bpprox22
String Breaker
I literally just shit my pants and left it there for 34 minutes after reading that ^
I'll say this as nicely as I can.Science is not a repository of knowledge, Science is an idea of methodology, therefore it contains no truth because knowledge is constantly evolving and growing. Men use the word science to justify their inner agenda in both ways, that's why one finds contradictory papers on this or that subject, specially where there is big money involved... it's the new religion!... Food, energy (oil and the shit) and health (pharms, mostly) are the 3 most controversial subjects because of the money they move daily.
Damn straight.don't forget the beer to drink while doing it
That's where the beer comes in!I feel the same way about prepping/cooking as I do with mowing the lawn: If I have time to do it, I enjoy the hell out of the experience and "me" time. If I'm on a time crunch to get other things done it's just another inconvenience.
@Drew The only thing I don't like about the amazing smells while cooking (and eating immediately after) is that it usually makes my taste buds less sensitive to the flavor of the food that I'm working hard to prepare
This site may earn a commission from merchant links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.
The point of science is not to "contain" truth, it's to expose it.Science [...] contains no truth
I've made the "science is comparable to religion" argument before, because I think there are some fair parallels to draw, but not ones that discredit the things we've established as fact. Sure, there's a layer of trust ("faith" if you absolutely must) involved since the average person is not in a position to personally verify everything, but that's also the point of things like peer review. I agree insofar that you shouldn't be taking something as an absolute truth because "that's what science says!" - because science doesn't say things. Scientists say things, science does not. And yes, some of those scientists are wrong - because they're people and people aren't perfect. What science gives us is evidence and data, and it falls on us to interpret those results and hopefully come to some kind of consensus. Even if we're wrong a significant amount of the time, it's still the best approximation of the truth we've got (sketchy/manipulative interpretations aside).it's the new religion!
But that would be science.One should study
(I extended the quote and added bold)One should study how his/hers own body reacts to what food one eats and that's where some physical and mental activity comes into play. One should also know what are the bases of a balanced diet (generally speaking the more sources of food, the better) and then experiment with attention to cause and effect.
But that would be science.
The Dictionary said:Science: noun. The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.
The thing with internet statements is that most won't read the whole thing and react on the first argument, oh boy.
My point is not to discredit the science methodology, but to question the results delivered by scientists, which are humans with all the benefits and faults. Questioning is a form of understanding if things make sense to us or not and, at its inner core, the drive of science itself.
to saying that the best diet should be chosen based on:there is no better diet than the one CONSCIENTIOUSLY made by each individual
If the conversation is about whether or not your diet should be chosen taking into account how your quality of life improves when you eat stuff you like, then sure, maybe... but your metabolism doesn't care how much you love your food. Not in that sense. Maybe mood can affect your metabolism in some way, for reasons that we could study scientifically, but love doesn't change the dietary properties of your lunch.Feelings [...] "the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients
@bostjan the thing is, my first post here was after yours, not in response to what you posted! There is a big difference, I did not quote you so why did you assume I was replying to your specific post or bashing its pointed studies? I stand by my post, I read it a few times before hitting the reply button. I think it is clear that I'm not discrediting science, only saying that, in this food subject, it is far from being... consensual, as is on other matters like "Is the Earth round or flat"?
So, I think you might see where I could get that impression. Sorry I made the wrong assumption. I generally try not to assume to much, but I slip up every now and again.Conscience is KEY to what we eat, not blind beliefs on some paper. Please also note that most results of independent studies made with the science methodology deliver pretty reliable results. but in the end, it is not science per se, it is a man made study, with all the faults it has.
Except that's not what you said. This is what you said:it is clear that you misread my posts and reacted with your impulse. I stated that our moods interfere with the absorption of nutrients, which is the key thing in eating
That has nothing to do with your mood. This reads as "food that tastes good to you will be absorbed better". If you meant to say mood, then just say mood."the pleasure one gets from food" affects the levels of absorption of its nutrients
, then that forces me to ask (knowing where this is going) for the papers. If I can cure cancer by simply wishing it so, then that really begs the question "So...people who die of cancer don't wish that they didn't have cancer?!?!" which is kind of silly, but in my mind, just points out how silly the initial statement is in the first place.odibrom said:There are scientific paper that say our thoughts change our DNA...and other studies relate cancer to the way one deals with his/hers feelings and thoughts.
Mood does not affect how you absorb nutrients at any scale that negates any other nutritional science. There is proper nutritional science behind how things like cheat meals can be beneficial for things like weight loss, and it has nothing to do with how you feel. I mean, you can argue that there's a psychological impact of letting yourself cheat in order to stay motivated to keep up a diet or something, which will, in a super roundabout way, help you in the long run- but on a very base level, that doesn't transform an unhealthy meal into a healthy one. The phsycological aspect has nothing to do with nutrition.let me break it down to you