Guide to making claims based on research
Replies
-
Oh, my gosh. It was hilarious. This woman was arguing with people over something (clean eating? low carb? I don't remember) and some things she said, I was like, "Hmmm" and other things I didn't agree with at all, but everyone was fighting with her and even though I didn't agree with everything she said, I thought she was doing her own thing and she even admitted that she might've been wrong and it was all fine. I was like, "Good for her, admitting she phrased it poorly" or whatever. I kind of thought she'd come around. I don't remember exactly.WalkingAlong wrote: »
Level headed and unflappable. I've never seen anyone get jabbed with the MFP Mean Stick (aka MrM27) so many times and not lash back, ever, as far as I can tell. I wish I had the restraint.EatsNotTreats wrote: »
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
You are way too level headed for this forum.
I missed the baking soda thread, dangit.
Then - pretty much out of nowhere! - she goes OFF on baking soda and how her family isn't eating it (with exclamation marks, I think) and how it's dangerous. I was like, "YES!!" thinking it was going to be fun reading her posts, lol. But then there was all the typical MFP stuff and less fun. People really should let those folks continue. I very much WANT to hear the logic behind that, lol. That's much more fun than arguing about links.
Thanks for saying nice things about me. You are too kind. I'm snarky on occasion, too. But thanks. 0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
Level headed and unflappable. I've never seen anyone get jabbed with the MFP Mean Stick (aka MrM27) so many times and not lash back, ever, as far as I can tell. I wish I had the restraint.EatsNotTreats wrote: »
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
You are way too level headed for this forum.
I missed the baking soda thread, dangit.
Then - pretty much out of nowhere! - she goes OFF on baking soda and how her family isn't eating it (with exclamation marks, I think) and how it's dangerous. I was like, "YES!!" thinking it was going to be fun reading her posts, lol. But then there was all the typical MFP stuff and less fun. People really should let those folks continue. I very much WANT to hear the logic behind that, lol. That's much more fun than arguing about links.
I don't recall it being out of nowhere. I recall that Sodium Bicarbonate was the scariest-sounding ingredient she found in KFC's chicken breading. I don't think she even knew it was Baking Soda and the whole business about her family avoiding it was probably BS and just her doubling down after being called out for being afraid of baking soda soly because it had a scary name and is used for cleaning and deodorizing. (I'll bet she has a box in her fridge, contaminating all her food right now)
0 -
Additionally i'll add that lecturer is a position, as in an adjunct, or a short term/contract position. Means they are not tenure track, and generally have fewer responsibilities in a department.
It does not denote a difference in educational degree, as in Master's vs. PhD.
It's a little different in Australia. We have 5 levels, Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Prof and Prof. All are tenured positions, although some ALs may be on contract initially. In my area (medical science), all 5 levels must have a PhD. I don't know of any Masters who teach, except as sessional staff in labs or tutorials.
I believe it's different in other disciplines though.
I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
Anyway...off topic, sorry..
0 -
I remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.Lourdesong wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Level headed and unflappable. I've never seen anyone get jabbed with the MFP Mean Stick (aka MrM27) so many times and not lash back, ever, as far as I can tell. I wish I had the restraint.EatsNotTreats wrote: »
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
You are way too level headed for this forum.
I missed the baking soda thread, dangit.
Then - pretty much out of nowhere! - she goes OFF on baking soda and how her family isn't eating it (with exclamation marks, I think) and how it's dangerous. I was like, "YES!!" thinking it was going to be fun reading her posts, lol. But then there was all the typical MFP stuff and less fun. People really should let those folks continue. I very much WANT to hear the logic behind that, lol. That's much more fun than arguing about links.
I don't recall it being out of nowhere. I recall that Sodium Bicarbonate was the scariest-sounding ingredient she found in KFC's chicken breading. I don't think she even knew it was Baking Soda and the whole business about her family avoiding it was probably BS and just her doubling down after being called out for being afraid of baking soda soly because it had a scary name and is used for cleaning and deodorizing. (I'll bet she has a box in her fridge, contaminating all her food right now)
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Level headed and unflappable. I've never seen anyone get jabbed with the MFP Mean Stick (aka MrM27) so many times and not lash back, ever, as far as I can tell. I wish I had the restraint.EatsNotTreats wrote: »
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
You are way too level headed for this forum.
I missed the baking soda thread, dangit.
Then - pretty much out of nowhere! - she goes OFF on baking soda and how her family isn't eating it (with exclamation marks, I think) and how it's dangerous. I was like, "YES!!" thinking it was going to be fun reading her posts, lol. But then there was all the typical MFP stuff and less fun. People really should let those folks continue. I very much WANT to hear the logic behind that, lol. That's much more fun than arguing about links.
I don't recall it being out of nowhere. I recall that Sodium Bicarbonate was the scariest-sounding ingredient she found in KFC's chicken breading. I don't think she even knew it was Baking Soda and the whole business about her family avoiding it was probably BS and just her doubling down after being called out for being afraid of baking soda soly because it had a scary name and is used for cleaning and deodorizing. (I'll bet she has a box in her fridge, contaminating all her food right now)
Yep, and I would rather people call complete twaddle like that out when seen rather than having other people read it and think it may be true. It may be amusing for some, but not for the people who read it, believe it, and act on it.
0 -
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
0 -
^^lol, just found it myself.
And I did not see her say she was wrong at all - she continued to keep arguing with terrible facts and basic inaccuracies.
Maybe I missed it though.
0 -
But I REALLY do wish that the studies would study non-obese individuals because retention of LBM in obese individuals eating very low calorie probably is not identical to those who are lean or simply at a healthy weight.
VLCDs are not recommended for healthy weight people, or even overweight - apart from some medical interventions like pre-operative applications.
They are however recommended for obese patients, which generally includes women of 200 lbs or more, and for defined duration like 8 - 12 weeks.
0 -
Ah, interesting.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Additionally i'll add that lecturer is a position, as in an adjunct, or a short term/contract position. Means they are not tenure track, and generally have fewer responsibilities in a department.
It does not denote a difference in educational degree, as in Master's vs. PhD.
It's a little different in Australia. We have 5 levels, Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Prof and Prof. All are tenured positions, although some ALs may be on contract initially. In my area (medical science), all 5 levels must have a PhD. I don't know of any Masters who teach, except as sessional staff in labs or tutorials.
I believe it's different in other disciplines though.
I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
Anyway...off topic, sorry..
In my wife's field which is Biology, I've only seen PhD holders in position of lecturer or higher. Other schools may be different of course, but generally from what I've seen, lecturer is an intinerant educator, moving from town to town to bring knowledge to the unenlightened, and packing up afterwards to move on into the sunset. I personally think it's a terrible misuse of quality educators, but I'm not involved in the business of education for revenue.
Once you're on the tenure track, you are an assistant professor, then associate, then full. somewhere down the line you can become an emeritus. Then there are the named professorships. I keep telling her, that if I ever get in the position that I can give her Uni a large donation, I'll do it with the requirement that she becomes a named professor, named after me since she refused to take on my name when we got married.
However, in the studio art area, I have several friends who are MFA holders who teach. I know several MBA holders who teach in the business school, etc.
As for Hawaii, I almost went to UoH@Manoa for a DBA, but determined that research was not as profitable as just an mba and a personalized set of morals. I'd go to Hawaii in a second though, although the stipend during the DBA program was $18k, I'm sure a lecturer position for an MBA holder would pay much better. That stipend though would have been horrid there in the land of $6 gallons of milk (when at the time the mainland was 50% cheaper.)
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.0 -
Ah, interesting.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Additionally i'll add that lecturer is a position, as in an adjunct, or a short term/contract position. Means they are not tenure track, and generally have fewer responsibilities in a department.
It does not denote a difference in educational degree, as in Master's vs. PhD.
It's a little different in Australia. We have 5 levels, Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Prof and Prof. All are tenured positions, although some ALs may be on contract initially. In my area (medical science), all 5 levels must have a PhD. I don't know of any Masters who teach, except as sessional staff in labs or tutorials.
I believe it's different in other disciplines though.
I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
Anyway...off topic, sorry..
In my wife's field which is Biology, I've only seen PhD holders in position of lecturer or higher. Other schools may be different of course, but generally from what I've seen, lecturer is an intinerant educator, moving from town to town to bring knowledge to the unenlightened, and packing up afterwards to move on into the sunset. I personally think it's a terrible misuse of quality educators, but I'm not involved in the business of education for revenue.
Once you're on the tenure track, you are an assistant professor, then associate, then full. somewhere down the line you can become an emeritus. Then there are the named professorships. I keep telling her, that if I ever get in the position that I can give her Uni a large donation, I'll do it with the requirement that she becomes a named professor, named after me since she refused to take on my name when we got married.
However, in the studio art area, I have several friends who are MFA holders who teach. I know several MBA holders who teach in the business school, etc.
As for Hawaii, I almost went to UoH@Manoa for a DBA, but determined that research was not as profitable as just an mba and a personalized set of morals. I'd go to Hawaii in a second though, although the stipend during the DBA program was $18k, I'm sure a lecturer position for an MBA holder would pay much better. That stipend though would have been horrid there in the land of $6 gallons of milk (when at the time the mainland was 50% cheaper.)
Similar to our phd stipends, even though they're 25k tax free, they're too hard to live on without other work. I'm probably better off sticking to holidays in Hawaii, because I would want to live on the north shore and then it would be almost impossible driving off to work every day...lol0 -
I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
0 -
free speech? lol.
if MFP wants to censor anything, they can. this is their board.
and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. if someone wants their 'free speech' to be taken seriously, they better back it up.
they're not free from getting their idea mocked, shot down, tickled, held-as-gosple or what-have-you.
but "free speech". that's a cultural dog whistle that has no real truck when you get down to it.
TLDR: *shrug* anybody can say anything. but providing supporting materials for claims lies on the sender, not receiver.
guess: "walking along" is anti vax or supports people who are otherwise healthy and are anti vax (hoping to be wrong and that W A is a vaccine proponent)0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
You should have read the posts earlier - they were in no way broached as opinion, and while she seemed to be saying that she would be less 'black and white' partway through she then same back spouting nonsense with the toxinz of baking soda.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »WalkingAlong wrote: »
Level headed and unflappable. I've never seen anyone get jabbed with the MFP Mean Stick (aka MrM27) so many times and not lash back, ever, as far as I can tell. I wish I had the restraint.EatsNotTreats wrote: »
Maybe they shouldn't, but they will. It's going to happen. If you let that bother you, you will drive yourself bonkers.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I totally agree, but some people may not understand how to read and interpret scientific studies, so it would be a real challenge for them. They may feel that they can't participate.
In that case they simply should not make any "research shows that" etc claims.
I enjoyed the post about baking soda being dangerous. Sadly, it devolved into "You're stupid and should prove it! / No I'm not! / Yes, you are! / Nuh-uh! / Yuh-huh!" and we all missed out on what could've been a very entertaining series of posts on the dangers of baking soda and, possibly, other baking products.
People are going to be wrong for the rest of your life. Might as well get used to it and not demand they submit research papers. At some point, you'll be wrong. Everyone is, sometimes. It's okay.
You are way too level headed for this forum.
I missed the baking soda thread, dangit.
Then - pretty much out of nowhere! - she goes OFF on baking soda and how her family isn't eating it (with exclamation marks, I think) and how it's dangerous. I was like, "YES!!" thinking it was going to be fun reading her posts, lol. But then there was all the typical MFP stuff and less fun. People really should let those folks continue. I very much WANT to hear the logic behind that, lol. That's much more fun than arguing about links.
I don't recall it being out of nowhere. I recall that Sodium Bicarbonate was the scariest-sounding ingredient she found in KFC's chicken breading. I don't think she even knew it was Baking Soda and the whole business about her family avoiding it was probably BS and just her doubling down after being called out for being afraid of baking soda soly because it had a scary name and is used for cleaning and deodorizing. (I'll bet she has a box in her fridge, contaminating all her food right now)
That was my interpretation of it too.0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
The problem is there's no clear cut American system. There's a standard way that tenure track works at major universities and academically-oriented colleges, but there are a huge variety of other kinds of institutions and part-time/non-tenure-track jobs and so on.
I know a few people who are kind of permanently ABD but still teach at local colleges/universities. Just not the particular local universities that I considered attending.
At other schools (like professional programs) the requirements are different still.
0 -
Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »
Ah, interesting.Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »Additionally i'll add that lecturer is a position, as in an adjunct, or a short term/contract position. Means they are not tenure track, and generally have fewer responsibilities in a department.
It does not denote a difference in educational degree, as in Master's vs. PhD.
It's a little different in Australia. We have 5 levels, Associate Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Prof and Prof. All are tenured positions, although some ALs may be on contract initially. In my area (medical science), all 5 levels must have a PhD. I don't know of any Masters who teach, except as sessional staff in labs or tutorials.
I believe it's different in other disciplines though.
I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
Anyway...off topic, sorry..
In my wife's field which is Biology, I've only seen PhD holders in position of lecturer or higher. Other schools may be different of course, but generally from what I've seen, lecturer is an intinerant educator, moving from town to town to bring knowledge to the unenlightened, and packing up afterwards to move on into the sunset. I personally think it's a terrible misuse of quality educators, but I'm not involved in the business of education for revenue.
Once you're on the tenure track, you are an assistant professor, then associate, then full. somewhere down the line you can become an emeritus. Then there are the named professorships. I keep telling her, that if I ever get in the position that I can give her Uni a large donation, I'll do it with the requirement that she becomes a named professor, named after me since she refused to take on my name when we got married.
However, in the studio art area, I have several friends who are MFA holders who teach. I know several MBA holders who teach in the business school, etc.
As for Hawaii, I almost went to UoH@Manoa for a DBA, but determined that research was not as profitable as just an mba and a personalized set of morals. I'd go to Hawaii in a second though, although the stipend during the DBA program was $18k, I'm sure a lecturer position for an MBA holder would pay much better. That stipend though would have been horrid there in the land of $6 gallons of milk (when at the time the mainland was 50% cheaper.)
Similar to our phd stipends, even though they're 25k tax free, they're too hard to live on without other work. I'm probably better off sticking to holidays in Hawaii, because I would want to live on the north shore and then it would be almost impossible driving off to work every day...lol
Not. Tax. Free. >_<
It's so poorly low because here in the US we prefer bombing over knowledge. We're stupid, and loving rolling around in the muck and mire in a race to be the least knowledge focused country on the planet. At least it's profitable for our gentry and politicians.
There's a little shrimp truck on the north shore that I would just happily live at.0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »Charlottesometimes23 wrote: »I'm still trying to get my head around the American system. I have a dream of doing a little stint in Hawaii (who doesn't?).
The problem is there's no clear cut American system. There's a standard way that tenure track works at major universities and academically-oriented colleges, but there are a huge variety of other kinds of institutions and part-time/non-tenure-track jobs and so on.
I know a few people who are kind of permanently ABD but still teach at local colleges/universities. Just not the particular local universities that I considered attending.
At other schools (like professional programs) the requirements are different still.
+1
Where I work (not academia), we are loosely affiliated with a local (to the state, not the city) university. All that is required for us to take on a PhD student is an adjunct position in the appropriate department. Depending on the department, that's either going to require the same level of background as other professorships you'd find in that department, or rather different - which may or may not mean less.
For example, I just took on a biomedical sciences graduate student this year. My first - teaching students is not part of my job description. Now, as it happens, I do have the requisite qualifications to teach graduate work, and have some experience teaching both undergraduate and graduate students. In a couple of completely different fields.![:\](https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/resources/emoji/confused.png ":\")
It just so happened that my student happened to decide that our work is much more interesting than what she was expected to do in the biomed research labs. Going to be fun navigating the department's thesis requirements with research in another field and no pre-established curriculum available to teach the fundamentals of my field. It'll be a learning experience for the both of us. The challenges of which I made sure to make clear to my student before the decision was made.0 -
I'm not insulted at being accused of tolerance. Or stupidity, either, really, considering the source is a random person on the internet who doesn't share my views on dieting. Or something.Wronkletoad wrote: »
guess: "walking along" is anti vax or supports people who are otherwise healthy and are anti vax (hoping to be wrong and that W A is a vaccine proponent)
I lived on Oaho for a while. I love the north shore.
0 -
I'll take your word for it. I don't want to read it.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
You should have read the posts earlier - they were in no way broached as opinion, and while she seemed to be saying that she would be less 'black and white' partway through she then same back spouting nonsense with the toxinz of baking soda.
I don't think baking soda has toxins and I don't know if that's what she said, but I think the reaction to 'food as toxins' here is crazy overblown. Naturally occurring toxins are common in food, so I'm not so sure it's the best 'bs meter'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153292/
I could say the same for the reaction to anything from alternative medicine. If you think it's quackery, that's fine, but you can't really speak like it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who gives it the tiniest consideration would be considered an idiot by anyone. Maybe in your circle it is, but not worldwide.
And while I'm accusing, that "If you're 75 lbs. overweight, 2 lbs. per week is ideal" thing... Also assuming that the author's goals/beliefs are everyone's. "Is ideal" for what? LBM retention? That's a terrific priority but what if someone just wants to get into their wedding dress as a goal, or get out of morbid obesity asap? Or someone has weighed the evidence and doesn't believe that deficit level really affects LBM loss much, because it too is hardly a foregone conclusion. But when the people with enough respect and authority here speak as if it is, the followers who don't read elsewhere will believe it is.
0 -
Yup, because intake of ground deer antler is a legit therapy for impotence.WalkingAlong wrote: »I could say the same for the reaction to anything from alternative medicine. If you think it's quackery, that's fine, but you can't really speak like it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who gives it the tiniest consideration would be considered an idiot by anyone. Maybe in your circle it is, but not worldwide.
If one is an idiot and doesn't understand the difference between myth and reality.
0 -
^^^Eats --
gotcha! sorry - i was taking the "Free speech" interpretation from a different board and different thread and projected it here.
Walk - north shore is really something. mmmmm. been years. must go back! good call0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'll take your word for it. I don't want to read it.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
You should have read the posts earlier - they were in no way broached as opinion, and while she seemed to be saying that she would be less 'black and white' partway through she then same back spouting nonsense with the toxinz of baking soda.
I don't think baking soda has toxins and I don't know if that's what she said, but I think the reaction to 'food as toxins' here is crazy overblown. Naturally occurring toxins are common in food, so I'm not so sure it's the best 'bs meter'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153292/
I could say the same for the reaction to anything from alternative medicine. If you think it's quackery, that's fine, but you can't really speak like it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who gives it the tiniest consideration would be considered an idiot by anyone. Maybe in your circle it is, but not worldwide.
And while I'm accusing, that "If you're 75 lbs. overweight, 2 lbs. per week is ideal" thing... Also assuming that the author's goals/beliefs are everyone's. "Is ideal" for what? LBM retention? That's a terrific priority but what if someone just wants to get into their wedding dress as a goal, or get out of morbid obesity asap? Or someone has weighed the evidence and doesn't believe that deficit level really affects LBM loss much, because it too is hardly a foregone conclusion. But when the people with enough respect and authority here speak as if it is, the followers who don't read elsewhere will believe it is.
I just always assumed it was fairly standard for most adults to do whatever the hell they want.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
I might agree with you if I had any reason to believe she had genuine beliefs. But, frankly, I strongly suspect she was making it up as she went along. Her sincerity was suspect and I think her fear-mongering about KFC was just her wanting to hear herself talk.
Toxic chemical chicken deliberately engineered by boogie men to addict us sounds scary, sounds scandalous, and is a fun tall-tale to tell around the camp fire. Just don't ask for details.
0 -
Lourdesong wrote: »
I might agree with you if I had any reason to believe she had genuine beliefs. But, frankly, I strongly suspect she was making it up as she went along. Her sincerity was suspect and I think her fear-mongering about KFC was just her wanting to hear herself talk.
Toxic chemical chicken deliberately engineered by boogie men to addict us sounds scary, sounds scandalous, and is a fun tall-tale to tell around the camp fire. Just don't ask for details.
When I was a student in the early 1980's there was a rumour that that KFC used pigeon meat instead of chicken. I didn't pay much attention because the nearest KFC was a couple of hundred miles away in London.
0 -
I know. But you do read some of that 'engineered to rope us in' stuff in legitimate sources, too. I think Michael Pollan goes there.
I don't think it 'addicts us' but I do think companies make food to sell the most food at the highest profit. That means adding salt, sugar and fat because they improve palatability and they're cheap-- win/win. Except for health. Not that I see anything wrong with salt, sugar and fat. But if all the food is really tasty, cheap and high calorie, it's enticing and easy to overeat.0 -
WalkingAlong wrote: »
I'll take your word for it. I don't want to read it.WalkingAlong wrote: »
I just read around page 9-16 and it was painful. Seemed to me like MFP at its worst-- a pile-on. One poster who passionately believes in her way of eating is eviscerated for trying to defend it. No, her logic wasn't really sound but she seemed to mostly be phrasing things as opinions and as "this is what works for me and my family". And others deciding that they need to be seen as RIGHT and to do that they must get her to admit her beliefs are wrong before this morsel of untruth spreads like ebola and millions die from lack of junk food intake.Lourdesong wrote: »
It was the "If eating trash makes us sick.." threadI remember the KFC thing, but she'd been arguing about that for quite a long time before the baking soda thing popped up.
I wish I could remember what thread it was.
http://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10020547/if-eating-trash-makes-us-sick-why-do-we-keep-eating-it/p16
Yep! That's it! Page 16 has the baking soda post. I stopped reading shortly thereafter and missed the rest.
There are as many beliefs about food and eating as there are about god and religion. If your beliefs are RIGHT for you based on your background and reading and results, maybe respect that others might have a different RIGHT for them. And that them sharing what's right for them doesn't always mean your right is wrong.
You should have read the posts earlier - they were in no way broached as opinion, and while she seemed to be saying that she would be less 'black and white' partway through she then same back spouting nonsense with the toxinz of baking soda.
I don't think baking soda has toxins and I don't know if that's what she said, but I think the reaction to 'food as toxins' here is crazy overblown. Naturally occurring toxins are common in food, so I'm not so sure it's the best 'bs meter'.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3153292/
I could say the same for the reaction to anything from alternative medicine. If you think it's quackery, that's fine, but you can't really speak like it's a foregone conclusion that anyone who gives it the tiniest consideration would be considered an idiot by anyone. Maybe in your circle it is, but not worldwide.
And while I'm accusing, that "If you're 75 lbs. overweight, 2 lbs. per week is ideal" thing... Also assuming that the author's goals/beliefs are everyone's. "Is ideal" for what? LBM retention? That's a terrific priority but what if someone just wants to get into their wedding dress as a goal, or get out of morbid obesity asap? Or someone has weighed the evidence and doesn't believe that deficit level really affects LBM loss much, because it too is hardly a foregone conclusion. But when the people with enough respect and authority here speak as if it is, the followers who don't read elsewhere will believe it is.
I do not blame you for not wanting to read it, but your post above is not at all relevant to the posts - she made out ingredients in KFC to be a big toxic waste - and used a terrible example that she did not understand as an example. In fact, the source she used (which was a drama llama link) specifically stated that baking soda was one of the 'safe' ingredients.
So, yes she said baking soda was toxic and got pulled up for it as it is incorrect (which you agree).
Yes, I know that there are naturally occurring toxins in food - which is why dosage and context are important.
Not sure who you are talking to with that last paragraph (not the penultimate one as no-one mentioned anything about alternative medicine), or what it relates to.0 -
Malteaster wrote: »Lourdesong wrote: »
I might agree with you if I had any reason to believe she had genuine beliefs. But, frankly, I strongly suspect she was making it up as she went along. Her sincerity was suspect and I think her fear-mongering about KFC was just her wanting to hear herself talk.
Toxic chemical chicken deliberately engineered by boogie men to addict us sounds scary, sounds scandalous, and is a fun tall-tale to tell around the camp fire. Just don't ask for details.
When I was a student in the early 1980's there was a rumour that that KFC used pigeon meat instead of chicken. I didn't pay much attention because the nearest KFC was a couple of hundred miles away in London.
I would get all over that. Pigeon is expensive.0 -
cool, thanks!0
-
WalkingAlong wrote: »I know. But you do read some of that 'engineered to rope us in' stuff in legitimate sources, too. I think Michael Pollan goes there.
I don't think it 'addicts us' but I do think companies make food to sell the most food at the highest profit. That means adding salt, sugar and fat because they improve palatability and they're cheap-- win/win. Except for health. Not that I see anything wrong with salt, sugar and fat. But if all the food is really tasty, cheap and high calorie, it's enticing and easy to overeat.
My problem with this is that the "its so tasty it addicts us" crowd (which the baking soda poster was part of) just seem to confuse "make it tasty in a cheap way" and "more tasty than any other food every, so that we react differently."
My view--which I never try to convince others of--is that a lot of convenience foods are cheaply palatable in a way that's not that healthy. That is, you can add HFCS or various other kinds of sugar or salt (definitely) or fat to make food taste better without greatly increasing the cost. That's one reason why fast food or packaged items often have lots of such ingredients. (The desire for cheapness is also why I don't think the meat is all that appealing to my personal taste and why I have ethical issues with it anyway, but that's a separate topic.)
But trying to make food palatable is hardly unique to multinational food corporations, of course, and in a way it's what I do when trying to perfect my roast chicken or pie crust or what mom or grandma or the chef at some restaurant with a Michelin star or the like all do too. Cooking is about trying to make food as palatable as possible and using ingredients like butter and salt and sugar (among others) as part of that.
To suggest that somehow the commercialized versions of food are more overwhelmingly palatable and impossible to turn down--addictive--as that baking soda woman and many others at MFP do seems to me insane. KFC is the most delicious chicken ever and therefore food companies force us to eat it, really? I mean, I might expect that claim from Colonel Sanders, but no one else.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions