Atkins Diet is dangerous pseudo-science

[ciphergoth]

The Atkins Diet is a pile of dangerous pseudo-science. Not that this comes as a surprise, but here's the word from Dr Susan Jebb of the Medical Research Council's Human Nutrition Research Centre.

(Note: questions about TrustFlow here will be deleted, post them in trustmetrics.)

Update: Post made friends-only. Thanks to babysimon for pointing out that vampwillow had invited people in atkins_uk to join the thread, resulting in some incredibly lunatic contributions. Update: Public again.

Comments

linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

your comment seemed in a similar tone to others which were violently defending a way of life without looking at other possibilities, or entertaining the idea that there may be other explanations or options. therefore demonstrating my original point.


Actually that’s what we are saying about you, your unable to entertain new ideas - remember were the ones who have not only listed to and tried out low fat diets et al, but also have read extensively about other options - that we have turned away 'from the faith' in what the government has been promoting for years is what your objecting to. As i said before it is you who are blinkered

if anyone wants to call me a heathen, then I’m absolutely fine with that (but yes, that wasn't your point). I’m merely commenting on what I see displayed in the replies to this journal entry.

You must have mis-read what I said I wasn’t describe you as the heathen, I was describing us as the heathens. And you as sharp defenders of the faith, the lay members of a church denying any other possibility than their own.

there is a well drawn up boundary between pseudo-science and science, it's not a case of using terms depending on how one feels. my point of view is mostly formed out of common sense.

really wow - and you've studied the history of science and medicine have you? Because I would really like to read your paper on the subject that clearly delineates the line between pseudo-science and science. So that the rest of us researchers can go home and work on something else?

I suspect that you haven’t - that you believe in the mythology of science, an unquestioning belief in the science that you have been told, and that its can be cleanly divided from bad or wrong science. that you haven’t studied either sciences history or philosophy, looked at the power dynamic that run inside science, at how one idea gains favour over another not because of better science but because of group and power dynamics.

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

Actually that’s what we are saying about you
am i talking to more than one person here?

You must have mis-read what I said I wasn’t describe you as the heathen
and i never said you did (notice the phrase "but yes, that wasn't your point" in my previous reply).

and as for your other points, Occams Razor (the principle of parsimony) is normally a sufficient means (and has certainly been proven so historically) for distinguishing snake-oil from what i would call science.

now please leave me alone and try to convince someone who actually wants to go on a diet about your wonderful claims.

Re: linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

and as for your other points, Occams Razor (the principle of parsimony) is normally a sufficient means (and has certainly been proven so historically) for distinguishing snake-oil from what i would call science.


so you would call a lot of religious thinking science?
since occams razor predates science?
I woudl suggest that teh simpler explantion isnt always correct on one had we have evolutionary ideas that through a varierty of complex process that we dont understand fully yet animals have evolved, on the other god created the world and everything it.

according to occams razor the second one must be true since its is simpler. Btw i'm an atheist, a scientist and I believe in evolution (but I'm not a darwinianist)

now please leave me alone and try to convince someone who actually wants to go on a diet about your wonderful claims

I'm not trying to convince you to do Atkins I'm objecting to you describing me and mine as closed minded, unthinking, unscientific, people who spout claims with out solid scientific basis for our statements etc. You seem to assume that only you can be sceptical.

you want to eat the way you do and exercise the way you do its your choice,

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

ah, you misunderstand occams razor. we're not talking about assuming the choice with the least words, but the one that requires the smallest logical leap. i'm sure you'll agree that the idea of a supreme immortal omnipotent being is somewhat more of a logical step than a bit of random chance followed by a series of evolutionary steps.

Re: linked comments 1

[x-mass.livejournal.com]

If your analyis is correct and occams razor suggests that the answer with the smallest logical leap is the correct one and thus that the idea that "the idea of a supreme imortal omnipotent being" is a more logical step and thus moer right step than believing in evolution, then im happy for you.
According to your logic god is an integral part of science but evolution is a pseudo-science. Which if your a creationist is great - except I'm not i think occams razor is this case is a lousy analysis and i prefer the pseudo science of evolution

Re: linked comments 1

[tempaccount99]

no, that's not even slightly what i said. read again and you'll see that it's the other way round. which demonstrates that occams razor works for our mutual thinking on the subject.

how could you possibly say that the idea of a "supreme imortal omnipotent being" is a logical one at all, let alone a small logical leap. *boggles*