ExRx.net

Exercise Prescription on the Net
It is currently Thu Apr 24, 2014 7:12 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 12:47 pm 
Offline
moderator
moderator
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:11 am
Posts: 7490
Location: Kudjip, Papua New Guinea
Sheesh! Wouldn't it be enough to figure that y'all disagree and end this thread? It's getting well beyond the ridiculous. If it didn't involve a moderator, the moderators would have locked this down long ago.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 1:04 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Heh sorry :) at first I wasn't certain what position Ironman was even advocating, though I think it's all clear at this point...

For what it's worth regarding my earlier comment about an aspartame-free ON Whey, I'll be switching back. The "Natural" one has stevia in it which I think has a weird aftertaste or something. It kinda makes me nauseous sometimes. At least I'm guessing it's the stevia. Thought I might get used to it, but not so, after a couple weeks. :-/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 4:26 pm 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 11:21 pm
Posts: 921
Location: Ohio, USA
Ya I'm really sorry I brought this up now...I was really more concerned with the yogurt itself more than the sweetener...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 3:18 am 
Offline
Deific Wizard of Sagacity
Deific Wizard of Sagacity

Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 5:49 am
Posts: 3474
Good info on sweetners and all the hype here

http://www.precisionnutrition.com/battle-of-sweeteners

One interesting part is when he indicates that caffeine has been shown to be much more lethal. And, when he shows the dose of sweetner that caused harm in rats translated to around 15,000 to 30,000 sweetners per day for humans. Been a while since i've read it but i'm sure that's what it says.

It made me think of that woman (i think in California?) that died doing a water drinking contest, then everyone started saying "noooo... don't drink TOO MUCH water.... It'll kill you!".

Anyway, PN always offers quite an objective opinion so I thought the link could be usefull.

KPj


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 12:42 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
jeffrerr wrote:
Ironman wrote:
Then with Jeffrerr's reply, that brings up a whole other thing.


About me or about him Ironman? I've felt thy wrath before and need not fell it again! lol

John


Eh? I was saying you brought up the point about him compartmentalizing. I hadn't thought about that. It was very interesting.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 12:48 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
It cracks me up that Ironman continues with the ad hominem attacks, accusations of cognitive dissonance, and emotional rhetoric, but still hasn't actually pointed to any documentation whatsoever to debunk the concerns raised by the Scientific American article.

jeffrerr wrote:
Frogbyte do you use paracetamol or aspirin? Do you consume Caffiene? Do you consume seedless grapes or seedless watermelon? How about Taurine, do you drink Red Bull?


No actually I don't consume any of those regularly unless taurine is in one of my protein supplements. I'd point out that caffeine and is not all that new, however, as people have been consuming that for 1000s of years. Also, there are in some cases strong benefits to aspirin, which is why it's different from these artificial sweeteners.

Back to the original question of whether to dump artificial sweetener into yogurt, I think the consensus is that the existing studies are not sufficient and more research would be needed for a definitive answer.

The disagreement seems to be on whether the prudent thing would be to not add the artificial sweeteners to the yogurt when there's no benefit to them. I would advise against dumping artificial sweeteners on everything, since there's no upside, and potentially a slight downside. (Unless you really strongly value the upside of "sugary taste", in which case, shrug, you have different priorities than me, and more power to you.)



Nope that is no longer the point. The point is now the fact that consensus is not what you think it is, but you still think you are right after having a mountain of evidence dropped on you. There has been too much for it to be selective reading. It has to be mental filtering and it's actually quite fascinating.

What it says about issues of indoctrination and the natural selection and survival of memes are very telling.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 12:54 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
Heh sorry :) at first I wasn't certain what position Ironman was even advocating, though I think it's all clear at this point...

For what it's worth regarding my earlier comment about an aspartame-free ON Whey, I'll be switching back. The "Natural" one has stevia in it which I think has a weird aftertaste or something. It kinda makes me nauseous sometimes. At least I'm guessing it's the stevia. Thought I might get used to it, but not so, after a couple weeks. :-/


Yes you are guessing, much like the scientists did with the rats. By your scientific guidelines you have "proved" that stevia causes a bitter taste and nausea in some people. You should publish it and get your Nobel prize!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 1:09 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Jungledoc wrote:
Sheesh! Wouldn't it be enough to figure that y'all disagree and end this thread? It's getting well beyond the ridiculous. If it didn't involve a moderator, the moderators would have locked this down long ago.


It's not quite that simple. Depending on your interests you might want to look at these posts again. It's not the usual "yes it is" "no it isn't". It is a belief system mentally filtering mountains of evidence. About both sweeteners and proper scientific process. It shows cognitive dissonance in action. A very clear and very extreme example. Have you read "The Selfish Gene" or other book by Richard Dawkins? It also shows how well memes survive. Memes are like mental versions of genes, if you don't know. But it if you don't know about that sort of thing it's probably not interesting at all.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 2:09 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
Well, apologies in advance to Jungledoc :) ... but since you attacked me personally again I feel it only fair to respond...

Ironman wrote:
Yes you are guessing, much like the scientists did with the rats. By your scientific guidelines you have "proved" that stevia causes a bitter taste and nausea in some people. You should publish it and get your Nobel prize!


When did I ever say the Sci Am article "proved" anything? I said it raised valid and compelling concerns. And FYI, you still haven't posted any evidence (let alone mountains) disputing the concerns raised by the Sci Am article.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 4:18 am 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
Well, apologies in advance to Jungledoc :) ... but since you attacked me personally again I feel it only fair to respond...

Ironman wrote:
Yes you are guessing, much like the scientists did with the rats. By your scientific guidelines you have "proved" that stevia causes a bitter taste and nausea in some people. You should publish it and get your Nobel prize!


When did I ever say the Sci Am article "proved" anything? I said it raised valid and compelling concerns. And FYI, you still haven't posted any evidence (let alone mountains) disputing the concerns raised by the Sci Am article.


1 you said it many times
2 what's the difference? Don't split hairs.
3 I posted evidence. I also posted stuff about the scientific process and why you don't need evidence disputing a claim. It is up to the claimant to prove their claim. It's a crap study, they didn't isolate the variables as I said over and over and over again.

Your whole argument uses a logical fallacy called "observational selection". You simply ignore everything that disagrees with you. Then focus in on a bogus sensationalist junk experiment.

You can't have several possible causes for your result and then be sure it's the one you think it is, that's absolutely ridiculous. Learn the difference between sensationalism and science.

We can't disprove the existence of unicorns, fairies, the Loch Ness monster, Zeus, Apollo, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or the celestial teapot. But we have no reason to think they are real. There are many many ridiculous junk science claims on web sites and tabloids. There is no need to do their experiments to see if they work or not, until they prove they do. That's how it works. They prove it and then it is reviewed. IF IT IS CRAP, IT DOES NOT GET REVIEWED. If they are on to something they can do it right.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 11:58 am 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
It's my opinion that there's enough evidence (preliminary and small though it may be) to warrant caution in gratuitously adding extra artificial sweeteners to food. It's your opinion that there's not, so be it. I would agree with you if Scientific American was a tabloid or some sort of communist-fearing conspiracy theorist.

I don't plan to continue back and forth on that point, so I'd like to conclude by saying that I first became aware of this theory during the physical act of love. A profound sense of emptiness and fatigue followed. Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Ironman, but I do deny them my essence.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 1:13 pm 
Offline
Junior Member
Junior Member
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 12:44 pm
Posts: 226
frogbyte wrote:
I don't plan to continue back and forth on that point, so I'd like to conclude by saying that I first became aware of this theory during the physical act of love. A profound sense of emptiness and fatigue followed. Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Ironman, but I do deny them my essence.


I dont know if hes trying to be funny, but that got me laughing pretty hard.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:02 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
frogbyte wrote:
It's my opinion that there's enough evidence (preliminary and small though it may be) to warrant caution in gratuitously adding extra artificial sweeteners to food. It's your opinion that there's not, so be it. I would agree with you if Scientific American was a tabloid or some sort of communist-fearing conspiracy theorist.

I don't plan to continue back and forth on that point, so I'd like to conclude by saying that I first became aware of this theory during the physical act of love. A profound sense of emptiness and fatigue followed. Women sense my power, and they seek the life essence. I do not avoid women, Ironman, but I do deny them my essence.


Scientific American just post that sensationalist crap so idiots will look at their advertisements. Your appeal to authority is another logical fallacy. Anyone who is currently doing research on sweeteners is very suspect. Just because it has been studied for years and it is the biggest urban legend magnet in existence. I view it with the same suspicion as someone who claims to have psychic powers. As for the rest of it, it's a little funny. It would be a lot funnier if it had more to do with the topic. Something with a little irony maybe.

But really I just wanted to see if you would continue to argue against the established scientific method.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:12 pm 
Offline
Advanced Member
Advanced Member

Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2007 3:46 pm
Posts: 1455
For those that missed it, the latter paragraph was an allusion to Dr. Strangelove, which is, actually, extremely relevant in its own way, and a must-watch for anyone. Knowing it would up the funniness considerably.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:57 pm 
Offline
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 06, 2006 11:40 am
Posts: 3967
Oh, I see. I hadn't seen the movie. It does sound very good though. I like dark satire. After reading a description, your joke is actually quite funny and topical.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 45 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3


All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 4 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group