Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 Well, the trouble is, the average person cannot conduct double-blind clinical studies or do laboratory experiments to measure such things as the carbohydrate content of certain foods, etc. So unless the research is solid, and to be trusted, everything that flows from it is biased, almost always toward what ever product they want to sell. Look how the Atkins supporters skew and cloud things. Who's to know what to believe, no matter how much we read? I've been fat a long time and have read countless things about it, and I'm as confused as ever. I tend to trust the glycemic index analysis simply because I stumbled upon it myself by keeping a strict food log over a course of months, and checking my blood sugar levels several times a day, etc. I began charting the fact that certain foods seemed to spike me, and had no idea why. Then I noticed the carbohydrate content wasn't related very well, it had more to do with how hard it was to digest. I began avoiding certain carbs and emphasizing others and my blood sugar behaved very well. Then, a few months after this, the first Glycemic Index book came out and I happened to notice it while scanning books at a store, and voila, it explained to me in scientific terms what I'd already confirmed through trial and error. On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 05:02 AM, wrote: > Message: 13 > Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:56:12 -0700 > " daveo " <daveo > RE: Bias in the Media > > > If one's reality comes mostly from reading snake oil diet books, > then I can see how this kind of bias from such charlatans would > adversely affect them. > > For me, the best way to overcome bias is to simply read more. The > truth about any topic usually withstands all of the spin/lies these > charlatans can throw at it. > > " The Beatles were my favorite group -- this is the nearest I will ever get to being a Beatle. " --J. K. Rowling, cheered as she took the stage at a reading Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 6, 2003 Report Share Posted October 6, 2003 >>Well, the trouble is, the average person cannot conduct double-blind clinical studies or do laboratory experiments to measure such things as the carbohydrate content of certain foods, etc.<< You're correct, but many other people around the world do exactly those kinds of studies, and hundreds of billions of dollars are spent each year on doing just what you lament is not being done, even by a large number of small-fry researchers. Are all of them high quality studies? Of course not and only a fool would claim otherwise. However, the quality of many is very high, and once you've become accustomed to reading them, you'll probably discover that the bias is also very low. >>So unless the research is solid, and to be trusted, everything that flows from it is biased, almost always toward what ever product they want to sell.<< Mostly, I rely on peer reviews usually done along with the research. IMHO, it's rare that one's peers allow certain things (i.e., personal biases and totally sloppy research) to make it into the public discourse. Beyond this, there is also a growing level of politics in science. Who would have thunk it! So, we see that even science is not immune to the debate raging between the left and the right. Regardless of all this, most science withstands the attempts to bend it to one's political aims. >>Look how the Atkins supporters skew and cloud things.<< I'll be the first to admit that Atkins is not for everybody. However, when one reads Medline in sufficient detail, the claims of Dr Atkins are substantiated repeatedly from many other sources. Get use to it b/c the science of Atkins is not going away. >>Who's to know what to believe, no matter how much we read?<< It's a long frustrating process. Knowing who to believe is seldom easy. The hype abounds to convince us that this is the " honest to God " truth " for sure. " I suggest that we all have beliefs which limit us in a number of unseen/unknown ways. Just getting beyond those limits can dramatically improve our acceptance of certain ideas. No one should be without a healthy sense of skepticism, but it ought to be applied only when all the necessary facts are clearly positioned on the table. >>I've been fat a long time and have read countless things about it, and I'm as confused as ever.<< Gene, I remember many of your emails on the topic, and I know what it feels like from when I weighed in at 211 lbs. At 5'-9 " , I've resolved my weight to a wonderful 172. I mentioned the total process as I went thru it and got a lot of flack for it. If you're interested, I'm happy to share it again. >>I tend to trust the glycemic index analysis...<< It's a good reference point for judging one's diet, especially if affected by any one of a number of diet related complications. On Monday, October 6, 2003, at 05:02 AM, wrote: > Message: 13 > Sun, 5 Oct 2003 15:56:12 -0700 > " daveo " <daveo > RE: Bias in the Media > > If one's reality comes mostly from reading snake oil diet books, then > I can see how this kind of bias from such charlatans would adversely > affect them. > > For me, the best way to overcome bias is to simply read more. The > truth about any topic usually withstands all of the spin/lies these > charlatans can throw at it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.