How critcal of a thinker are you????

RunsOnEspresso

I always think of the egg when I hear new "studies". The poor egg has been through a lot.

It seems every few years there is a new "bad" or "super" food. And what is bad for you one day, is good the next or vice versa.

You just have to take everything with a grain of salt and/or do your own research.

SafioraLinnea

I basically ignore anything unless I personally read peer-reviewed studies in acceptable professional journals on the topic at hand. Also, I pay close attention to wording because 'improves' 'decreases' 'satisfies' etc doesn't really mean anything. How much improvement was there? Give me numbers that can be reproduced, give me a solid study with accurate and reliable results. If it isn't possible for me to reproduce the study, then it isn't a solid study.

sarahharmintx

If its something that people have eaten for 100s of years, I tend to think that in moderation, its ok. Eating 2 slices of pizza a week wont kill you but its not going to be my only source of calories. Anything with buzz words like "extract" or "cleanse" or even "organic" tends to make me wonder. I mean, dirt is natural and organic but I dont really want to eat it.

BrianSharpe

Science is crap, they keep changing their mind.

Changing conclusions based on new observations is the very nature of science and is what makes it superior to pseudo-science inasmuch as "true believers" can not be swayed no matter what the evidence is and are dogmatic despite nothing but anecdotal evidence supporting conclusions.

Mom2QJandT

Just a thought......the plural of anecdote is not data.

I love this so, so, so much. I can't even express how much I love that statement.

michelleindeed

I just don't watch television.

namluv

To me, no food is bad for you, as long as eaten in moderation, just some foods have higher scores on some things then others. Balance your diet and go from there is the way I look at it. If you eat some "bad" food one day, work that little bit harder/longer in the gym next time or have a lower calorie/sodium etc day the next day.

^^^^^ THAT^^^^^

disasterman

I have pretty good intuition when it comes to foods. I might research something specifically, but for the most part, relying on prior knowledge of other foods when it comes to a particular item will help me with a general idea of whether or not I should eat said item. I pay attention to studies of food, but take them all with a grain of salt since things like eggs are healthy/unhealthy depending on the day.

I try taking everything with a grain of salt too but it puts me over on my daily sodium goal.

ravengirl1611

If it's not largely made of trans/hydrogenated fats then I don't really care. IIFYM and all that. According to the Daily Mail everything in my diet both causes and cures cancer anyway, so I've either got ten minutes to live or am immune from death depending on what day it is.

exactly!!!

lachesissss

I do a lot of research. Especially with celebrity or talk show host endorsement. There is always a bottom line that has nothing to do with making you a more healthful person, and that's money. Especially with Dr. Oz. He sold out in a grand fashion and the fact that anybody would take his medical advice seriously without doing research about it suggests an inability to think critically and objectively.

bcattoes

Give me numbers that can be reproduced, give me a solid study with accurate and reliable results. If it isn't possible for me to reproduce the study, then it isn't a solid study.

That's not necessarily true. Repeating a study and getting conflicting results does make the initial study 'not solid'. It could mean that the conclusions drawn on the first were inaccurate. Or it could be a difference or problem with the second study. Or it could simply mean that further study is needed to determine which result is the most accurate.

This is precisely why studies are repeated and why many studies are needed before recommendations for diet changes should be made. This type of back and forth in research is common.

head_in_rainbows

I skip everything that tells me that I will loose 5 kg a week if I eat this or that or get a 6 pack in 2 weeks if I repeat this one easy and sweatfree exercise for 15 minutes a day next week ...

Generally if something has not been eaten by someones ancestors somewhere 100 years ago I am weary of that ... sure, I do eat non-clean or non-organic food too ... I'm not a milionaire and I also refuse to spend 60% of my income on food. Balanced and close to nature food is what I am at. I think I do eat "clean" most of the time ... tbh I never heard of this term before coming here I tried to eat what I considered healthy with common logic and it apears to me that I have eaten clean most of teh time. I think it is also a common sense that home made vegetable stew and lean meat are going to be better than tv diners. No research needed really. I don't really trust all the 0% fat mayos and diet chocolate cakes ... if I eat mayo or chocolate cakes than it is really once in a while and than I want it to be full fat heart-attack giving food porn brilaintly fattening in it's whole awsomness. Same with pizza and lasagna or spaghetti carbonara.

And all teh super foods? I accept that antioxidants are imporant and I liek berries and broccoli and spinach (insert whatever you wnat here) and I'll be glad to eat it. Will it make me look like Alessandra Ambrosio but with Jessica Ennis abs? Nope.

So basicly I think it is a matter of common sense combined with what tastes good:)

Spatialized

Science is crap, they keep changing their mind. Eggs are good...eggs are bad...eggs are good...eggs are bad.

Dr. Oz is a highly endorsed quack...I don't listen to anything he says.

My ideal is, eat well, play hard, live long. We all have to go sometime, so enjoy every moment you possibly can.

This! Especially the quack part...

Taking "scientific advice" from a talking TV head is just about the worst thing you can do. Think for yourself people, question the status quo, do due diligience when it comes to what you're putting in your body. I do this, but evidently I tend to ignore my own advice sometimes!

FredDoyle

Science is crap, they keep changing their mind.

Changing conclusions based on new observations is the very nature of science and is what makes it superior to pseudo-science inasmuch as "true believers" can not be swayed no matter what the evidence is and are dogmatic despite nothing but anecdotal evidence supporting conclusions.

Very well said.

vickykl29

i do a little research when i hear something bad..But don't forget all in moderation!!!

JasonDetwiler

In regards to exercise and nutrition? We all hear 'buzz words". We hear that "Dr. Oz says don't eat (insert trendy "bad" food here). So..when you hear that a food is bad for you, how much investigation do you do, if any. When you do research(if you do), what resources to you go to?

If Dr. Oz says don't eat it, I eat a lot of it.

reasnableblonde

Dr. Oz, like Dr. Phil, does more harm than good. I research for a living, and I'm one of those people who's naturally critical anyway, so I don't really listen to talk shows, etc.

Science isn't the problem... a desperation for quick-fixes, greed, and a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method are the problem.

VorJoshigan

Very critical. I am highly skeptical of all sweeping claims and attempts to draw broad conclusions from weak and possibly meaningless correlations. I try to operate from a N=1 (i.e. the number of individuals in my personal experiment is one) standpoint.

Different people can and do have vastly different responses to different kinds of nutrients.