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.
Provide Your Sources
Replies
-
FWIW, I read to learn, not so I can prove a point on some message board. I don't bookmark studies, articles, etc, so I rarely have sources at the ready if my thoughts don't fit all nice and tidy with what others think.
That's fine, as long as you aren't responding to someone's request for advice by giving them ridiculous, terrible advice that you "read somewhere."
There are times when spewing incorrect "facts" can be legitimately harmful.8 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Also, I wonder if a study one day came out that said aspartame et al does cause cancer. Going by the posts saying "pry my soda out of my cold dead hands", if any of them would quit drinking it? Or would they run the gauntlet and say it's not going to happen to me, like smokers and alcoholics do to justify their "habit" ??
There are such studies about aspartame and tons of other things. One study doesn't prove anything, which is why posting one isn't all that helpful. It isn't really science unless it's repeatable, so until someone is able to replicate the results of the study it's not worth much. To really get a clear picture you have to look at the bulk of scientific consensus, which is why if a person can find 10 studies (that really say what the person says they say) I'm a lot more likely to take them seriously.
If there were 10 well designed studies proving that aspartame increases cancer risk, my next question would be "in what dosage?" If the dosage were small, say 2 cans of soda per day, then I would probably cut back or stop drinking it. If the dosage is huge, say 35 cans of soda per day, then I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd also want to know how much it actually increases cancer risk. If it only takes my chances from 25% to 26% then I probably wouldn't care much. It would have to be a pretty dramatic result for me to worry about it. But I'm not much of a worrier anyway when it comes to that sort of thing. I suspect if you asked a bunch of diet soda drinkers this same question you'd get loads of different results.4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
I know you're being sarcastic with the phrase "God given moral duty to educate" (which is a very nice use of pathos, by the way; it's an effective tool to shame and mock since former positive concepts like God, moral, and duty have become very negative in much of our culture; and don't get me started on the hostility to education). However...
Isn't the *entire point* of a classical liberal education in a democracy to share the knowledge and critical thinking that an educated person has earned for the betterment of society as a whole?
This is something that I would constantly reinforce with my students when I taught: that the pain and suffering they faced in my research methodology classes was to help them become effective, thinking citizens who would make a contribution across all aspects of our culture, not just as a cube jockey in their narrow field of study.
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).5 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.3 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
Ha ha! It's true. But it kind of serves them right for starting another sugar or diet pop thread instead of reading the five billion threads that already exist.
5 -
jmbmilholland wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
Ha ha! It's true. But it kind of serves them right for starting another sugar or diet pop thread instead of reading the five billion threads that already exist.
I do wonder about that. Sometimes you'll see 2 or 3 threads with virtually the same title going at the same time. It baffles me.3 -
"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
It's a real tragedy that so many people think scientific knowledge is evil or frightening or makes them feel bad about themselves.12 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
It's a real tragedy that so many people think scientific knowledge is evil or frightening or makes them feel bad about themselves.
I don't feel it's any of those 3 things
If someone asks for a study then yeah post away, but i'd hazard a guess that most folks do not. It's the battle of the science wars that end up derailing threads, when really there was no need to get so indepth in the first place.
You work in the science field @tomteboda , correct? So i can understand if you feel slighted by some peoples disinterest.
0 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »There should be a posting rule, where if you say something like "research says" or "studies show" or "I read somewhere that" that you have to provide a link or at least a title and author reference to your source.
Source?3 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
It's a real tragedy that so many people think scientific knowledge is evil or frightening or makes them feel bad about themselves.
I don't feel it's any of those 3 things If someone asks for a study then yeah post away, but i'd hazard a guess that most folks do not. It's the battle of the science wars that end up derailing threads, when really there was no need to get so indepth in the first place.
You work in the science field @tomteboda , correct? So i can understand if you feel slighted by some peoples disinterest.
Not everyone's eyes are going to glaze over when studies are posted and I don't think it's expecting too much to encourage people to see beyond the garbage that is floated about in the media regarding dieting myths and misinformation. Getting past all the crap is difficult and can be daunting. I'm not saying it's always undertaken in the best manner. There have been some pretty intense discussions that are undertaken.
These forums have lost some amazing members because of ongoing attempts to shut down open communication. When I don't want to read something, I simply don't read it. When people ask a question, the answers are rarely simple. If they were simple, they wouldn't likely need to ask. There have also been situations where people have changed their position based on the information being presented.
Having good quality information, has made a considerable difference for me. Not falling for the BS out there has helped me break through some of the mental blocks that I had about losing. It has helped me break the cycles of guilt, shame, and overeating that haunted me for years. Most of that I learned through lurking and reading.
While the bantering may not be useful for everyone, it is certainly useful for some.10 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
Did someone say blinded by science?
4 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
On the other hand, when I started out that's exactly what I wanted/needed. I don't really know that it's valid to claim that most people want x. I've feel pretty much the exact opposite of everything you've said you feel in this thread. Doesn't make either of us wrong, just different. The beauty of a message board is that when someone asks a question they will get both the simple answer and the complex one. And lots of times you'll get 6 "simple" answers that all contradict each other, which is why I want that 5 page long article with sources.10 -
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
On the other hand, when I started out that's exactly what I wanted/needed. I don't really know that it's valid to claim that most people want x. I've feel pretty much the exact opposite of everything you've said you feel in this thread. Doesn't make either of us wrong, just different. The beauty of a message board is that when someone asks a question they will get both the simple answer and the complex one. And lots of times you'll get 6 "simple" answers that all contradict each other, which is why I want that 5 page long article with sources.
Fair enough
Some people enjoy them, others not so much. There are two sides to the coin, I was mainly replying to the title of this thread. 0 -
Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
Many questions people ask can't adequately be answered by a "simple and concise reply". You've been here long enough that you should know that by now. Sure, there are plenty which could be answered very concisely - with a simple "No" - but that's not helping them understand why the answer is "no" and/or what the correct answer is.
[ETA:] As a perfect example - I just saw a thread asking "What to eat?". The simple and concise reply would be "Anything you want", which is true, but how much is that really answering the OP's question?8 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't feel it's any of those 3 things If someone asks for a study then yeah post away, but i'd hazard a guess that most folks do not. It's the battle of the science wars that end up derailing threads, when really there was no need to get so indepth in the first place.
You work in the science field @tomteboda , correct? So i can understand if you feel slighted by some peoples disinterest.
Slighted? No. But I do find it amusing that some people think they can dictate what other people are or should be interested in. Seriously. Message boards. You like what you're reading, read on. You don't, skip it and move on.
Heaven knows there's a lot of threads my eyes glaze over, both of technical and nontechnical natures. But I can't imagine telling people "your input is unwelcome" unless they're providing harmful or wildly inaccurate information. Even then, I'd rather simply counter them with accurate and helpful information (as I see it) than tell them, effectively "Hey, you should really shut up because nobody cares about what you're saying."
8 -
Dammit, now I have to live with knowing that typo is there and not being able to fix it. 1
-
ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »Dammit, now I have to live with knowing that typo is there and not being able to fix it.
I hate when the edit window closes just before you see your typo, too.
If it wasn't for all of the knowledgeable posters who were here before me, who took the time to post the information and explain the science behind it, I have no doubt I would still be 75 lbs overweight.
I'm a person who *loves* logic and reason, and have always had a very healthy scepticism when it comes to products or methods that claim to have the power to change my life.
But losing weight was an area I was a total newbie in before I first came here.
It amazed (and confused!) me that the second I became mentally open to the fact that I needed to lose weight, all of the ads and all of the tv shows and all of the diet stuff in magazines and Facebook suddenly and simultaneously rushed in to try and fill my information void. It was overwhelming! I knew they had been there all along, but because it wasn't an issue I was interested in before, the screaming headlines on the tabloids and magazines at the checkout held no interest for me before then.
I came to MFP and started reading the forums. Thanks to the great long-time members here, it didn't take long for me to sort out the fact from the fiction. Why? Because the people doing so took the time to explain it and - most importantly for me - backed up what they were saying with science. The more I read, the more I started to understand. The more I understood the easier my weight loss became.
So count me as one of those who is grateful for when opinions are backed with facts. In an industry completely overrun with bogus claims, diets, pills, cleanses, wraps, shakes, etc., knowledge was the key to help me filter out the truth from the bunk.
Just like in most other areas of life. 7 -
Christine_72 wrote: »The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
In addition to my post above, I was one of those lurkers when I first came here. And I'm grateful to the people who took the time to point out the truth and the science even if the OP had either abandoned the thread or, in some cases, rage quit.
At times like that, it was pretty clear to me that the OP had started the particular thread *not* to gain knowledge but merely to seek validation for whatever dieting fallacy they already had their heart set on. And that posts to the contrary were simply not welcome. In essence, what they really wanted was to hear *their*already established opinion in a different voice.
If an OP is unwilling - or just not ready - to learn differently, there's absolutely no reason not to continue the thread for the legions of lurkers who *are* ready, in the hopes that some of them - like me - will take the information generously given and avoid similar pitfalls themselves.
And this former lurker/learner thanks them profusely. 13 -
Christine_72 wrote: »ILiftHeavyAcrylics wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »"jmbmilholland wrote: »
Every time there is a debate and sources are brought out, readers are getting a free 300-level mini-course in "Critical Thinking and Persuasion in the Sciences and Social Sciences", which personally I think is pretty damn awesome. Reading and debating, or just listening to the debate, even if it's just on teh googlez and MFP, is one of the most powerful ways to learn. Look at the interesting, knowledgeable discussion contained in this thread alone.
Of course, if one is being overly obnoxious, on either side of the debate, it's not effective persuasion because poor character (ethos) is being shown. It is DEFINITELY not just the analytical among us who are guilty of being obnoxious (but it seems that the analytical are, indeed, guilty of being the most persuasive).
I don't disagree with this at all, but I do think that a lot of threads outside the debate forum get derailed by the battle of the sources, which tends to wander off into realms that have nothing to do with the original question. I envision the OP slowly backing away, possibly waiving a wooden cross.
I'm sure most posters just expect a simple and concise reply to their questions. Being blinded by scientific studies and 5 page articles explaining the intricacies of human physiology and how this chemical reacts with that chemical is probably a little more than they bargained for or even wanted/needed.
On the other hand, when I started out that's exactly what I wanted/needed. I don't really know that it's valid to claim that most people want x. I've feel pretty much the exact opposite of everything you've said you feel in this thread. Doesn't make either of us wrong, just different. The beauty of a message board is that when someone asks a question they will get both the simple answer and the complex one. And lots of times you'll get 6 "simple" answers that all contradict each other, which is why I want that 5 page long article with sources.
Fair enough Some people enjoy them, others not so much. There are two sides to the coin, I was mainly replying to the title of this thread.
What kinds of questions do you think are asked where studies are not an appropriate response but get posted?
I am thinking of the "what should I eat" or "what can I order at Starbucks" or "how do I make my co-workers stop offering food" ones, which are frustrating enough in their own way, but don't get studies cited.
Then there are the "what if I don't get a chance to eat and eat after 7, am I going to get fat?" type questions. The initial answers won't usually involve studies, but invariably someone jumps in and asserts "never eat after 6" or "you can only lose fat if you fast" or some such, and while people can just say no (and many of us will) usually this is what results in studies or other sources cited. At that point I think it's relevant and will be interesting to some people.5 -
I'm fairly new to message boards and have only lurked around a couple, but from what I've seen elsewhere the MFP community is extremely active when it comes to challenging misguided or dangerous advice. I know I've learned a lot here, and I had always considered myself pretty well educated when it comes to health and nutrition. The biggest take-away for me was recognizing the natural bias I have toward accepting information that agrees with my own personal experience and internal logic, and ignoring anything that doesn't.
I was reading through some posts on another message board a few weeks ago and wandered into a thread where someone had posted "I drink a lot of diet coke and wine. Do I need to switch to water to lose weight?". About 3 or 4 posts down someone responded "Give up the diet coke, it has chemicals that make you fat. Wine's OK, the body can't store the alcohol so it metabolizes it right away." Huh. I expected a rebuttal in the next few posts, but everyone just kept right on going with various bits of advice. That would never happen here.5 -
Christine_72 wrote: »Gianfranco_R wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »not_my_first_rodeo wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I could understand "citing ones sources" if i was a member of an Academic forum full of scientists and teachers.. But I'm not and nor am i am back at school
Sure there are studies that prove and disprove just about everything, but just because a study says such and such is safe does not mean that it is safe for everyone and some people dont experience negative side effects when ingesting said substance, for example.
I much prefer to read about peoples individual experiences and thoughts. Sure, there are some far out and just plain stupid advice and personal accounts posted here, but anyone with a modicum of common sense can pretty easily sift through the BS. We're all adults here, and we must all learn from personal experience as well as our mistakes.
Just because a study says it's so, doesnt make it so for every individual on the planet.
I think the point is that someone saying "I read this thing uh somewhere"and presenting that as scientific evidence is not necessarily valid.
I don't read many posts prefaced with "This scientific journal proves my theory". The majority are borne from peoples personal experiences and what they read on the google machine. Sure if someone says they came to their conclusion from reading a study, then ask where they read it and move on. Don't ridicule them for 10 pages and keep repeating "the onus is on you" blah blah blah
I'm not anyone's Mother on here, and forcing them to prove to me they're not lying or they are making something up, like i used to do with my children comes across a tad obnoxious imo. The pièce de résistance is "I'm calling you out for the lurkers who may be reading this" as if it is their God given moral duty to educate the masses :huh:
To me, those who show such attitude seem more oriented on misinforming the masses.
May be true for some... But for me, i try hard not to dole out advice about things i haven't had personal experience with myself.
I don't need to jump out of an airplane without a parachute to know it's not a good idea. 6 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »I think I just want people to be more curious for themselves. Some results for "I read somewhere:"
- a potato at night time is good
- it's bad for you to cook with [olive oil]
- that popcorn has fibre
- that you should not call them cheat meals
- that it's best to eat fruits in the morning and afternoon
- that long running sessions are really bad for you
- that sugar calories from fruit do not count
- that we eat about a pound of bugs a year
- that if you have a high body fat % it's pointless to do an exercises until you loose some weight
I'd say
- Potatoes are good
- Somewhat true; PUFAs tend to move to transfats under heat. EVOO isn't the best for cooking
- Popcorn is about 10% fiber by weight [USDA]
- Silly
- Fruits are good
- studies show LISS *may* detrimental to CV health compared to HIIT
- Silly
- Wouldn't surprise me at all. That's only 1.25g a day
- Stupid and counterproductive; I'd advise against running because of the joint damage potential
I could source a fair chunk of these, but why bother?0 -
There's also the significance of risk or danger to consider. In a critical thinking class I took, we played around with something like this: A well-conducted peer-reviewed study may conclude that taking "X" medication will double your risk of blood clots, and that's what you'll see in all the popular click-bait articles. Is it true? Sure. What does it mean? Well, a healthy person may have a .002%* risk of blood clots at any given time. Taking this medication will increase that risk to .004%. Should that scare you into not taking the med? You be the judge, but don't make the decision without understanding the context of the risk. A lot of times people throwing studies around (even from legitimate sources) don't really understand how the conclusion would relate to real-life consequences.
*all numbers are made-up bs4 -
snickerscharlie wrote: »I came to MFP and started reading the forums. Thanks to the great long-time members here, it didn't take long for me to sort out the fact from the fiction. Why? Because the people doing so took the time to explain it and - most importantly for me - backed up what they were saying with science. The more I read, the more I started to understand. The more I understood the easier my weight loss became.
So count me as one of those who is grateful for when opinions are backed with facts. In an industry completely overrun with bogus claims, diets, pills, cleanses, wraps, shakes, etc., knowledge was the key to help me filter out the truth from the bunk.
Just like in most other areas of life.
Add me to that. I would not be here (and have not been here long) if I didn't see crap posts jumped on immediately. I know some go away mad, but if what they posted is BS and they don't want to recognize it, then it is their loss, not mine.
Weight loss looks to be, by far the worst subject for BS. Even worse than audiophiles (who spend enormous amounts of money on the stupidest things). So I'm glad there is a low level of tolerance for it here.
4 -
Nice idea, however - it works on the assumption that people (posters and readers) can distinguish a reliable data source and/or interpret scientific findings in the context of both the study limitations, variables etc and the application to which they are attempting to tie it.3
-
cmriverside wrote: »cmriverside wrote: »
If by review, you mean 'uses google to find the first result with a title that confirms their beliefs', then yes
You're my neighbor, aren't you?
Even though this is the "Debate" forum, honestly I think we take all this w a a a a a y too seriously.
ry and anvil, you'll remember HWSNBN and the insane thousands of pages we spent arguing with him over stuff. There were a couple people who made it their life mission to argue with him and that was just as nutty IMO. I mean he was so "out there" that no one (and by no one, I mean I didn't) really believed him after the 1,000th thread and yet it took up day after day, thread after thread.
No. I'm not over it. FWP
Oh Lawd....STAHP! You might conjure him up again by mentioning it!
I'm a little worried since helloitsDan is back. Typing IPOARM may have been the nail in that coffin. I'm sure HWSNBN has his yahoosearch set to alert him.
Just a quick note that I have no affiliation with HWSNBN! We had a falling out when he tried to claim who wrote the last iteration of IPOARM. In fact he caused me some good friendships on this forum. I have no sources for that fact though. 0 -
IPoarm.. Hwsnbn.. ??? What are you guys talking about ?0
-
Christine_72 wrote: »IPoarm.. Hwsnbn.. ??? What are you guys talking about ?
In Place Of A Roadmap.
And
He who shall not be named....kinda like Voldamort only more volatile.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions