Explore the concept of healthy eating scientifically and shed light on the molecular basis of energy balance. On this edition, UCSF nutritionist Andrea Garber takes a look at the plethora of fad diets and why certain diets work and others don't. Series: "UCSF Mini Medical School for the Public" [3/2008] [Health and Medicine] [Show ID: 13729]
These articles or blog posts is usually observed on DietingSecretsExposed.com and related sites.
Related Site Quick Weight Loss News
@killintymm Both. Our lifestyles, the things we eat, environment, genetics, all of those things contribute to many chronic conditions. Things like cancer is just cells in your body going out of control. It’s much harder to treat conditions caused by changes in your body itself – unlike acute diseases where you can focus on killing ‘a thing’ like a bacteria. To treat chronic conditions, you have to make your body change what it’s doing via therapies, and keep it that way- a much harder thing.
@lokhtar our own body is responsible ? do you mean the lifestyle and we dont know how harmful some things are in the long run ?
@killintymm Most research in the basic sciences is government funded, and under Obama, it is increasing. We spend probably $20-$30billion per year. The problem is that as we move to treatments of chronic conditions instead of acute ones, the problems are much greater, since it’s not the bacteria or a virus, it’s your own body that is responsible, and fighting that is much harder, and thus progress is going to be slower. Not much we can do but keep trying, we’ll get there eventually.
@lokhtar you are right. i stand corrected then. but they are doing less of inner space. wouldn’t you agree ? because everything is motivated by capitalistic gains. peace!
@killintymm That’s a false dichotomy. You can do both.
@AtheistJon bottom line these days is money, so everyone is trying to make money, that was my point. having said that i do enjoy most videos from this channel, it has less of bs .
@killintymm
That’s very true, but when the idea is presented with science that has been published in peer-reviewed literature, it certainly has more credibility.
@AtheistJon thanks, someone agrees. everyone you see has found the magic exercise to reduce weight and the magic drug , magic diet, a new diet book, just a quick way to make money.
@killintymm
You’re damn right!!
it seems scientists are gonna send someone to mars. but unfortunately they have no worked on what is good for human brain, how to treat depression without forcing those destructive drugs down his throat, what is the right food to lose weight? maybe its time to forget about outer space and start worrying about your inner space.
In the original research, this study notes that high-fat foods are often high-SUGAR foods, or were consumed w/sugary foods. (Think pastry, or burgers & coke.). In the conclusions this was NOT mentioned, thought to be coincidental & irrelevant . WRONG: It was sugar all along. If they’d paid attenetion to their own research, we’d be 50 years ahead in dietary recommendations.
I would suggest you to take Crevax. It is all natural and safe to use. No side effects and works without even following any diet plan.
I love her critique of the “low-fat” diet. I cringe when I see “diet” products, period. Switching from “whole” foods to processed crap wasn’t a healthy idea, reallly??? I would have never guessed. Hey, I found the cause of obesity in the USA: Lazy, gluttonous pigs don’t want to just eat less and move more.
I dont think the woman in the video knows what a graph is, never mind how to analyse the data!
I agree with Auriganus here. The raw correlation of a scatter of points with a line is not enough. You have to compare it with other possible lines. For example, if you have a single cluster of points, you can get the same correlation drawing a line through it in any orientation. It doesn’t tell you anything at all.
I just do not think that the figure of 0.71 is significant in this case. The sample is too small and too bunched. Just for comparison, what would be the correlation rate with the best-fit horizontal line? Can you tell us please? I ‘guesstimate’ that it would be just slightly less than 0.71.
The correlation was 0.71, a lot more reliable than your guesstimations of the correlation.
Good . But I lost over 30 lb in one month using weight loss plan from LSWEIGHT(.)INFO
great job p.s.? never give up
Come to that, the first graph shows no trend at all – just three isolated points at top right. How does she get the trend line from that graph? It is totally arbitrary.
I mean the second graph.
I am shocked. That first graph showing CHD against saturated fats is completely useless. It shows 16 points randomly distributed up and down the vertical axis. Only two, the Japanese and Italian points, are significantly lower fat and CHD. Two points don’t make a trend!
lower. For example, she picked out the US point on the graph, but she might equally well have chosen the French or Swiss data, which show very low CHD but the same fat intake as the US. The graph is statistically meaningless.