Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 78
Thanks Tree55Thanks

Thread: 7 bad science and health ideas that should die with 2016

  1. #31
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Blueneck View Post
    I haven't heard anyone talking about changing the grid anytime soon. Why is there such hysteria over doing good things regardless of the reason?
    Oh come on... I'm assuming you are in North America, depending on which quadrant of the grid you live in, there's already between 5-20% of the grid power generated by renewable energy. Most of those are only profitable due to the massive subsidies pushing for solar and wind technology.

    The German cautionary tale is also worth noting... the 400 billion in investment has the expected potential return of about 200-300 billion, that's based on reasonable assumptions.

    So, to illustrate and analogize the question; why don't you give a 100$ bill to each homeless you walk past each day? I mean if you want to do good things regardless of the reason (in this analogy the reason would be to not also donate yourself into homelessness)

    As to the carbon trading, I agree to some extent, but it's worked well (or so I've read) on a smaller scale with other kinds of emissions.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading
    Look up the new forests initiative and their work enforcing these carbon trading schemes in countries like Rwanda, Uganda, and other countries. This is a UN program to control the carbon trading where countries that produce most co2 will buy carbon offsets from third world countries.

    *spoiler alert: it might shake your view on the good that comes from these programs *

  2. #32
    Veteran Member TNVolunteer73's Avatar
    Joined
    Nov 2014
    Posts
    29,392
    Thanks
    7610

    From
    TN
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    And that is also one of the reasons so many bacteria are developing resistance to antibiotics. The more the bacteria are exposed to antibiotics the higher the odds of a strain evolving that will be resistant.

    My next soapbox. People who don't finish a course of antibiotics should be hanged as mass murderers.
    The strains don't evolve.. the strains are their but they are the predominate strain.. the antibiotics kill off the predominant strains leaving the resistant strain to fill the void.

    There are stock strains of MRSA from the 1950s, and methicillin was not even developed in the 1950s. VRE stock strains from the 1950s as well
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  3. #33
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,112
    Thanks
    4698

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    The best way to disprove the climate science are the climate science papers... It seems that field doesn't seem to grasp the distinction between the aspects of their field that are objectively proven versus the elements of the science which remain speculative.

    It's frequent theme of climate papers to treat both elements equally and with the same merits.

    <snip>
    I disagree. Admittedly even some reporters working for reputable media have been guilty of that, but not the real scientists. Every paper I have read that reports results of model runs has included a range of results with a breakdown of the factors that cause the varying outputs, as a model should.

    Of course, the reporters always zero in on the most sensationalist part and just forget about its meaning.

  4. #34
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by RNG View Post
    I disagree. Admittedly even some reporters working for reputable media have been guilty of that, but not the real scientists. Every paper I have read that reports results of model runs has included a range of results with a breakdown of the factors that cause the varying outputs, as a model should.

    Of course, the reporters always zero in on the most sensationalist part and just forget about its meaning.
    Oh, the transition between science -> media -> people is especially guilty of that.

    However, you don't seem to realize that beyond that part, your response actually reinforces my position. The models are speculative, not objectively proven to be accurate.

  5. #35
    New Member Detective Mike Logan's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    989
    Thanks
    242

    From
    Hertfordshire, UK
    I can safely say exercising does help you lose weight. if u were to run 5 miles a day and eat a 'normal amount' then u would lose weight.

    but there are many variables in that.
    do u do cardio or weight training? how much do u eat? how often do u go to the gym? how hard do u train at the gym?
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  6. #36
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Detective Mike Logan View Post
    I can safely say exercising does help you lose weight. if u were to run 5 miles a day and eat a 'normal amount' then u would lose weight.

    but there are many variables in that.
    do u do cardio or weight training? how much do u eat? how often do u go to the gym? how hard do u train at the gym?
    First, detective Mike Logan, not sure if that's your real name (don't need to know) but that's such a badass name that you don't even need a middle name. Somehow reminiscent of wolverine, anyway... More important.

    You are right, if you run a 10k a day and eat a balanced diet (that's balanced ratio of proteins-fats-carbs, not food pyramid balanced) you will lose fat.

    If you make it weights and shift to more proteins and fats and few carbs, you will start putting on muscle mass so long as you are working out to failure (not failure on the first set, failure on the 3-5th set), then, you will start to pack on muscle.

    However, if you are at a higher fat percentage (25% and up), it's actually better to focus on the fat loss first.

    Anyway, this topic used to be a fascination of mine.

    One of the most annoying is the people who just say "calories in less than calories out = weight loss", that is true in an oversimplified sense, but when you consider how a person would change if they went on a 2000 calories of cake per day diet vs 2000 calories of steak and salad for a month or so.

  7. #37
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,304
    Thanks
    4682

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    First, detective Mike Logan, not sure if that's your real name (don't need to know) but that's such a badass name that you don't even need a middle name. Somehow reminiscent of wolverine, anyway... More important.

    You are right, if you run a 10k a day and eat a balanced diet (that's balanced ratio of proteins-fats-carbs, not food pyramid balanced) you will lose fat.

    If you make it weights and shift to more proteins and fats and few carbs, you will start putting on muscle mass so long as you are working out to failure (not failure on the first set, failure on the 3-5th set), then, you will start to pack on muscle.

    However, if you are at a higher fat percentage (25% and up), it's actually better to focus on the fat loss first.

    Anyway, this topic used to be a fascination of mine.

    One of the most annoying is the people who just say "calories in less than calories out = weight loss", that is true in an oversimplified sense, but when you consider how a person would change if they went on a 2000 calories of cake per day diet vs 2000 calories of steak and salad for a month or so.
    There are a lot of factors that determine how many calories your body burns on average, among them age, size, gender, activity level, genetics. But, if you consume more calories than you burn, then your body will store the extra calories as fat.

  8. #38
    Veteran Member bmanmcfly's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2014
    Posts
    13,007
    Thanks
    2201

    From
    C-A-N-A-D-A-Eh
    Quote Originally Posted by Dittohead not! View Post
    There are a lot of factors that determine how many calories your body burns on average, among them age, size, gender, activity level, genetics.
    Yes

    But, if you consume more calories than you burn, then your body will store the extra calories as fat.
    2000 calories of cake != 2000 calories of carrots. There are some thermodynamic issues to say otherwise.

    How your body processes the types of food you eat will have a large impact...

    Then you have to consider things like insulin response, and other ways that a person's body responds to those foods...

    Anyway, this is a complex topic where the factors you listed on top also can't be ignored.

  9. #39
    Master political analyst Dittohead not!'s Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    10,304
    Thanks
    4682

    From
    The formerly great golden state
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Yes



    2000 calories of cake != 2000 calories of carrots. There are some thermodynamic issues to say otherwise.

    How your body processes the types of food you eat will have a large impact...

    Then you have to consider things like insulin response, and other ways that a person's body responds to those foods...

    Anyway, this is a complex topic where the factors you listed on top also can't be ignored.
    Yes, it also depends on how much energy the body expends digesting those calories. Some foods are actually negative calories, as it takes more energy to digest them than they contain.

    2,000 calories of carrots would be quite a strain in the human digestive system, particularly raw ones!
    Thanks from bmanmcfly

  10. #40
    RNG
    RNG is offline
    Moderator RNG's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    8,112
    Thanks
    4698

    From
    Canada, West Coast
    Quote Originally Posted by bmanmcfly View Post
    Oh, the transition between science -> media -> people is especially guilty of that.

    However, you don't seem to realize that beyond that part, your response actually reinforces my position. The models are speculative, not objectively proven to be accurate.
    Define accuracy. Other than abstract mathematics or things that are countable units, nothing is totally accurate.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 291
    Last Post: 29th June 2016, 09:48 PM
  2. Replies: 92
    Last Post: 6th July 2015, 10:26 AM
  3. Another anti-science Republican on the House science committee..
    By teamosil in forum Political Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 8th October 2012, 03:48 AM
  4. Obama backs 4 GOP health care ideas
    By Winn in forum Healthcare
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: 8th March 2010, 11:46 AM
  5. Global Warming Science isn't Science
    By conservative in forum Science and Technology
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 2nd December 2007, 01:50 PM

Tags for this Thread


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed