11–20 of 40 posts
The experiment I'd like to see would be for some country with an obesity problem to make it so that prepared food must be priced proportionally to its calories. I think one of the reasons for obesity is that it is really really easy to get a ridiculous amount of calories without realizing it. Most people would not eat half a large pizza for lunch every day--they would be aghast at eating that many calories. Yet a lar…
In my recent research into nutrition, there is good evidence that saturated fat isn't the enemy. The science for nutrition in humans is very difficult to pin down - there are just too many external variables, and the human body does a fantastic job in working with whatever it gets as a fuel in the short term that masks a lot of what is bad. Personally, I'm convinced there's something that rings true in the Paleo move…
http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725...
In my recent research into nutrition, there is good evidence that saturated fat isn't the enemy. The science for nutrition in humans is very difficult to pin down - there are just too many external variables, and the human body does a fantastic job in working with whatever it gets as a fuel in the short term that masks a lot of what is bad. Personally, I'm convinced there's something that rings true in the Paleo move…
As someone considering paleo, I'd be interested to hear what studies you thought well supported the claim that saturated fats aren't the problem and why you thought those studies were more reliable than the ones that indicte the contrary.
There's a lot in there about why the Common Wisdom is built on bad science - the big one is the 7 Countries paper that cherry picked the countries to get the results they wanted, and ignored the 14 countries that didn't show the required results. This is where Saturated Fat = Bad came from.
The book Good Carbs, Bad Carbs opened my eyes to why Atkins works - lots of science references in there.
With personal experimentation this year, I'm beginning to work out what I can eat and not have problems in the short term. This experience is lining up with the paleo diet. It's much harder to tell if the long term problems will follow the same way, but if I feel physically better now, that can't be bad. I am thinner, healthier, more muscular and have better endurance than at any other point in my life, and I'm 44.
YMMV
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As someone considering paleo, I'd be interested to hear what studies you thought well supported the claim that saturated fats aren't the problem and why you thought those studies were more reliable than the ones that indicte the contrary.
This guy is an interesting read, he's a medical doctor and there's a lot of technical stuff that you may need to lookup to see if hs's actually BSing or not - http://www.archevore.com/ There's a lot in there about why the Common Wisdom is built on bad science - the big one is the 7 Countries paper that cherry picked the countries to get the results they wanted, and ignored the 14 countries that didn't show the requir…
I have experienced exactly this phenomenon.
If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it?
Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out?
What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it?
What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw the line and restrict the governmental power?
I don't know. I know there are ideological answers here, but I don't think those are the best answer.
Madison posed a similar question a long time ago.
Would it be wonderful, if, under the pressure of all these difficulties, the Convention should have been forced into some deviations from that artificial structure and regular symmetry, which an abstract view of the subject might lead an ingenious theorist to bestow on a Constitution planned in his closet, or in his imagination?
It's an interesting problem, in the abstract. If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it? Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out? What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it ? What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw…
It's an interesting problem, in the abstract. If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it? Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out? What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it ? What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw…
Then the revenue goes towards mitigating the negative effects of the act.
It's an interesting problem, in the abstract. If a government could drastically improve the lives of its citizens by applying a negative incentive (an indirect freedom limiter) to perform one particular act, should it? Or should people make the right choice on their own, and/or let the market sort it out? What if the act is so fun that people typically don't forgo it ? What about the Slippery Slope? Where do you draw…
It costs a society to have sick members, by taxing products that cause sickness the government can use the money raised to offset the cost of the sickness.