Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?

In article ,
MU wrote:

You wouldn't know a properly performed
study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad or
worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You wouldn't know
a control group from a drug controlled groupie.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna wrote:

Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the
things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people on
this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and
report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the
group.

There are some things about the average person on the low-carb group that
make us a bit different from the average person on the street, and those
things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss scientific research than you
might think.

Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion
is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and
properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this
discussion is except Chung.

Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets. That means
we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed to eat
to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we view research.
So what if we're self-taught?

Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion
is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and
properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this
discussion is except Chung.

Want a self-taught surgeon cutting on you?

If anything that makes us more motivated to
get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a job,
we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and for some of
us it's even a matter of life and death.

Then treat it as such. Go to the research community and ask them for help.
I recently took up racing (again). Jump in the bucket and fly? Nope. Back
to school I went, out to the track, got the pros, got the help.

Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the responses
are along the lines of "who did this study? how many participants? where
did their funding come from? how was it controlled? were the dieters
self-reporting? where is the full research report, not the abstract?" etc.

And with this info you do what? Make uninformed judgments on things outside
of your capabilities to understand.

Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the results
of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit from over
there, we can collectively ferret out the truth.

No you can't. What you collectively ferret out is what you erroneously
believe is the truth.

I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a trained
scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way. It means that we
don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and then
question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world (testing
diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we question causation vs.
correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding science is
more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know.

Understanding science is about higher education, relative experience and
repetitive application. Nothing less is the truth.

Facts can be
learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay person. The
qualifications for understanding what you learn are skepticism and logical
thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree.

You can look up all the facts you want but, for instance, reading about
fine tuning a suspension is about physics and wrenches.

Here's a better question.

Would you rather spend your time guessing at science or having science
properly interpreted for you? Same amount of time, same amount of effort.

Which do you choose?

In article ,
MU wrote:

You wouldn't know a properly performed
study if it smacked you in the face. You have no clue what a well
documented citation should look like, no idea if the science is bad or
worse, if the researchers are credible or paid buffoons. You wouldn't know
a control group from a drug controlled groupie.

On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 17:09:20 GMT, Luna wrote:

Um, hold on a minute. When the results of studies are discussed here, the
things you mention above are also very often discussed here. Many people on
this group look further into the studies, question how they were done, and
report any financial ties the "researchers" might have to the rest of the
group.

There are some things about the average person on the low-carb group that
make us a bit different from the average person on the street, and those
things, imo, make us more qualified to discuss scientific research than you
might think.

Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion
is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and
properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this
discussion is except Chung.

Next, for the most part the people here are on low-carb diets. That means
we are skeptical of long-standing beliefs about how we're supposed to eat
to stay healthy. That skepticism carries over into how we view research.
So what if we're self-taught?

Qualified to use research as an information tool for practical discussion
is not a "gosh I took Biology" kind of thing. One is either educated and
properly experienced or not. Excepting a few, no one participating in this
discussion is except Chung.

Want a self-taught surgeon cutting on you?

If anything that makes us more motivated to
get to the truth. We're not doing it for a grade, a degree, or a job,
we're doing it for our own personal health and well-being, and for some of
us it's even a matter of life and death.

Then treat it as such. Go to the research community and ask them for help.
I recently took up racing (again). Jump in the bucket and fly? Nope. Back
to school I went, out to the track, got the pros, got the help.

Whenever a news article about a diet study is posted here, the responses
are along the lines of "who did this study? how many participants? where
did their funding come from? how was it controlled? were the dieters
self-reporting? where is the full research report, not the abstract?" etc.

And with this info you do what? Make uninformed judgments on things outside
of your capabilities to understand.

Maybe no single one of us is qualified to accurately interpret the results
of a scientific study, but with a bit of knowledge here and a bit from over
there, we can collectively ferret out the truth.

No you can't. What you collectively ferret out is what you erroneously
believe is the truth.

I think my most important point here is that one needn't be a trained
scientist in order to view the world in a scientific way. It means that we
don't just accept what we're told, we question and research, and then
question that research, we apply hypotheses to the real world (testing
diets on our own bodies) we observe the results, we question causation vs.
correlation. This is how we think, how we live. Undestanding science is
more about how you _think_ than the facts that you know.

Understanding science is about higher education, relative experience and
repetitive application. Nothing less is the truth.

Facts can be
learned, terminology can be looked up, even by a lay person. The
qualifications for understanding what you learn are skepticism and logical
thought processes, which do not require a scientific degree.

You can look up all the facts you want but, for instance, reading about
fine tuning a suspension is about physics and wrenches.

Here's a better question.

Would you rather spend your time guessing at science or having science
properly interpreted for you? Same amount of time, same amount of effort.

Which do you choose?