Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #76   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-18, 05:55
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 14,605
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GRB5111

"Science" has become a mere byproduct and a tool used to bully the public into perceptions founded on a false belief system.

...

We've been brainwashed for so long, that it's going to take a few coercive events (massive increases in obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer) to convince people that changes must be made. However, taking medications and getting treatment for these symptoms of a bad diet have become so commonplace, that we think this is the new normal.


Good insights. I agree.

When you consider how some people have such a terrible time with taking in new information and adjusting anything in their lives, I don't know if some will ever be able to change.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #77   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-18, 06:11
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

In a recent interview of Nina Teicholz she mentioned 2 things that are supposed to happen in scientific endeavors but seem to be totally lacking in so-called nutrition science. The first is that when you do large observational studies the purpose should be to generate hypotheses for further testing using randomized controlled studies since the large observational studies cannot determine causation which is the purpose of the controlled experimentation. She also said that scientists are supposed to be always looking for things that refute their hypotheses not simply looking for ways to confirm in. They are supposed to be diligently looking for where they might have got things wrong. When instead data that refutes their hypotheses are simply hidden or discarded that is not science that is bias.

Jean

Last edited by cotonpal : Sun, Jan-21-18 at 09:28.
Reply With Quote
  #78   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-18, 09:08
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,324
 
Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

Yes, Jean, I've noticed that about nutrition "science" too. I'm a physical scientist and using the "scientific method" is paramount in scientific research. Scientists can never prove something is true, we can only prove that it is not true, the goal is to choose an hypothesis that helps you rule out one possible cause at a time, then design and test another hypothesis. Collecting peoples' recollections of what they ate in 22 countries, plotting them and picking out the 7 that lie on a straight line through a random spray of data and ignoring the rest is opposite of science! You cannot prove that eating more fat causes heart disease, but controlled tests may be able to prove an hypothesis such as: eating 30% more saturated fat than the SAD control does not increase cholesterol levels (short term study) or the risk of developing heart disease (long term study).
Reply With Quote
  #79   ^
Old Sun, Jan-21-18, 13:51
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

About proving vs refuting. Here's the perfect example. The famous Bellevue all-meat trial. A couple guys ate only meat for a year. Conclusion is no adverse effect. Did it prove meat is good for you? No. But it certainly refuted all claims about its detrimental effects of the time, i.e. that it would cause scurvy.

Personally I often cited that experiment to refute claims like meat causes cancer, heart disease, whatnots. If it did, we'd have seen it in that experiment, but we didn't, therefore it does not. But refutation doesn't seem to be in my opponents' vocabulary or comprehension. Instead, it's all about proving for them. Ironically, it's almost always done with observational evidence, which can never do that anyways. There's some exceptions like Collin Campbell's mice experiment with casein and cancer, where he concludes that even though he used aflatoxin to cause cancer in the first place, even though he used mice and not humans, even though he used casein, he still concludes - he "proves" - meat causes cancer in humans. In fact, his experiment refuted claims about meat, and instead demonstrated (the likelihood of) an alternative culprit - aflatoxin, casein, mice. He basically shot his hypothesis in the foot, though like I said refutation isn't in his vocabulary or comprehension. That's another word, demonstration, which is often mistaken for the word prove.

Another example is more obscure, the double-slit experiment. It is understood as proving that particles exist - or behave - as both particles and waves simultaneously. Every scientist on the planet acts as if that experiment proved it. The entire field of physics is based on that assumption of proof. If anything, the experiment refuted the individual claims that a particle was a wave or a particle. We still don't know what a particle is, that's the point.

But there's a problem with refutation. You gotta start with an actual hypothesis and an accurate experiment, not a fallacy, i.e moving the goalposts, false dichotomy, etc. We've seen this with low-carb experiments where the low-carb diet wasn't actually low-carb - moving the goalposts. Or where there was multiple diets but none was low-carb - false dichotomy. But when they do it well, we get things like the A-TO-Z experiment that refutes nicely all the horrible claims about low-carb.
Reply With Quote
  #80   ^
Old Tue, Jan-23-18, 05:43
inflammabl's Avatar
inflammabl inflammabl is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,371
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 296/220/205 Male 71 inches
BF:25%?
Progress: 84%
Location: Upstate SC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cotonpal
The first is that when you do large observational studies the purpose should be to generate hypotheses for further testing using randomized controlled studies since the large observational studies cannot determine causation which is the purpose of the controlled experimentation.

Agree 8000%. Personally I am appalled at the lack of models which are used in every other discipline to relate the microscopic, i.e. what a particular enzyme, hormone, etc. does, to the macroscopic, i.e. weight, cholesterol, etc. going up and down. There was an article written in the WSJ a few years ago "Great Scientists Don't Need Math" which was a truly amazing justification of Biochemists ignorance of math. It stuns me that the author can still walk through the lab building with his chin up.

Quote:
She also said that scientists are supposed to be always looking for things that refute their hypotheses not simply looking for ways to confirm in. They are supposed to be diligently looking for where they might have got things wrong. When instead data that refutes their hypotheses are simply hidden or discarded that is not science that is bias.

Jean

Eh. How about this... "scientists are supposed to be always looking for things that refute other scientists' hypotheses not simply looking for ways to confirm in." And I would change this too, "When instead data that refutes their hypotheses are simply hidden or discarded that is not science that is lying." But they don't lie 99% of the time. Practically what they do is stop taking data if the data is taking them in a direction they don't like. For instance, if they've taken 11 samples and their data shows a low to medium confidence in an alternative hypothesis they don't take the next 17 samples which would give them high confidence in an alternative hypothesis. They honestly feel they are wasting their time. Honestly. Besides if there is no general model, if none has ever been created, then there is no general hypothesis to argue with anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #81   ^
Old Thu, Feb-22-18, 05:58
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
Posts: 13,370
 
Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%
Location: NC
Default

Now Gary is resigning from the Tasmanian Health Service. Long article "Enough is Enough" explaining another unbelievable case of Health organizations bullying members for promoting the concept of eating real food.

https://isupportgary.com/articles/e...-dr-gary-fettke

Quote:
It is with deep regret that I write to inform our community of my decision to withhold signing a 3 year contract to continue working in the Public Hospital System. After 25 years of service to the Launceston General Hospital, I can assure you this has not been an easy decision.
I remain committed to caring for patients and teaching students, but I cannot continue to work in a environment that condones bullying behaviour; a workplace that undermines the evidence-based recommendations of a Visiting Medical Officer; and I refuse to go to work and be punished for raising concerns about Quality Assurance and Patient Safety, any longer.
After 7 years of this inappropriate behaviour by both senior administration, and allied health practitioners, I say ... enough is enough!
Until there is a satisfactory resolution of my bullying, mobbing and victimisation claims, and more importantly, the acknowledgement and satisfactory resolution of the many breaches of my current Visiting Medical Practitioners agreement, my situation is untenable. It is impossible for me to continue to provide best practice to my patients, and indeed the broader community, when I have been unsupported and undermined in my work place since 2012. Particularly as there has been no incident of patient harm, nor patient complaint regarding my circumstances.
When my concerns are addressed I have every intention of returning and resuming my clinical and teaching duties.

Continues...


I can't have my patients being told that my recommendations are dangerous and that my advice will kill them.
Reply With Quote
  #82   ^
Old Thu, Feb-22-18, 06:16
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 5,283
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: Vermont
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JEY100
Now Gary is resigning from the Tasmanian Health Service. Long article "Enough is Enough" explaining another unbelievable case of Health organizations bullying members for promoting the concept of eating real food.

https://isupportgary.com/articles/e...-dr-gary-fettke



I can't have my patients being told that my recommendations are dangerous and that my advice will kill them.


How sad this all is, how infuriating, how harmful.

Jean
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 13:38.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.