I'll tone it down. A for filc, I'm plenty confident in my beliefs, economis and otherwise. And I'm plenty pissed off at a lot of people for a variety of things, spreading misinformation being one of them, and generally screwing the world up right good with their actions based on their ignorance. I've struggle to undo this kind of BS in people's heads when I've trained them and it pisses me off. Just like it pisses me off how badly people are getting screwed by the government. I don't take or tolerate that kind of thing well.
Xahrx:And I'm plenty pissed off at a lot of people for a variety of things, spreading misinformation being one of them, and generally screwing the world up right good with their actions based on their ignorance.
But the problem is also yours my friend. Who is the judge of what is misinformation. You? How do you know if it's their ignorance, or your arrogance? How do you draw the line?
Is it healthy to get mad at everyone who doesn't think exactly as you? Who doesn't learn the same as you learn? Does shouting, screaming, and calling names accomplish your goals? Whats the next step after shouting and screaming fails? Would you like to get physical with someone? Does your hostility arouse a desire to hurt people? If not, then why waste the energy with the verbal hostility in the first place, unless the intent is to escalate matters into a more counter-productive area?
I hope I am not overstepping my bounds by making these comments, forgive me Xahrx.
"But the problem is also yours my friend. Who is the judge of what is misinformation. You? How do you know if it's their ignorance, or your arrogance? How do you draw the line?" - filc
Let's put it this way: when a person says A causes B, and there is a massive amount of evidence that this isn't so and little to no evidence that it is, I call that a fairly settled point. Who is the judge? By nature or God I have a brain and I will use it. I expect others to do the same, and no I don't expect universal agreement. When the issue at stake is one that really isn't up for debate though, I have to assume some major problems or motives on the part of those pushing the other side. That's what you seem to be missing. By any standards of evaluation except the loosest which would label everything we eat 'harmful' or poisonous on some level, there is no evidence that fructose is harmful or even special in any way. It's not an issue, except to those who seriously do not seem to have a clue what they're talking about when they evaluate studies on the subject. Analogously we can have arguments about the nuances of the business cycle, anyone who seriously question the concept of marginal utility though, shouldn't be taken seriously. And I think deserves a little more than a counter argument.
Xahrx:Let's put it this way: when a person says A causes B, and there is a massive amount of evidence that this isn't so and little to no evidence that it is, I call that a fairly settled point. Who is the judge? By nature or God I have a brain and I will use it. I expect others to do the same, and no I don't expect universal agreement.
Xahrx:pissed off at a lot of people
Xahrx:generally screwing the world up right good with their actions based on their ignorance. I've struggle to undo this kind of BS in people's heads
This is the type of language I'd expect someone to use when regarding the state. Not someone hammering down other people on a matter of nutrition. And whether you like it or not, the science of nutrition and health is extremely anecdotal, studies, findings, and evidence sway and change nearly on a year to year basis.
You have to admit that people who spend less time investigating this issue are likely to find mixed opinions in literature. You know the types of mixed studies you can find when googling any of this. Given this, there is no reason for the hostility. It seems like it demands a higher level of patience.
Given that note, what is your opinion of the Nutritional science and fitness science industry? IMHO it's one of the most scientifically terrible industries we have.
"This is the type of language I'd expect someone to use when regarding the state. Not someone hammering down other people on a matter of nutrition."
It's possible to b passionate about other issues, nor is working for the state a prerequisite for doing some wrong or immoral.
"And whether you like it or not, the science of nutrition and health is extremely anecdotal,"
No, it isn't.
"studies, findings, and evidence sway and change nearly on a year to year basis."
No, they don't. It's a common misperception, and sometimes there are ground breaking results that require a rethink of accepted information to date, but the majority of research is built up over time. People, not scientists, do have a tendency to take isolated results out of context and proportion and start fads, and those do get over turned regularly. If you follow the research consistently however you realize there is very little ground breaking information coming out. For example the New York Times recently ran an article 'debunking' the multiple (>3) meals a day myth. Myth is it 'stokes' your metabolism and helps fend off hunger better than 3 meals a day. Now it might be news to the NYT, and certainly it created a bit of a buzz on the internet and blogoshpere, however this was not news to anyone who actually followed the research. The stoking your metabolism myth was more often than not a misunderstanding of the thermic effect of food, which is proportionate to calorie intake per macro which means it'll be the same for say 100 grams of protein whether you eat it all at once or in five servings of 20 grams. And the satiety myth had evidence pro and con and issues with all of the studies from self reporting calories to other poor controls, small samples, etc. Put simply, if you followed the research you knew it was an unsupported myth a good five to ten years ago. However, it's just breaking in popular culture now. There was even a recent study posted on a blog I follow where 3 meals a day lead to more even blood glucose.
Point is, often what you think you know and is accepted and supported by science usually is BS propogated by second hand idea dealers with something to sell.