartame. Can I call bingo now?
Indeed. I read that and just gave up. It's useless at this point.
Quashed studies? This is tinfoil hat territory, and there is no having productive discussion with that sort of thinking.
Sure, call whatever you want...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/04/21/study-links-diet-soda-to-higher-risk-of-stroke-dementia/?utm_term=.4364a0cef488
So to support your claim of lots of quashed studies you post a link to . . . media coverage of a completed study where the lead author advises caution about drawing too many conclusions from it and notes that more studies are needed?
Do you even know what you're trying to demonstrate anymore?
Go ahead and chug all the diet soda in the world. If someone says that's a strong correlation but says it's not clear what the causation is but it's a very strong correlation, only a fool would disregard that.
15
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 390 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions