Today I saw an unusually large number of people in suits. It was really hot out. I feel bad for them.
Also, courtesy of Yet-to-Pick-a-Pseudonym, the rules of Faceball. It looks extra fun if you have siblings.
Furthermore, my new apartment is fantastic. I'll be back to my more regular blogging soon, now that the move is mostly complete.
Finally, this article on healthy foods has been a NYTimes favorite for what seems like a record number of days now. If a bizillion Northeastern liberals enjoyed it, maybe you will too. It has convinced me to start putting cinnamon on my breakfast cereal.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
GRrr, that NYT article frustrates the poop out of me. All of the studies that attribute various health benefits to specific foods are psuedoscientific at best. Forget that the studies are often poorly designed and have small sample sizes. Forget the fact that many of the "benefits" are self-reported by study participants. Shouldn't a newspaper with the reputation of the NYT know the difference between causation and correlation?
Take turmeric, for example, which the article cites as having anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. A quick search on PubMed reveals numerous studies with contradicting results. The ones that do claim turmeric has health benefits report "a significant correlation" between high amounts of turmeric in the diet and a lower cancer rate. That pretty much means nothing. Dubious results abound regarding the other food items as well.
Moral of the story: Eat food because you enjoy it, not because some idiot tells you it's good for you.
BTW, this is Lord Henry's former roommate. Do I qualify for a psuedonym or do you need my credit score? Are they by request?
GRrr, that NYT article frustrates the poop out of me. All of the studies that attribute various health benefits to specific foods are psuedoscientific at best. Forget that the studies are often poorly designed and have small sample sizes. Forget the fact that many of the "benefits" are self-reported by study participants. Shouldn't a newspaper with the reputation of the NYT know the difference between causation and correlation?
Take turmeric, for example, which the article cites as having anti-cancer and anti-inflammatory properties. A quick search on PubMed reveals numerous studies with contradicting results. The ones that do claim turmeric has health benefits report "a significant correlation" between high amounts of turmeric in the diet and a lower cancer rate. That pretty much means nothing. Dubious results abound regarding the other food items as well.
Moral of the story: Eat food because you enjoy it, not because some idiot tells you it's good for you.
BTW, this is Lord Henry's former roommate. Do I qualify for a psuedonym or do you need my credit score? Are they by request?
What would you like your pseudonym to be?
Also, we obviously know some foods are better than others; where do you draw the line between legitimate benefits and dubious benefits? If there is none, I'd really like to replace water and fruit with soda and bacon.
Post a Comment