New research about different diets

Timshel_

In for picking out sections.

lorib642

jbach2 wrote: »

jbach2 wrote: »

Siege_Tank wrote: »

I don't know why this topic brings out so much venom in people, but it's time we stopped with the supposition and correlations and instead, honestly look for the truth, admitting we could be wrong about our ideas, and testing them to check for accuracy.

There isn't anything wrong with always questioning assumptions; that is the foundation of research. Not everyone, however, is a researcher. They want to cling to what they believe is true no matter the cost. Obvisiously, you are finding what works for you.

I notice a couple of flags for your post. Some people will flag you for saying the sky is blue when it is. Ignore them. Good luck.

And I got flagged for saying the sky is blue in this post.

You didn't say sky blue

lorib642

3wdl wrote: »

I do tend to think that lots of people on these forums are very judgmental about how people may chose to lose weight.

I have a food problem and have tried all sorts of ways to lose weight inc. MFP but have ended up giving up or getting back into old habits.

I'm currently going through my most successful stage of weight loss by doing a VLCD and having 600kcal per day (via shakes and bars) and have lost 54lb in 2 months. It's not for everyone but as an individual it is working for me. I know it's not a long term thing, hence reading all I can about how I can maintain using MFP, portion control, more exercise, etc.

To be honest I feel the best I have in such a long time and am now the lowest weight I have been for over 10 years. The fact that I consistently lose 4-5lb a week is one of the things that is helping keep me motivated, as the research pointed out.

Anyhow - the point I am making is that no form of weight loss is "right" for everyone.

It could be that, but also concern that people are doing this safely. That is great progress. You told me a little about the program before. That sounds better than something someone is doing on their own, when you check in regularly. At least to me.

stealthq

Siege_Tank wrote: »

No.

You know what "any data set" gets you? Years of effort and millions of dollars wasted chasing phantom rabbits down holes. And then double that as later Investigators spend time and money disproving the initial erroneous studies.

Meanwhile, the media has run with whatever popular science version of the original studies exist and the next thing you know, taking vitamin C by the bucket-load cures cancer, or some other such crap.

Or saying that vaccines cause autism even though the one and only study that showed a link was retracted.

You miss the point of science completely. Even a wrong answer provides information and direction on where or which direction the right answer lies.

With your vaccine thing.. The original study was flawed right when it came out, and several people denounced it for what it was. Only zealots took the study and tried to blame their child's autism on vaccines laced with a small amount of mercury (used as a preservative) as a result.

Now there are plenty of different studies, all done in different countries that now definitively answer that there is no link between autism and vaccines.

And you have no way of knowing just WHAT the scientific community learned from having that discussion.

Because of that false assumption and bad study, it spurred everyone else to test and retest the saftey and effectiveness of our vaccines.

Why is that a bad thing? Don't we, as humans, learn from our mistakes? And isn't that one of the only ways we really learn?

And dare I ask why my posts get flagged for abuse?

Just wanted to clarify an additional point. I'd have added it in my earlier post, but, you know ... work.

What I find funny about this whole post is the bolded bit. Of all the examples to use ...

Yes, I know exactly what the scientific community learned from the discussions about vaccines and autism. I know because my current field of research is Immunology. About a third of our faculty are involved in vaccine research. I've spent 5 years working on a major NIH grant studying basic immunological effects of various vaccines with an aim to use that knowledge to improve efficacy.

I know that we learned that it is incredibly difficult to convince parents to vaccinate their children against real threats like mumps and chicken pox and hepatitis when they are afraid that they might cause their child to become autistic. I know that children have died because of that fear. My guess is that this fear will never entirely go away.

besaro

i couldn't agree more with the OP/article.