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.
Is anything really good for you anymore?
Replies
-
Here's the quick summary on tilapia:
- It's a very lean source of protein = good
- It (especially if cheap) often comes from countries with pretty lax environmental regulations and food regulations/regulation enforcement (so possibly questionable whether or not it was grown in industrial waste water). = bad1 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
There really isn't much meat on a red squirrel (the North American ones). Gray squirrels and even fox squirrels are better for eating. (Really.) See, I can squirrel-shame with the best of them!
Red squirrels are unprotected in New York State. Gray, black, Fox squirrels have seasons and bag limits here. (I believe they all have seasons, limits in PA though).0 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
There really isn't much meat on a red squirrel (the North American ones). Gray squirrels and even fox squirrels are better for eating. (Really.) See, I can squirrel-shame with the best of them!
Red squirrels are unprotected in New York State. Gray, black, Fox squirrels have seasons and bag limits here. (I believe they all have seasons, limits in PA though).
I guess you could make red squirrel soup or something? In my youth, people pretty much dredged them (grays, fox) in flour and pan fried them. (Yes, I ate them - not vegetarian until age 18.). One of my college friends made squirrel cacciatore, which I still find oddly amusing.3 -
Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
There really isn't much meat on a red squirrel (the North American ones). Gray squirrels and even fox squirrels are better for eating. (Really.) See, I can squirrel-shame with the best of them!
My grandfather hunted squirrels. Not sure what type, but my impression is that they only ate the brains. Wasn't enough meat on the bones to be worth skinning, apparently. (And these were folks who ate small frogs and young rabbits, which aren't exactly heavy with meat.) (In more recent years, I've heard of people who eat squirrel brains getting the squirrel version of "mad cow" disease.)
I don't know if this counts as squirrel-shaming.2 -
The real warning for ANY foreign farmed fish is that their feeding practices are questionable. Will it kill you - I doubt it.
Every year there is some food that is being pumped as a "miracle" food and then a couple of years go by and that food is discredited that it is not as good for you as they thought. One year it will save you and the next year it will kill you.
I think the trick is to eat a variety of foods. A lot of people like tilapea for the reason you do.
2 -
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
Nothing wrong with red meat; it's green meat that should be avoided.
Even in a house, with a mouse?
That was eggs.clicketykeys wrote: »The ham was also green, though.
Me too - glad I'm not alone!
Sad side note - I had Green Eggs and Ham" and "Goodnight Moon" memorized for years when my children were little, taking up brain space that could have been put to a lot better use.
On topic - For me, "eat a good variety of food, and not ridiculous amounts of any one thing, and you'll be fine" is the way to go. I honestly don't believe there's anything in our modern food choices that is so toxic it should be avoided in any quantity (except trans-fat, of course). I also don't believe there's much that couldn't eventually cause damage if ingested in stupid quantities on a regular basis. I pretty much ignore the daily blast of "Eat these 5 foods for a long life!" and "Never eat these 5 foods if you want to avoid a heart attack!", unless a credible source comes out with a RED ALERT that something in our food supply's been contaminated with salmonella.4 -
The problem it stinks up the place when fish is reheated in the microwave. Save the leftover fish for meals at home, but don't save it too long3
-
Evelyn_Gorfram wrote: »amusedmonkey wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
Nothing wrong with red meat; it's green meat that should be avoided.
Even in a house, with a mouse?
That was eggs.clicketykeys wrote: »The ham was also green, though.
https://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2012/04/seuss.html2 -
Fun with grammar You get an award for first cite in the debate forum to support a Dr. Seuss opinion!
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10696648/awards-rant/p1
If you'd love reading more along the same lines, borrow this book - Eats, Shoots and Leaves by Lynne Truss. Amusing and informative.4 -
My husbands friends told him the same exact thing about the tilapia,now he avoids it yet eats catfish which is another with a bad reputation but I guess that doesn't bother him,,interesting thread thanks for all the great posts
Haha yes. Talapia eat poop in nature. Elephant poop if they are in the right place at the right time. Catfish eat whatever you put in front of them, like river opossums. I hate talapia but I will eat the kitten out of catfish.
If you need to get past that, remember lettuce and tomatoes eat poop too! 😂 mmmmmmmm fertilizer.8 -
When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.3
-
SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".5 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
Is this the fish version argument of free range chickens???3 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
Yeah, there's the catch-22 where some people say farmed fish has less Omega-3 and eats the wrong food so it's bad for you, but others say an increase in consumption of wild-caught fish is leading to over-fishing and the decimation of some species.
I avoid farmed fish from China, because something I read was scary enough that I remembered I read it, but not scary enough I remembered exactly what was scary. My understanding from various trusted sources (not health-woo pseudoscience all natural sources) say most farmed fish is otherwise fine, with very specific species/areas that you might want to avoid.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
My concern with farm raised is more about the impact the farming process has on wild stocks. Thinking BC salmon specifically. It's an industry I can't support given it's impact.
If they changed the farming methods to not have the impacts (and I think this will happen) then I would be inclined to buy farmed over wild.1 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
Yeah, there's the catch-22 where some people say farmed fish has less Omega-3 and eats the wrong food so it's bad for you, but others say an increase in consumption of wild-caught fish is leading to over-fishing and the decimation of some species.
I avoid farmed fish from China, because something I read was scary enough that I remembered I read it, but not scary enough I remembered exactly what was scary. My understanding from various trusted sources (not health-woo pseudoscience all natural sources) say most farmed fish is otherwise fine, with very specific species/areas that you might want to avoid.
I don't eat fish often enough to care about the extra gram or so of omega 3 (for what it's worth, farmed salmon has more omega 3 than wild caught, if I remember correctly). There is a fish shop nearby that sells all kinds of seafood from trusted sources, so that's where I shop. I refuse to be manipulated into paying more just because something is wild caught, organic, free range, hand picked, or licked by a unicorn. I don't buy these things unless they're on sale.6 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
Yeah, there's the catch-22 where some people say farmed fish has less Omega-3 and eats the wrong food so it's bad for you, but others say an increase in consumption of wild-caught fish is leading to over-fishing and the decimation of some species.
I avoid farmed fish from China, because something I read was scary enough that I remembered I read it, but not scary enough I remembered exactly what was scary. My understanding from various trusted sources (not health-woo pseudoscience all natural sources) say most farmed fish is otherwise fine, with very specific species/areas that you might want to avoid.
I read a similar article about shell-fish from Vietnam - something to do with chemicals in the water, so I knee-jerk avoid buying that without being motivated to do any actual research. I suppose if that was my only choice I would do the work and see if there was really an issue or if it was a scare piece. Other than that I have no real issue with farmed, which tends to be less expensive than wild.0 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »SandyH2015 wrote: »When it comes to seafood avoid "farm raised" You want wild caught instead. Instead of Tilapia if you want a mild fish you might try Alaskan Pollock.
It may be controversial, but I make sure most of the fish I eat is "farm raised".
Yeah, there's the catch-22 where some people say farmed fish has less Omega-3 and eats the wrong food so it's bad for you, but others say an increase in consumption of wild-caught fish is leading to over-fishing and the decimation of some species.
I avoid farmed fish from China, because something I read was scary enough that I remembered I read it, but not scary enough I remembered exactly what was scary. My understanding from various trusted sources (not health-woo pseudoscience all natural sources) say most farmed fish is otherwise fine, with very specific species/areas that you might want to avoid.
likely about heavy metals contamination.2 -
amusedmonkey wrote: »Millicent3015 wrote: »I think the people who've eaten tilapia for countless generations are the best people to speak to about tilapia. It's a fine fish, very popular where I live. Your OH's coworkers are probably paying too much attention to the latest foodshaming fad. Next week it'll be "don't eat any red squirrels! Red meat is bad!" 🙄
Nothing wrong with red meat; it's green meat that should be avoided.
Even in a house, with a mouse?
Nope, not even in a box with a fox.2 -
OP, if everything is bad for, I am certainly not eating the "right" foods, but I really enjoy all the "wrong" ones I eat.
Seriously though, eating a variety of foods is the way to go. With the exception of medical conditions/MD advice, don't force yourself to eat something you don't like and don't cut out foods you do like based on what a random coworker/friend/TV person says.4 -
Pfff I know the struggle.. I did an in-depth research when I started my weightloss journey, consisting of reading articles, looking at a lot of documentaries, from several researchers, et cetera. However, the first items I investigated were all about 'protein is the best', the more, the merrier. Then, I ran into lots of items telling that 'sugar is death'. Thereafter, a bunch of researchers weere debating how 'going vegan' is the best a man can do! There were even some people with other lines of reasoning.. really weird. And now, everybody is all into 'Ketogenic'. At this point I gave up!
My own conclusions are:
- we don't need to eat meat everyday. Not good for ourselves + nature.
- there is nothing wrong with carbohydrates, of course the whole wheat products (and not white bread).
- sugar is on it self not bad, however, we should not eat loads of candy and others.
- eat all the fruits and veggies you want!
- but, most importantly, live!
So yeah, that is basically what I do. I try to stick to my own rules as much as possible, however, in the evening it is my time to snack, something not so healthy usually Hahahahah
8 -
Learning to vet one's sources is an important skill. Otherwise you end up consumed with derp from idiots like Mercola, Dr. Axe, Dr. Oz, dietdoctor, David "Avocado" Wolfe and all the other woo sites. And avoid Netflix "documentaries" at all costs - they're all garbage, hack job propaganda pieces for their respective points of view.6
-
- There isn't anything you could ever think of that is either supported or rebuked somewhere on the interweb. This is because any moron can write a blog post and after 20 plus years of morons banging away at keyboards or spouting into video cameras there's been a lot of moronic things said.
- It's a universal law of office life that you'll be judged on your lunch by your co-workers. This judgement will NEVER be positive. If it's healthy, jealousy will mean they'll find a reason for it not to be. If it's unhealthy you'll hear at length why all those carbz/fatz/nitratez/saltz will kill you.
- Just because a guys "fit" and lives in the gym does not qualify him to know what your fish had for breakfast.
Right I'm now off to write a quick blog post about this before lunch so I can focus on everyone else lunch boxes.11 -
You really shouldn't put *that* much stock into what people are saying is good for you or bad for you nowadays. Nutrition is not a very well understood field, and anyone who says they know definitively that something is absolutely bad or absolutely good for you is *probably* talking out of their *kitten*. The reasoning they use is often pretty shoddy if you just pick it apart a little bit and relies more on a lack of understanding of how the scientific process works, appeal to nature fallacy, and misunderstandings of pathology (I've seen people argue before that factory-farmed meat is bad for you because they don't screen out meat with cancerous tumors in it -- technically there is nothing wrong with eating meat with cancerous tumors in it, cancer isn't contagious, it's an uncontrolled overgrowth of tissue generally caused by problems in cell DNA and you can't "catch" DNA mutations from eating it). Layman science journalism tries to make it sound absolute because it makes for sexy headlines. They do this with a lot of other science news too and it's infuriating.2
-
Honestly 99.9% of what is out there is drivel. Whenever you try to distill something like diet into "good" and "bad" you are going to end up exaggerating and saying things that honestly aren't true. Even the stuff that is in theory "backed by science" typically suffers from the typical science news cycle which was fairly (sadly) accurately depicted by pHD comics.
The honest answer to what foods are "good" and which are "bad" is a rather boring one which is that foods aren't really good or bad inherently...food is just fuel necessary to sustain your body. If you eat to much of it calorically you will gain weight and if you gain too much weight it will put an unnecessary strain on your body. Don't get enough calorically and you can lose muscle mass in a way that can also be detrimental. In theory if you don't get enough nutrients that can also cause damage to your body but actual malnutrition in a developed society is not something that you likely have to be concerned about unless you have a severe eating disorder. The idea that you have to be popping multivitamins to be healthy is an idea pushed by people trying to sell you something or by people who have bought into it. It should be pretty obvious that there is not a food or a supplement that if you injest it you are healthy and if you do not injest it then you are unhealthy.7 -
Is anything good for you anymore?
So if, say, eating fish A causes a .02% increase chance of getting cancer, you'll see headlines of 'Eating fish A causes cancer!!' And if eating fish B causes a .02% lower chance of getting cancer, then it 'prevents cancer.' Except if eating fish B also increases chances of a heart attack by .005%, well...now 'Fish B causes heart attacks!' (I actually saw a study years ago that had an extremely low percentage like this for a medical procedure, and later saw articles about how this procedure would help prevent cancer - it's ridiculous).
Basically, the more we learn about the world, the more we find out that no food, ever, is 100% goodness and light for our bodies. It seems like we just need a few more decades before the media clue in that this has ALWAYS been the case, so we need to figure out what is the best, and what helps the most and does the least harm, you know?Do I just ignore what some people are saying?
And sometimes there are some truly unhealthy things done to the food during that entire journey from farm to your plate. Because con artists, greedy jerks, and thieves who don't care about you OR your health are always going to be part of the landscape.
But at the same time...there is a lot of BS out there, too, even a lot of official sounding BS. So I don't take anything, not studies, government recommendations, or anecdotes, without a big grain of salt. And that goes for positive or negative information.How do you filter out facts about food, from all the other nonsense? Do I have to perform an in depth investigation before I eat anything?
Short answer to the latter question - IMO, yeah, kind of. Or find some sources you trust and go by their recommendations.
This is what I do to filter out facts about food, best I can, with the least amount of work.
1. Is there a claim that X food is the best/worst thing ever? The cause of all cancer, the solution to aging, etc... Then it's likely BS. Because food is more complicated than that, so it's rare that something is all good or all bad.
2. If there is a group or company that regularly checks on food and food safety, I try to keep up to date with what they say, and I will often check claims I hear against what these groups might say. One for me, for example, is called Gluten Free Watchdog and has a lot of information on gluten free products and whether or not they are meeting regulations for BEING gluten free.
3. Is there a claim about food being bad due to farming or processing? Then it might be worth checking out.
I typically google for both bad and good - X food processing is terrible. X food processing is fine. Etc... That way, I usually find out the claim for what is going on that is bad, and then there's usually someone trying to rebut that claim. And then I've got to think about what I've found.
It's a pain and I don't like to do it, honestly. But it can be important. As an example, there that Cheerios, with their new gluten free cereal, was not following industry standard in keeping the cereal gluten free. As a celiac, I was concerned, so I did the 'look up good and bad' thing, and the evidence against Cheerios made more sense than what the company said when they claimed everything was fine. So I didn't eat the cereal, and sure enough, people started getting really sick off of it and Cheerios had to change what they were doing.
I wish I didn't have to do the research, but at this point, we're not getting all food at the local market where you could just talk with a farmer, you know? And unfortunately, we don't always have laws about our food that are as conscientious about our health as we'd like to think they are, so if we want to be healthy and safe, sometimes doing our own research can be important, as crappy as that is.
4. And one last thing I do is to kind of...think of things in context, maybe is a way to put it? It's basically looking at foods and asking myself where this food was originally eaten, and HOW it was originally eaten. And then check that against the claims made for or against it, and see if there is any discrepancy.
As an example, you can find information on how avocado pits are poisonous and you should never eat them. And you can find information about how ground up avocado pits are amazing health food items and you should add tons of this homemade powder to smoothies and all sorts of things.
So I looked around and found that ground up avocado pit has been used for hundreds of years in Mexico as a common ingredient. BUT it is also used like a spice, and only added in small amounts. Which means that, first, it's not poisonous to eat some of this pit, obviously, if it's that commonly eaten. But also, if it is only eaten in small amounts, there is likely a reason...like maybe too much of it can be toxic or have bad effects, maybe. Because historically, if a food is safe to be eaten, people tend to eat a lot of it, because food=good when you try to avoid famine, yeah? :-)
And as an example, nutmeg is like that. Too much nutmeg is actually poisonous enough to kill someone, but we regularly eat a little ground nutmeg with no ill effects.
And I've seen many foods that seem to fall into that category now - foods that are eaten just fine when prepared traditional ways, or eaten in traditional amounts (or in ways that account for current farming/processing practices). And then someone hears of their 'good' properties and decides that if a little is good, then more would be better. Or someone decides they can be eaten in all sorts of ways that ignore traditional food preparation, without finding out why that preparation exists in the first place.
And then there are problems because people are eating too much of the food, or in ways that don't account for certain toxins or negative issues. And that's when someone starts researching about all the problems with this food - because it was making everyone sick now, so it must be bad.
3 -
Is anything good for you anymore?
So if, say, eating fish A causes a .02% increase chance of getting cancer, you'll see headlines of 'Eating fish A causes cancer!!' And if eating fish B causes a .02% lower chance of getting cancer, then it 'prevents cancer.' Except if eating fish B also increases chances of a heart attack by .005%, well...now 'Fish B causes heart attacks!' (I actually saw a study years ago that had an extremely low percentage like this for a medical procedure, and later saw articles about how this procedure would help prevent cancer - it's ridiculous).
Basically, the more we learn about the world, the more we find out that no food, ever, is 100% goodness and light for our bodies. It seems like we just need a few more decades before the media clue in that this has ALWAYS been the case, so we need to figure out what is the best, and what helps the most and does the least harm, you know?Do I just ignore what some people are saying?
And sometimes there are some truly unhealthy things done to the food during that entire journey from farm to your plate. Because con artists, greedy jerks, and thieves who don't care about you OR your health are always going to be part of the landscape.
But at the same time...there is a lot of BS out there, too, even a lot of official sounding BS. So I don't take anything, not studies, government recommendations, or anecdotes, without a big grain of salt. And that goes for positive or negative information.How do you filter out facts about food, from all the other nonsense? Do I have to perform an in depth investigation before I eat anything?
Short answer to the latter question - IMO, yeah, kind of. Or find some sources you trust and go by their recommendations.
This is what I do to filter out facts about food, best I can, with the least amount of work.
1. Is there a claim that X food is the best/worst thing ever? The cause of all cancer, the solution to aging, etc... Then it's likely BS. Because food is more complicated than that, so it's rare that something is all good or all bad.
2. If there is a group or company that regularly checks on food and food safety, I try to keep up to date with what they say, and I will often check claims I hear against what these groups might say. One for me, for example, is called Gluten Free Watchdog and has a lot of information on gluten free products and whether or not they are meeting regulations for BEING gluten free.
3. Is there a claim about food being bad due to farming or processing? Then it might be worth checking out.
I typically google for both bad and good - X food processing is terrible. X food processing is fine. Etc... That way, I usually find out the claim for what is going on that is bad, and then there's usually someone trying to rebut that claim. And then I've got to think about what I've found.
It's a pain and I don't like to do it, honestly. But it can be important. As an example, there that Cheerios, with their new gluten free cereal, was not following industry standard in keeping the cereal gluten free. As a celiac, I was concerned, so I did the 'look up good and bad' thing, and the evidence against Cheerios made more sense than what the company said when they claimed everything was fine. So I didn't eat the cereal, and sure enough, people started getting really sick off of it and Cheerios had to change what they were doing.
I wish I didn't have to do the research, but at this point, we're not getting all food at the local market where you could just talk with a farmer, you know? And unfortunately, we don't always have laws about our food that are as conscientious about our health as we'd like to think they are, so if we want to be healthy and safe, sometimes doing our own research can be important, as crappy as that is.
4. And one last thing I do is to kind of...think of things in context, maybe is a way to put it? It's basically looking at foods and asking myself where this food was originally eaten, and HOW it was originally eaten. And then check that against the claims made for or against it, and see if there is any discrepancy.
As an example, you can find information on how avocado pits are poisonous and you should never eat them. And you can find information about how ground up avocado pits are amazing health food items and you should add tons of this homemade powder to smoothies and all sorts of things.
So I looked around and found that ground up avocado pit has been used for hundreds of years in Mexico as a common ingredient. BUT it is also used like a spice, and only added in small amounts. Which means that, first, it's not poisonous to eat some of this pit, obviously, if it's that commonly eaten. But also, if it is only eaten in small amounts, there is likely a reason...like maybe too much of it can be toxic or have bad effects, maybe. Because historically, if a food is safe to be eaten, people tend to eat a lot of it, because food=good when you try to avoid famine, yeah? :-)
And as an example, nutmeg is like that. Too much nutmeg is actually poisonous enough to kill someone, but we regularly eat a little ground nutmeg with no ill effects.
And I've seen many foods that seem to fall into that category now - foods that are eaten just fine when prepared traditional ways, or eaten in traditional amounts (or in ways that account for current farming/processing practices). And then someone hears of their 'good' properties and decides that if a little is good, then more would be better. Or someone decides they can be eaten in all sorts of ways that ignore traditional food preparation, without finding out why that preparation exists in the first place.
And then there are problems because people are eating too much of the food, or in ways that don't account for certain toxins or negative issues. And that's when someone starts researching about all the problems with this food - because it was making everyone sick now, so it must be bad.
As far as the comments towards science go refer to the comic I posted. I very much agree the media oversimplifies and sensationalized studies. I agree that the public perception of science and scientists is colored by this. I disagree however that actual scientific study publications are sensationalized though....if you read the actual studies they tend to be very measured and understated in their conclusions are rarely if ever make broad inferences.
I think journalistic media outlets like Scientific American are sometimes misconstrued as being scientific publications which doesn't help. I doubt the general public ever reads actual science publications because they tend to be rather dense and difficult to understand if you aren't familiar with the field.5 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I disagree however that actual scientific study publications are sensationalized though....if you read the actual studies they tend to be very measured and understated in their conclusions are rarely if ever make broad inferences.
Thanks for mentioning this. I would say that is what I have seen as well, that the studies themselves are less likely to make the typical sweeping generalizations that are all or nothing. Although I have seen a few scientists discuss the studies using more sweeping statements during interviews. Not the majority, certainly, but some, definitely.
0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »I disagree however that actual scientific study publications are sensationalized though....if you read the actual studies they tend to be very measured and understated in their conclusions are rarely if ever make broad inferences.
Thanks for mentioning this. I would say that is what I have seen as well, that the studies themselves are less likely to make the typical sweeping generalizations that are all or nothing. Although I have seen a few scientists discuss the studies using more sweeping statements during interviews. Not the majority, certainly, but some, definitely.
I note this is nearly all disciplines. There is an incredible amount of data available and lack of understanding on how to apply this information, so we are left with a tremendous number of people in positions of influence who simply do not know how to think. Journalists are at the forefront of this and acting as the canaries in the proverbial coalmine. The demand for interpretation has exceeded ability.3 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »...I disagree however that actual scientific study publications are sensationalized though....if you read the actual studies they tend to be very measured and understated in their conclusions are rarely if ever make broad inferences...
Agreed. I'm immediately skeptical if I hear/read somebody preaching "x = bad" or "x = good" without some kind of context. Things are rarely that black and white in real life.5
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
- 424 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