|
On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me.
yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o
|
|
|
These numbers are pretty fucking scary. Good thing I'm not good at statistics.
|
On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o
Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked.
This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
|
I personally don't find it consequential in terms of lifestyle, tbh. This won't stop me from from eating bacon, it's simply not worth living life in a glass bottle, afraid of anything that might hurt you.
now if they find some kind of chemical mode of action that causes said harm from bacon (assuming it exists) then it becomes interesting.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
Well, actually, they accounted for all these things with multivariate testing. Although they didn't publish their formula so we can't really say how effective they were at accounting for them. Nevertheless, in a valid study they're not going to account for these variables with equations. They would eliminate them. Or, well, I shouldn't say valid study.... in a clinical trial, they would. You can do whatever you want in a "study".
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
I'm not sure I'm understanding you at all, they did control for smoking in this study, and studies often seek the best variables to disprove a desired outcome (unless you work for a spin institute like some far wing BS political tank). The more infallible the study is, the more reputable it becomes as time goes on.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
im not sure you understand what "study" means.
|
On March 16 2012 13:11 Hipsv wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 13:00 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 16 2012 12:49 Mr Showtime wrote:
Some of these studies can be absurd. The once oldest woman in America was interviewed when she claimed the title. She stated that her secret to long life was bacon for breakfast everyday. Does that mean bacon is good for your health? No. Obviously not. Everyone is different. I don't care about these ridiculous studies that literally serve no purpose. When given the chance to have bacon with my breakfast, I'm going to eat it. Period. I don't have some undying love for bacon. The future health risks are worth it to me. yes. because one piece of anecdotal evidence is the same as a study with 100,000+ people in it. O.o Its not a study, its an observation, a study wouldn't allow deviance that could negatively affect the outcome such as smoking, exposure to low wavelength radiation, exposure to arsenic and a variety of other things. This for example would be concluding that because out of 150,000 people who drove blue cars for 40 years a higher percentage had cancer that blue cars cause cancer without mentioning that a higher percentage of people in the study who drove blue cars also smoked. This is an extremely inaccurate misrepresentation of what limited data you have and is a downright irresponsible spreading of misinformation.
If you had a significant proportion (like the one in the article) of blue car users getting cancer compared to other color car users, that would be a cause for significant concern.
Thing is that is impossible, so we don't bother investigating something like that.
|
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
|
On March 16 2012 13:26 dgwow wrote:
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
Try an apple from the tree of might.
|
On March 16 2012 13:26 dgwow wrote:
What can I eat if I want to be immortal?
acai.
|
I don't eat red meat every day because it would get boring. Variety and reasonable portions seem to be the gold standard for nutrition and I'm all for it. Now to tell all the meat-heads who think eating more beef will make them strong as a bull that spinach is where it's at. Didn't they learn anything from cartoons?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
