d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Science, Technology & Nature > Ketogenic Diet > Scientific Discussion And Blog
Prev1252627282932Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Member
Posts: 2,652
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Dec 27 2018 03:09am
Quote (mustbebetween3and32characters @ Dec 27 2018 06:40am)
There’s a great deal more money to be made pushing the current government recommendations


Yes, i'm just pointing out that these counter-culture recommendations are usually portrayed as altruistic, telling us how mainstream medicine is corrupt and hides things from you and is controlled by money, while not being very high-profile about how these guys make money themselves by selling sort of alternative, non-mainstream medicine.

There are other reasons behind why govt recommendations are what they are. You're suggesting a conspiracy involving the majority of health scientists, nutritionists and medical doctors across the world, not just the US. Lobbyists may affect what kind of research gets funded, but the evidence behind official recommendations is long-standing and replicated. The system is more or less transparent, anyone with integrity and the ability to assess the reliability of research papers can dig this info out himself/herself. It's just very daunting to do, so govt officials and medical/nutritional professionals are doing the job for you.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Dec 27 2018 03:10am
Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Dec 27 2018 07:13am
Quote (Neptunus @ Dec 27 2018 05:09am)
Yes, i'm just pointing out that these counter-culture recommendations are usually portrayed as altruistic, telling us how mainstream medicine is corrupt and hides things from you and is controlled by money, while not being very high-profile about how these guys make money themselves by selling sort of alternative, non-mainstream medicine.

There are other reasons behind why govt recommendations are what they are. You're suggesting a conspiracy involving the majority of health scientists, nutritionists and medical doctors across the world, not just the US. Lobbyists may affect what kind of research gets funded, but the evidence behind official recommendations is long-standing and replicated. The system is more or less transparent, anyone with integrity and the ability to assess the reliability of research papers can dig this info out himself/herself. It's just very daunting to do, so govt officials and medical/nutritional professionals are doing the job for you.


Dont be stupid. The FDA is wildly corrupt and incompetent. The government cant even fill potholes properly.
Member
Posts: 2,652
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Dec 28 2018 03:24am
Quote (EndlessSky @ Dec 27 2018 03:13pm)
Dont be stupid. The FDA is wildly corrupt and incompetent. The government cant even fill potholes properly.


Say what you want about the FDA, but chances for every other health official across the countries of the developed world being equally corrupt is low enough to require mental gymnastics at the level of global conspiracies. The science the FDA uses is out there for every governmental health official to see, and few people in Europe think of the FDA to be as corrupt as you imply.

Conspiracies theories, if anything, are easy fucking money. Thank god most people aren't that depraved, but some become cynical and start making dough on nutjobs by selling counter-culture health products and services. It's good to have and open mind, but it applies everywhere, not just with official facts.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Dec 28 2018 03:30am
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Aug 10 2018
Gold: 2,600.02
Dec 29 2018 01:11am
Not a conspiracy, just misinformation and old science
Member
Posts: 2,652
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Dec 30 2018 04:42pm
Quote (mustbebetween3and32characters @ Dec 29 2018 09:11am)
Not a conspiracy, just misinformation and old science


This is a common misconception. Old science is not automatically displaced by new science. If the methodology is precise, the paper is checked for consistency and the level of evidence is high, then newer research results have to be even more convincing, which they are not when it comes to a lot of "new, groundbreaking" results in nutritional and medical studies. Good methodology and logically sound conclusions are very powerful evidence. Assessing the quality of a study is best done by an expert with good reasoning skills and a lot of experience in research. Laymen tend to succumb to mistakes that are well known in the scientific community.

It's good to be critical, but it also includes criticism towards one's own competence in giving criticism. It's good to question official guidelines, but it also requires actual knowledge of how they're made and realize that alternative or outright anti-mainstream recommendations usually have smaller circles behind them, which means there's less internal criticism. Anything with less self-criticism sucks, when it comes to science. How self-critical are the proponents of non-mainstream medicine and nutritional studies? Think about it for a while. It starts making sense once you realize that admitting the possibility of being wrong would harm their special diet program book or "superfood" sales or whatever

Never trust people who adamantly claim to know the true side of things when it comes to science. It also involves over-confident speechless communication. New science can displace old science, but only when there's good reasoning behind it. It also requires thorough knowledge of the papers related to the old science.

This post was edited by Neptunus on Dec 30 2018 04:46pm
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Aug 10 2018
Gold: 2,600.02
Jan 1 2019 10:55am
Quote (Neptunus @ Dec 30 2018 03:42pm)
This is a common misconception. Old science is not automatically displaced by new science. If the methodology is precise, the paper is checked for consistency and the level of evidence is high, then newer research results have to be even more convincing, which they are not when it comes to a lot of "new, groundbreaking" results in nutritional and medical studies. Good methodology and logically sound conclusions are very powerful evidence. Assessing the quality of a study is best done by an expert with good reasoning skills and a lot of experience in research. Laymen tend to succumb to mistakes that are well known in the scientific community.

It's good to be critical, but it also includes criticism towards one's own competence in giving criticism. It's good to question official guidelines, but it also requires actual knowledge of how they're made and realize that alternative or outright anti-mainstream recommendations usually have smaller circles behind them, which means there's less internal criticism. Anything with less self-criticism sucks, when it comes to science. How self-critical are the proponents of non-mainstream medicine and nutritional studies? Think about it for a while. It starts making sense once you realize that admitting the possibility of being wrong would harm their special diet program book or "superfood" sales or whatever

Never trust people who adamantly claim to know the true side of things when it comes to science. It also involves over-confident speechless communication. New science can displace old science, but only when there's good reasoning behind it. It also requires thorough knowledge of the papers related to the old science.



Will you explode if I mention Ancel Keys

This post was edited by mustbebetween3and32characters on Jan 1 2019 10:55am
Member
Posts: 2,652
Joined: Dec 4 2011
Gold: 6.66
Jan 1 2019 05:12pm
Quote (mustbebetween3and32characters @ Jan 1 2019 06:55pm)
Will you explode if I mention Ancel Keys


I didn't know the guy before you posted about him. Why would i explode if you mentioned him?

This post was edited by Neptunus on Jan 1 2019 05:13pm
Member
Posts: 33,452
Joined: Oct 9 2008
Gold: 2,617.52
Jan 23 2019 01:19pm
Bump.gif
Member
Posts: 90,565
Joined: Dec 31 2007
Gold: 2,489.69
Jan 25 2019 03:11pm
in the past 6 months ive had a lot of success with a largely vegetarian diet, no gluten, no to minimal dairy, with a lot of eggs and a daily dose of steak.

I generally eat steak for either lunch or dinner, then it's eggs and vegetarian diet the rest of the day.

mixed with approx 16 hour daily fasting. So i eat between 12noon and 8 pm.

I make sure to do my lifting when i get home at 4-5 pm to hit peak energy time.

It naturally shook out to a fairly keto diet with less meat, more eggs, and quite a bit of rice (5-7 servings a week).

i didnt cut out meat because its bad for me, but meat focused meals tended to have a lot of the other stuff that isn't good for you. it also reduced how much i eat at restaurants a lot. im not paying 12$ for the veggie option ill just make my own.
Member
Posts: 64,656
Joined: Oct 25 2006
Gold: 260.11
Jan 25 2019 03:27pm
Had a guy doing keto pass out and go into ketoacidosis last year. Thankfully the school is full of doctors who made him eat sugar and stop the diet.

Non diabetic too, which is what surprised me.
Go Back To Science, Technology & Nature Topic List
Prev1252627282932Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll