|
[ Sugar Addiction Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
Friends,
Go to: newscientist.com/news.jsp?id=ns99992120
Namaste`
Walt
In Reply to: Need more proof of the dangers of refined carbohydrates??? (Archive in sugar.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 10, 2002 at 08:19:55:
Short-sightedness may be tied to refined diet
Another reason NOT to be a vegitarian?
In Reply to: Re: Need more proof of the dangers of refined carbohydrates??? [Link Enabled] posted by Tsar on April 10, 2002 at 08:53:24:
if you will pardon my obnoxiousness in pointing it out!
In Reply to: Re: Need more proof of the dangers of refined carbohydrates??? [typo - link RE-enabled :-)] posted by Jan on April 10, 2002 at 09:34:06:
In Reply to: Need more proof of the dangers of refined carbohydrates??? (Archive in sugar.) posted by Walt Stoll on April 10, 2002 at 08:19:55:
Logically speaking, the article doesn't prove consuming refined carbs causes myopia. It merely stated that there is a correlation between consumption of refined carbs by a population and percentage of people with myopia. Correlation is very different from a causal relationship.
For the record, I don't defend or promote eating refined carbs, and I don't eat them myself.
In Reply to: Playing devil's advocate posted by R. on April 10, 2002 at 19:47:28:
I was wondering if anyone else was going to pick up on that, R.
Can I call you "R" for short? "R period" doesn't roll off the tongue as well...
Anyway, it's interesting the way to factoids can be put next to each other to imply a
correlation that doesn't exist. My cousin (a statistician) is famous for pointing this
out, even as she does it herself as part of her job. We used to get into long discussions
about what is relevent in any given situation by the inclusion or exclusion of
people and events that may or may not have had anything to do with the situation.
I wonder if Walt does this sometimes as he reads the symptoms posters present and
makes a "best guess" diagnosis as to the cause, and how close those symptoms are
related to the actual cause. Walt is much better at this, than I am at say trouble-
shooting a computer over a phone line.
Interesting that you caught that. Thought about the bar?
Lightwalking,
Gregory
In Reply to: Re: Playing devil's advocate - A promising career in law awaits you! posted by Gregory on April 11, 2002 at 03:58:44:
About the name... There was someone else on this board who thought he/she would take "R" as a good nickname without clashing with mine because "R" doesn't contain period.
As a matter of fact, a few people commented on my attention to facts and how words are used, and they suggested I consider a career as a lawyer.
Being part of the native-nutrition yahoo group has been useful to me. They have several people with very good critical thinking and debating skills. Reading their messages honed my skill of paying attention to a very common mistake people make of confusing mere correlation with a causal relationship. I won't let this opportunity to pick on low fat diet promoters. Experiments done by Ornish and Pritikin, for example, presented numbers that show a correlation between a low fat consumption and some indicators for heart disease. However, most who hear about it immediately begin to think that fat causes heart disease. They tend to ignore that many more factors played a role in improvement (?) of patients in those two groups: quitting smoking, regular relaxation, no refined carbs, etc. And of course, they don't hear about developing depression, brittle nails and hair, loss of hair, etc. By the way, according to a doctor I heard on the radio a few months ago, results produced by either Ornish's or Pritikin's program (I can't recall exactly which) were lower than those produced by some measures they employed when used seperately. For instance, adding regular relaxation to one's life showed some huge improvement as far as cardiac health was concerned, and the improvement was higher than the combined improvement showed by one of those two programs (either Ornish's or Pritikin's). So a conslusion this doctor made is that something was done in those programs that was counterproductive, and his opinion was that it was the low fat/high carb approach.
The point of all this is that things are often not as simple as many of us tend to believe. Therefore, I choose to eat a way that is similar to what has been shown to be healthful for many, many generations of whole peoples. And lifestyle (things we do beyond diet) is not a small part of having good health.
In Reply to: Re: Playing devil's advocate - A promising career in law awaits you! posted by Gregory on April 11, 2002 at 03:58:44:
He occasionally uses the Latin phrase "post hoc ergo propter hoc" meaning "after this, therefore because of this."
In Reply to: I'm sure Walt's familiar with cause and effect vs correlation ... posted by Roy on April 12, 2002 at 18:41:26:
In Reply to: I'm sure Walt's familiar with cause and effect vs correlation ... posted by Roy on April 12, 2002 at 18:41:26:
That's a good rule to remember and use. I remember last time it started raining here, it happened after I went outside. Cool! I always wanted to be able to make it rain. :)
|
[ Sugar Addiction Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |