Study: High-Fat Diet May Make You Stupid & Lazy

DrG3n3

If you can, here is the actual article:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/23/12/4353.full.pdf+html?sid=02a09d58-e9d8-4530-b07d-e81dade6e69a

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Gigi_licious

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Oh...so they were talking about a high CARB high fat diet. Yes, yes, must have been the fat. Carbs have zero negative affect on the HUMAN body. Riiiiight.

sunkisses

I think it depends on what fats you or they are talking about !

I did not do a study. "They" are referring to a diet such as french fries, pizza, etc. as mentioned in the article.

Oh...so they were talking about a high CARB high fat diet. Yes, yes, must have been the fat. Carbs have zero negative affect on the HUMAN body. Riiiiight.

TOTALLY!

sunkisses

If you can, here is the actual article:

http://www.fasebj.org/content/23/12/4353.full.pdf+html?sid=02a09d58-e9d8-4530-b07d-e81dade6e69a

Oh *kitten* that site has a big pop up ad! I hope that other guy doesn't click on it! LOL Thank you for the link. I wonder how much the livescience article missed in its presentation.

HMonsterX

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

LorinaLynn

A new study on rats

Stopped reading right there.

You are not a rat.

I stopped reading right there because I'm too stupid and lazy to continue. :embarassed:

DrG3n3

I have to say, if you are so against people 'not contributing to a discussion' as you say it, you are merely fueling the fire. Let them say what they want, read it, ignore it, and move on. They are merely stating a fact that should be considered in any discussion of the article. At this point, I almost don't want to discuss anymore because I have to read so much bickering.

Tiggerrick

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

HMonsterX

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

Who's being obtuse? I'm being honest! It was conducted on rats, the results were observed on rats, therefore, it's about rats. I'll take notice when it's done on humans. THOSE results would be interesting.

DrG3n3

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Kudos for sharing this! Definitely need more people in the study, and women as well, possibly younger adults, but it does offer up something to think about.

sunkisses

I have to say, if you are so against people 'not contributing to a discussion' as you say it, you are merely fueling the fire. Let them say what they want, read it, ignore it, and move on. They are merely stating a fact that should be considered in any discussion of the article. At this point, I almost don't want to discuss anymore because I have to read so much bickering.

Go back and re-read the progression of the thread, if this interests you so greatly.

Here's the Cliffsnotes version:

- I post the article without any bias in one direction or the other to allow for varying viewpoints, despite the fact that I disagree with this article. I ask that people just read at least half of the article before commenting.

- The first comment is from someone who openly admits to not reading the article and tells me I'm not a rat.

- The following couple of comments also indicate that they have not bothered to read, yet - they can't bear to NOT comment, despite not having the full story.

Pretty sure this thread was fck'd from the start. I'm all for adding fuel to fires. I never said I don't like arguing. I LOVE arguing, but only when there's sufficient material. And unfortunately, there was nothing to argue - I AGREE WITH YOU.

sunkisses

Why should anyone read beyond the word rat?

Uhhh... because in order to have a discussion about the article - you should read it. But you're not interested in having a discussion about the article. You're interested in derailing a discussion you have nothing to contribute to.

But there isn't a point in discussing it if it has nothing to do with humans. Did I miss something here? Why would anyone that is interested in losing weight or have good health and fitness read an article about a rat?

Ding-ding-ding ! Another genius. THEN DON'T COMMENT! What?! Other people can have a discussion without you telling everyone why you're not going to have the discussion! AMAZING! I wonder if it'll ever catch on!!

So just because we don't agree with it, we aren't supposed to comment? Isn't that part of a discussion? Having opposing viewpoints?

I got a bit suspicious when i got to "may". Correlation/causality implications.

Then it got to rats, and my suspicions grew. I then read the article, just to confirm my suspicions, and they were proved right


If you post something like that, you have to expect both positive and negative replies. That's what happens here.

You're arguing something different here. I disagree with the article myself. This isn't about agreeing or disagreeing. It's about stating WHY you agree or disagree with the article instead of making a comment that detracts from a discussion which, in this case, hadn't even begun yet.

Ok. I disagree because it conducted on rats. Not humans.

Had this been humans, it would have been discussion-worthy.

Sure, we can discuss why this is bad for the rat populace, and why rats should watch their intake. Since that is what the article is about.

Or we can be willfully obtuse.

Who's being obtuse? I'm being honest! It was conducted on rats, the results were observed on rats, therefore, it's about rats. I'll take notice when it's done on humans. THOSE results would be interesting.

Your generalizations about what can be discussed with regard to the article are obtuse. For you, the article is narrowed down to just being about rats and how that affects rats. However, there are other things to discuss.

sunkisses

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Amazing! A rat study prompting humans to possibly do similar tests on themselves! Crazy! I wonder if that was their intent?

PB67

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Better, but still problematic. Not only is the sample size small, the trial only lasted 7 days.
It has already been well-established that the adaptation to a ketogenic diet takes longer than 7 days, and up to 3-4 weeks, so I fail to see how this study brings anything new to the table.

PB67

Amazing! A rat study prompting humans to possibly do similar tests on themselves! Crazy! I wonder if that was their intent?

The intent of the researchers? Probably.

The intent of the alarmist hack that wrote the article? Doubtful.

Jorra

I discount drawing conclusions from rat studies for the same reason you don't test medications on rats and then immediately approve them without further human trials.

OK, so lets see what this lead to : http://www.fasebj.org/content/25/3/1088.abstract?sid=f2fbbb89-750e-4540-b894-b26286b64c12

OH, look at that, a human study that shows similar results. Granted, the study group was rather small, so perhaps a little more testing is necessary, but it sure seems that the original study on rats that held some correlation between fatty meals and memory/physical performance may have some validity when applied to humans.

Better, but still problematic. Not only is the sample size small, the trial only lasted 7 days.
It has already been well-established that the adaptation to a ketogenic diet takes longer than 7 days, and up to 3-4 weeks, so I fail to see how this study brings anything new to the table.

Yea, the purpose of this study was to see the short-term effects. However, sensationalizing these short term effects may prevent people from starting a diet they could adapt to and gain benefit from.

OP: we're having a discussion now, your further complaining about the original comments are the only thing derailing us now.

hamncheese67

Did you know that if you lodge a grape down a rat's throat, it could choke and die? So it's possible that grapes can be harmful.

Rilke

Did you know that if you lodge a grape down a rat's throat, it could choke and die? So it's possible that grapes can be harmful.

Hahaha!