There is a difference between "... a study says...." and "... the body of evidence as a whole says...". And it's not for a WSJ author to decide the difference, it's for major medical associations to decide. The article goes into several dozen studies, which is in turn just a tiny fraction of the entire corpus.
Yes. And every one of those institutions based their conclusions on the "science" of Ancel Keys (or his proteges), whose errors and outright falsifications we are still discovering today. And every one of those organizations that currently recommends against saturated fats will, in the next 20 years, either walk back that message or stand unsupported by more recent science. Most of them are already standing on pretty shaky ground, and that will only continue to accelerate.
Yes, because recommending eating "fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories" is totally a recipe for "almost single-handedly made America obese". Damn those fattening fruits, vegetables, whole grains and reduced-calorie diets.
Then what do you suppose was the trigger that caused the entire population to shift radically toward obesity starting in the 70s?
It's sugary, fatty water, with about the same calories as soda, destined to give a calf a nice pelt.
BTW, I like your hair.
The difference between milk and soda is that the fat in milk will slow down the glycemic reaction, whereas soda is just sugar and water (and a bit of flavor) and so the glycemic reaction is higher. The glycemic index for 250ml of both milk and skim milk is 31. The glycemic index for 250ml of Coca Cola is 63. (Source)
On top of that, milk contains protein, which also slows down the glycemic reaction.
So yes, we can objectively point to well-tested and (importantly) repeatable scientific experiments (glycemic indexes are calculated and published by a number of different organizations around the world) that point to the fact that milk is healthier than sugary soda drinks.
Spaghetti is cheap and filling, and tastier with greasy meat sauce.
Contrary to popular belief, the greasy meat sauce is actually pretty good for you, assuming there's no trans fat in it. It's the other stuff that will kill you.
Sorry, but the research is far from settled that grains are bad. In fact if you look at the Mediterranean diet its part of the biggest segment.
That's a correlation, but not a causation. We know definitively that an excess of carbohydrates (and yes, grains still count as carbohydrates) tends to cause diabetes. The trick to the mediterranean diet is that the carbohydrates are balanced against other things that slow down the glycemic reaction.
studies showed links between fat-rich diets and heart disease. It was later shown that it wasn't "all fats", just saturated fats. And nothing has changed that; it's still widely accepted my medical science that saturated fats are associated with heart disease.
No, that's actually completely false, and contradicted by current medical science. Yes, nutritionists and doctors have been propagating that message for years, and continue to do so even today. But that message is not based on science, it's based on tradition, and they should be held accountable for the crime they're committing on the American public.
There is a link between saturated fats and cholesterol, and another link between the ability of statins to lower cholesterol and, simultaneously, to reduce the incidence of heart disease. That suggested a link all the way from saturated fats to heart disease, but to this day, that link has never been found. The American Heart Association famously stated, in recommending that Americans consume less saturated fats, that the correlation was so strong that it was only a matter of time before a definitive link could be proven, and we should base our eating habits on the assumption that they would find that link. In point of fact, they never did.
In fact, the AHA has recently admitted their failure, but not in such a way that would make them look guilty of the atrocity on the American people that they are responsible for. Since statins really do lower the incidence of heart disease (independent of saturated fat consumption) they are now suggesting that nearly everyone take statins, not just those who have high cholesterol. This is a tacit admission that the link never existed.
What's appalling here is not only the fact that the AHA almost single-handedly made America obese over the last 40 or so years, but that the established science is *still* controversial -- so controversial that by posting this, a bunch of trolls are going to attack the messenger (me) because the message flies in the face of what they think they know.
Fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Saturated fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Trans fat is still bad, as far as anyone knows.
No, that's absolutely false. It's not up to ANYONE to prove it's not happening. It's up to those making the accusation to provide evidence of it. Period. End of subject. This is not a debatable point.
Counted one way, the US people favored Trump. Counted another way, the US people favored Clinton.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The people favored Clinton. The states, most of whom use a winner-takes-all formula, favored Trump.
I'm not arguing that we should use the popular vote. The rules are the rules, and that's that. In fact, I'm simply arguing that you're engaging in dishonest simplification as a way to support your position, and that makes you a bit of an asshole. That's all.
My GM doesn't have a newly introduced feature that gives you an additional 1000 options to lose it. Actually it's the opposite, GM now sells cars with features specifically to prevent you losing it.
Yes. Let's get hung up on pedantic details. They're much more fun than the point.
LOL. You missed the "neograde" where the browser is now the "OS"
I didn't miss it. I chose not to address it, since AC could have been talking about a mobile app, which a huge number of people use instead of the web for platforms like Twitter. It was ambiguous, and so not worth arguing.
Why jump on someone using the actual definition of "program" ?
Because it means they probably do not belong on slashdot.
So, calling websites "programs" is somehow the tipping point for you?
It is the hill that I chose to die on, yes.
For fuck's sake, you created the problem.
And this right here is a fine time to point out that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. *I* did nothing of the sort. You can just fuck right off now.
The cars need to be registered, the operators need an operators permit. I believe both already have them, and we don't need more.
You deliberately left out the part about the "operator" not actually driving the car -- the autonomous system is (at least some of the time) driving the car. So that autonomous system needs to be licensed or permitted to prove that it can operate safely. Just like the human operator.
Slashdot Mirror
True, but I think their point it it wont bee that noisy.
I see what you did there.
There is a difference between "... a study says...." and "... the body of evidence as a whole says...". And it's not for a WSJ author to decide the difference, it's for major medical associations to decide. The article goes into several dozen studies, which is in turn just a tiny fraction of the entire corpus.
Yes. And every one of those institutions based their conclusions on the "science" of Ancel Keys (or his proteges), whose errors and outright falsifications we are still discovering today. And every one of those organizations that currently recommends against saturated fats will, in the next 20 years, either walk back that message or stand unsupported by more recent science. Most of them are already standing on pretty shaky ground, and that will only continue to accelerate.
Yes, because recommending eating "fruits, vegetables, whole grains and fewer calories" is totally a recipe for "almost single-handedly made America obese". Damn those fattening fruits, vegetables, whole grains and reduced-calorie diets.
Then what do you suppose was the trigger that caused the entire population to shift radically toward obesity starting in the 70s?
Unless you belong to the 75% of the population that is lactose intolerant, or if you have a milk/dairy allergy.
Both of which are orthogonal to the question of whether milk is nutritious.
"How, exactly, is milk harmful?"
It's sugary, fatty water, with about the same calories as soda, destined to give a calf a nice pelt.
BTW, I like your hair.
The difference between milk and soda is that the fat in milk will slow down the glycemic reaction, whereas soda is just sugar and water (and a bit of flavor) and so the glycemic reaction is higher. The glycemic index for 250ml of both milk and skim milk is 31. The glycemic index for 250ml of Coca Cola is 63. (Source)
On top of that, milk contains protein, which also slows down the glycemic reaction.
So yes, we can objectively point to well-tested and (importantly) repeatable scientific experiments (glycemic indexes are calculated and published by a number of different organizations around the world) that point to the fact that milk is healthier than sugary soda drinks.
Shocking.
Spaghetti is cheap and filling, and tastier with greasy meat sauce.
Contrary to popular belief, the greasy meat sauce is actually pretty good for you, assuming there's no trans fat in it. It's the other stuff that will kill you.
Sorry, but the research is far from settled that grains are bad. In fact if you look at the Mediterranean diet its part of the biggest segment.
That's a correlation, but not a causation. We know definitively that an excess of carbohydrates (and yes, grains still count as carbohydrates) tends to cause diabetes. The trick to the mediterranean diet is that the carbohydrates are balanced against other things that slow down the glycemic reaction.
studies showed links between fat-rich diets and heart disease. It was later shown that it wasn't "all fats", just saturated fats. And nothing has changed that; it's still widely accepted my medical science that saturated fats are associated with heart disease.
No, that's actually completely false, and contradicted by current medical science. Yes, nutritionists and doctors have been propagating that message for years, and continue to do so even today. But that message is not based on science, it's based on tradition, and they should be held accountable for the crime they're committing on the American public.
There is a link between saturated fats and cholesterol, and another link between the ability of statins to lower cholesterol and, simultaneously, to reduce the incidence of heart disease. That suggested a link all the way from saturated fats to heart disease, but to this day, that link has never been found. The American Heart Association famously stated, in recommending that Americans consume less saturated fats, that the correlation was so strong that it was only a matter of time before a definitive link could be proven, and we should base our eating habits on the assumption that they would find that link. In point of fact, they never did.
In fact, the AHA has recently admitted their failure, but not in such a way that would make them look guilty of the atrocity on the American people that they are responsible for. Since statins really do lower the incidence of heart disease (independent of saturated fat consumption) they are now suggesting that nearly everyone take statins, not just those who have high cholesterol. This is a tacit admission that the link never existed.
What's appalling here is not only the fact that the AHA almost single-handedly made America obese over the last 40 or so years, but that the established science is *still* controversial -- so controversial that by posting this, a bunch of trolls are going to attack the messenger (me) because the message flies in the face of what they think they know.
Fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Saturated fat doesn't cause heart attacks. Trans fat is still bad, as far as anyone knows.
The D's consist of far more than politicians.
No, that's absolutely false. It's not up to ANYONE to prove it's not happening. It's up to those making the accusation to provide evidence of it. Period. End of subject. This is not a debatable point.
How many of them voting illegally?..
Zero. Yeah, no, I don't have a citation. But then, neither do you.
Counted one way, the US people favored Trump. Counted another way, the US people favored Clinton.
That's a bit of an oversimplification. The people favored Clinton. The states, most of whom use a winner-takes-all formula, favored Trump.
I'm not arguing that we should use the popular vote. The rules are the rules, and that's that. In fact, I'm simply arguing that you're engaging in dishonest simplification as a way to support your position, and that makes you a bit of an asshole. That's all.
The actual numbers from Politico that was "quoted" above. The 2.8M number is made up, there are no official results that show that discrepancy.
I call bullshit. The official numbers for each state are known and certified.
The D's also want to keep the poor people in their place.
No. False. Completely. The D's want to uplift the poor, full stop.
California IS the most racist place I've had the misfortune to reside within.
Though I live in California these days, I've also lived in Texas. Which means I know exactly how full of shit you are.
The person that California didn't want as the future president is the future president.
This too shall pass.
The weather in Florida is just as good as California and no earthquakes. We have no tech industry to speak of
Nope. Not even close. Florida, being largely composed of swamp, has a serious humidity problem. Techies don't like to sweat.
Also, techies like burritos. No burritos to speak of in Florida.
There are 4 errors in your post. Please go to school and learn English before you post again.
You're an embarrassment, even by slashdot standards. Christ, this place is worse than Birmingham.
Do you imagine that the federal government cuts checks to oil companies?
Yes, I do.
My GM doesn't have a newly introduced feature that gives you an additional 1000 options to lose it. Actually it's the opposite, GM now sells cars with features specifically to prevent you losing it.
Yes. Let's get hung up on pedantic details. They're much more fun than the point.
AC has never heard the word "sensationalist", apparently.
What kind of bumblefuck clickbait headline is that?
In other news, GM charges full price to replace your car if you lose it.
Jesus H. Christ on a motherfucking crutch, I didn't think slashdot, having reached the bottom of the hill, could keep rolling downwards.
LOL. You missed the "neograde" where the browser is now the "OS"
I didn't miss it. I chose not to address it, since AC could have been talking about a mobile app, which a huge number of people use instead of the web for platforms like Twitter. It was ambiguous, and so not worth arguing.
Why jump on someone using the actual definition of "program" ?
Because it means they probably do not belong on slashdot.
So, calling websites "programs" is somehow the tipping point for you?
It is the hill that I chose to die on, yes.
For fuck's sake, you created the problem.
And this right here is a fine time to point out that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. *I* did nothing of the sort. You can just fuck right off now.
I'm surprised, genuinely. It's rare that anyone on slashdot owns up to a mistake.
You have risen significantly in my estimation. Cheers.
The cars need to be registered, the operators need an operators permit. I believe both already have them, and we don't need more.
You deliberately left out the part about the "operator" not actually driving the car -- the autonomous system is (at least some of the time) driving the car. So that autonomous system needs to be licensed or permitted to prove that it can operate safely. Just like the human operator.
Honestly, your argument is dishonest at best.