- The fedgov’s new attempt to ban tech speech about firearms appears to be an attempt to slap Defense Distributed for getting uppity.
- But attacks on free speech are getting more ominous — and sometimes more stupid — by the minute. Thank you, Ken White, for revealing this outrage.
- Another good commentary on the subpoena served on Reason.
- Intellectuals: Leviathan’s Praetorian Guard.
- Thanks to a recent WSJ editorial, the world seems to have awakened to the fact that social “science” is little more than an intellectual justification of liberalism. Big debate now going on. Cameron of The Passive Habit agrees, but calls it unintentional.
- Why everything we “know” about nutrition (via government sources) is wrong.
- Christopher Lee: Alive or dead? Dead at 93, it seems. What a loss … but what a life he lived and how many great movie moments he gave us!
“The American public deserves the best possible science.”
While I agree with much of this article, the focus winds up all wrong. The American public can’t rationally trust any science or research that is paid for with stolen goods, directed by politicians and bureaucrats. It is only logical to suspect their motives as much as their methods. Strawberries do not grow on poison ivy.
Yes, the dietary advice of the US government has always been bogus, but nobody is actually forced (yet) to believe it or follow it. Millions of people have chosen otherwise and all reap the consequences of their choices, good and bad, no matter the source of their information.
“found that most of the 60,000+ NHANES subjects report eating a lower amount of calories than they would physiologically need to survive,”
Ok, while it’s entirely possible that the majority of those people were reporting the wrong number of calories, those scientists should also keep in mind that the minimum required calories to survive is ALSO an estimate based on the same type of research this article is questioning. Plus, it’s an average, which means there are huge numbers of people who need either more or less in order to maintain their weight.
I wish I had saved the link, but I once came across a research project being conducted by one of the major universities, that was trying to test how much of what we eat actually gets used. When I read it, the research was still ongoing, but as I recall, a preliminary finding was that the average person (there’s that A-word again) only absorbs about 27% of the calories from protein that they take in.
My metabolism got screwed up because of my other health problems, and as a result, I get by on 800-1200 calories per day. More than that and I start packing on pounds. And that’s with walking a mile every day and spending my days off in the garden. I didn’t believe it at first, but every time I track my intake it comes out to the same thing. I’ve met a few other people who were the same. I also know a guy who is skinny as a rail and eats 4000 calories a day.
Like with so many things, one size does not fit all.
I’ve just recently finished a book about what goes on in a person’s body regarding metabolism and hormones. It’s called “The Metabolic Storm” by Emily Cooper. It also goes in why diets don’t work. It’s a short book so you should be able to get through it fairly quickly.
Sad, but amusing nonetheless: As currency dies, Zimbabweans will get $5 for 175 quadrillion local dollars
From the nutrition article:
Not just “bad science”. Also, pressure from food processing companies, who pushed to vilify fat and cholesterol (which are relatively expensive ingredients) and sanctify sugars, which are much cheaper.
More and more studies show that sugar is a big problem (if not the big problem) and not just a bogeyman. Physical activity (or the lack thereof) is an issue, but sugar creeps into our diets from so many different sources and under so many different names (“it’s not sugar, it’s a ‘sugar-alcohol'”; okay, but it’s refined-sugar-based and your body will treat it exactly like sugar) that merely “increasing physical activity” cannot possibly burn it all. We’re not that much more sedentary than we were 60 years ago, but we do consume a lot more processed foods and refined sugars than we did back then.
Should we exercise? Yes, but for health and fitness. It won’t curb obesity … unless you want to commit to running a half-marathon three days a week and power-lifting two other days.
On another topic: Farewell and RIP, Sir Christopher Lee. Not just a fine actor, but a talented musician as well. I always thought his voice was particularly striking. Turns out I wasn’t the only one!
I agree with that Popehat article (and similar essays I’ve read elsewhere) about the ridiculous and offensive grand jury subpoena to Reason Magazine. It is a reasoned analysis of the legal issues raised by that subpoena. But why was it necessary to so denigrate the bloggers who posted those somewhat intemperate comments? Why does White feel the need to stoop to using derogatory phrases such as “the blowhard stupidity of its commenting peanut gallery”, “obnoxious asshats”, “juvenile mouth-breathing” and “internet assholes”. (OK, “bluster and hyperbole” I’ll accept; that seems about right.) Of course, it could be that it is because he is writing on an internet blog, and thus perhaps feels compelled (or liberated) to descend to the level of the “wretched hive of scum, villainy, and gaseous smack talk” which is the Internet. But if it’s merely to demonstrate his distance from the “twerps” whose actions he is nominally defending, it’s a pretty crass way to do it.
I don’t know, Laird. But Reason is not known for having the most civil comment section. Been notorious for years. So maybe he’s just commenting on that.
@Laird, so … 1st time reading Popehat? 🙂
I recall reading something a while back claiming that one of the reasons for the original food pyramid featuring grains so prominently was that the AG business had ramped up a lot of processed food stuff for WWII, and then post war, were looking for a way to maintain their factories — also a factor in the introduction of pre-packaged and processed foods to the general public.
I mostly ignore what a read about food. Screw it. There’s no way to account for all the variables. So, the Mediterranean diet is supposed to be good for you? Well, maybe if you live over there, and live that lifestyle. Soy is bad? Well, apparently not for for Asians, which is or isn’t genetic, and/or has something to do with the rest of their diet. Hell, I’m just going to keep on drinking coffee and eating meat.
(I am, in general, convinced that carbohydrates should be limited — seems to be some real science in that regard, regarding actual metabolic processes.)
and sometimes more stupid
Amen. It’s hard to stay worried about a government that keeps pulling stunts this inept. Cracking down on the less-articulate-more-hyperbolic bloggers as “threats” is like killing the canaries so the mine will be safe.
From that Garrison Center article: “I have every right to such an opinion, and to its expression. So do you. Those rights are even enshrined in “the supreme law of the land” in which Forrest committed her atrocities (it’s in the First Amendment to the US Constitution).”
Getting kinda religious here (talking about shrines)…
Looking at the big picture of this kerfluffle, the judge’s attack does not actually seem to be chilling free speech (if you examine the comments), but instead kicking the hornet’s nest. And the long term effect must be a reduction in the supposed legitimacy of government, in the eyes of those watching this story. Shooting themselves in the foot again. They can’t help it; “it’s in their nature”.
On that article about social science, I agree except for one nit – calling the bias “liberal”. To be more accurate, the bias is in the direction of fascism. But yeah, intentionally or unintentionally (probably mostly the latter) fascism is what you get out of it. Of course that is not only a problem of social “science”. The very structure of government has the same bias, and generates the same result.