51–60 of 101 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is this current obsession with stevia? It has a very strong, pretty much unpalatable taste that even strong espresso can't mask.
It's natural, as opposed to unnatural things like sucralose and aspartame. In the current zeitgeist, 'natural' is assumed to be better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's more to it than just the things you mentioned, and I'd argue that it's an even bigger problem. The fact studies are adaptively chosen and performed based on the results of past studies on the same (or related) data leads to increased instances of false discovery. This is something that is directly addressed in some very recent recent work (not uncoincidentally making reference to this exact XKCD comic): http:…
Freedman's paradox refers to adaptive data analysis within one dataset. The reusable holdout is designed to permit adaptive analysis on the same dataset without inflating the false discovery rate. The problem doesn't apply if you are collecting new data and testing the hypothesis, that's the ideal scenario.
My Quantitive Methods lecturer used it as a perfect example of the correlation/causation fallacy; it was certainly a good way of lightening the mood at a 9am Friday lecture :)
There is a radio program in the UK called More or Less, who''s (whom's?) motto is "Correlation is not causation". Admittedly, I have neither read the paper, nor did I fully understand the section on proving the direction of influence, but I can't help but feel this research makes pretty poor use of statistics and logic, however much I wish to believe the result. Is all nutritional research this bad?
It seems something is bad here, but I don't think it's the nutritional research. If you can't be bothered to actually read the paper, why do you think you're able to critique it?
All food is healthy. Diets can be unhealthy. It really is interesting that the whole science is concentrating on a single ingredient.
Except for the food with cyanide in it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's called dopamine. The chocolate you eat probably has sugar in it (otherwise it tastes horrible; try raw cacao), and sugar is a drug associated w/ the release of dopamine in the brain.
>otherwise it tastes horrible; try raw cacao Every luxury food or drug tastes horrible until you've learnt to enjoy it. Remember your first beer or coffee? My guess is sugar would initially taste somewhat foul ('sickly sweet') if one was brought up without it. EDIT: I'm not recommending that people start snorting or imbibing cocoa powder. However I think that if this were the only form of chocolate then one would qui…
https://kill-or-cure.herokuapp.com
A list of what the Daily Mail has reported will kill or cure cancer. I won't spoil chocolates outcome.