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

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*