How critcal of a thinker are you????
Replies
-
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.0 -
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:)0 -
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!0 -
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.0 -
i do a little research when i hear something bad..But don't forget all in moderation!!!0
-
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.0 -
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.0 -
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.0 -
This content has been removed.
-
This content has been removed.
-
how hard to you think you would need to throw a white bagel at someone to kill them?
do you think you would need to toast it first?
interesting.....0 -
Science is crap, they keep changing their mind.
That's the WHOLE POINT OF SCIENCE, testing the conditions under which a theory should apply.
Frequently it's the interpretation of outcomes of science that are picked up by the media / popular culture and run with.
Genuine scientific endeavour underpins so much of what we consider base reality that very, very few people even understand that there was / is science involved. Why does your car go? Science. Why do computers work? Science. Why do you follow a diet? Science.
that's the wonderful thing about science, it's self-testing and SELF-CORRECTING, unlike other unfortunate habits of humanity.0 -
there is no such thing as 'bad' food, just people who eat badly.0
-
I pretty much ignore it all. Until CNN reports a death by white bagel, I'm gonna eat it.
Even then I would question CNN's sources! :laugh:
That is probably a good strategy when dealing with CNN...0 -
I do try to follow links to reports, or ask for sources when none are given.Science is crap, they keep changing their mind. Eggs are good...eggs are bad...eggs are good...eggs are bad.
Far too often you find the 'eggs are good, eggs are bad' people are the one making a mountain out of a mole-hill study,
A lot of study's often don't draw conclusions entirely in line with reason considering their sample size etc - but at least when reading it we can understand this and better, understand how likely it is to refer to us.0 -
Science is crap, they keep changing their mind.
That's the WHOLE POINT OF SCIENCE, testing the conditions under which a theory should apply.
Frequently it's the interpretation of outcomes of science that are picked up by the media / popular culture and run with.
Genuine scientific endeavour underpins so much of what we consider base reality that very, very few people even understand that there was / is science involved. Why does your car go? Science. Why do computers work? Science. Why do you follow a diet? Science.
that's the wonderful thing about science, it's self-testing and SELF-CORRECTING, unlike other unfortunate habits of humanity.
:drinker: I agree. We mock what we don't understand...0 -
Science isn't the problem... a desperation for quick-fixes, greed, and a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific method are the problem.
^ this.
i'm always immediately skeptical of study conclusions drawn solely from statistics, at least when it comes to human diet/health/nutrition.
correlation does not equal causation.0 -
Who funded the study also plays a role in how much I accept the hype. For instance if a company that makes x funds a study into the benefits of x and finds they are all negative, then the study will never see the light of day. However on the other hand the slightest positive benefit will be over hyped by their PR machine.
Independent studies are more reliable, e.g.from consumer advocate groups etc.0 -
Sufficiently that even when I read a published article I can analyze the conclusions from the reported data and determine is the endpoints are relevant or not to a specific claim. There are good and there are bad peer reviewed articles.
If a study is looking at a specific molecular mechanism I'll be likelier to consider the conclusions as relevant and valid versus a demographic study with a posited mechanism for x or y diet or weight loss method.
Everything I know can be questioned.
Studies from consumer advocate groups with respect to science are next to useless.
Edit: Nothing from television has any value without reading up on it. In fact I watch almost no television for informational content.0 -
I have heard a lot of those scientific researches in TV and even did my own researches. And I have came to conclusion that there is no food what is indeed bad for you... in moderation.
What research did you find that said man made trans fat is not harmful?
I'd ask anyone to define harmful before they proceeded there...
Has been shown to have a negative impact on health.
too much of any food will have a negative impact on health. Also, at what perceptable level can we truly say something is having a NEGATIVE impact? Do we account for age/genetics? For example, seems that "gluten free" is a trend right now..yet the ONLY people for whom gluten had a discernable "negative" impact is people with sensitivity to gluten or celiac disease. The rest of us can eat gluten with no problems. Also...there are some foods that will have a VERY negative impact on infants/babies/toddlers (as in babies cannot process adult foods, and honey can cause botulism in small children). Yet those foods are fine for older children and adults.
I personally think it's wise to be wary of generalizations. And even wiser to seek out legitimate, scientific sources that are peer reviewed before you take nutrition information to heart.
Geez Louise! EVERYTHING health related is individual. On the internet generalization are all that make sense.0 -
I pretty much eat everything except for soy and hydrogenated oils.....0
-
I eat what I want. It's kind of like babies... When I was a baby, parents were supposed to put us to sleep on our stomachs so we didn't drown in our own vomit. Now, we're supposed to put them to sleep on their backs to avoid SIDS. Both are/were supported by the current research.0
-
I tend to approach food with three steps:
1) Does it occur in nature, in some form? If no, then;
2) Does it have *any* nutritional value or, conversely, known poisons?
3) If you have to get to #3... it's probably fine, provided you don't have 300 servings of the stuff.
I think it's very easy these days to get a bit pathological about trace elements and trashy-mag-nutritional facts. People aren't stupid, you know when you're eating super-processed food that it's probably not great for you but is unlikely to make you drop dead on the spot
0 -
Sufficiently that even when I read a published article I can analyze the conclusions from the reported data and determine is the endpoints are relevant or not to a specific claim. There are good and there are bad peer reviewed articles.
If a study is looking at a specific molecular mechanism I'll be likelier to consider the conclusions as relevant and valid versus a demographic study with a posited mechanism for x or y diet or weight loss method.
Everything I know can be questioned.
Studies from consumer advocate groups with respect to science are next to useless.
Edit: Nothing from television has any value without reading up on it. In fact I watch almost no television for informational content.
The original question/post did not ask about scientific studies:
Maybe where you are from you do not have excellent groups such as Choice, here in Australia.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?0 -
Very critical. If there isn't a randomized controlled trial (or at least a very large study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal) I am skeptical.0
-
I'm currently studying nutrition to get certified. I hear things like that and just go to my books.0
-
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.
^^^^Agreed!!^^^^0 -
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.
That^^^^0 -
whatever fox news tells me to eat i eat.0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 426 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions