User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

  1. #1
    Senior Member reason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    1,211

    Default Interesting Food and Health Blog

    Well, here is a forum which I never thought that I would start a thread in. Anyway, check out this blog called Junkfood Science. I have linked to the Introduction, so click on the title bar to see the latest. There are some very interesting entries, I am sure you will agree.
    A criticism that can be brought against everything ought not to be brought against anything.

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default I pray this works or else....

    Okay, this thing isn't working for me lol....no clue why. I shall attempt later.

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default *please work*

    Quote Originally Posted by nocturne View Post
    There are some very interesting entries, I am sure you will agree.
    Interesting, but so far I am beyond digusted by what's been stated on that site and in its articles. So I shall expound on my thoughts. Forgive me in advance for the diatribe against them.

    They (The Netherlands) found that the ultimate lifetime medical costs are highest for healthy, nonsmoking, "normal weight" people.
    Clearer focus,food not fat. It isn't fatness that poses the greatest health risks for an aging population and contributes to higher medical care expenses. It's people not getting enough to eat
    Reading this almost made me stop from reading the rest. I find it absolutely ridiculous. It's hiliarious that health professionals from the Netherlands made a study in their country and it somehow translates for the people living everywhere? I'm from Canada and obesity is rising. The US probably has it worth, considering how much larger (no pun intended) it is. They say people aren't getting ENOUGH to eat? Take it to a 3rd World country, doesn't apply to most people from the Netherlands, North America or Europe.

    Now, if they wanna say "that health costs are highest for healthier, non-smoking, "normal-weight" people (and why stress the normal, to point to you or I who is normal? They're so considerate--)

    heeeeh Maybe obesity isn't the greatest health risk for an AGING population. It's affecting the younger population who are aging into an early death filled with disease and are spiraling into a livelihood less hindered than this aging population and will probably live less. Hell, maybe they'll die out before this aging population.

    [QUOTE]They found that while annual healthcare costs are highest for the obese earlier in life (prior to age 56) and highest for smokers at older age, the overall costs are highest for those "healthy" people who are trim and don
    Last edited by zarc; 02-06-2008 at 12:12 AM. Reason: ...won't work

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default ....cont'd....

    [FONT="Arial"]"They found that while annual healthcare costs are highest for the obese earlier in life (prior to age 56) and highest for smokers at older age, the overall costs are highest for those "healthy" people who are trim and don't smoke. The greatest differences in healthcare costs, they wrote, are not those caused by smoking, or obesity-related diseases, but by unrelated diseases that occur with aging and living longer. They conclude that medical costs will not be saved by "preventing obesity"

    First they state "it isn't fatness that poses the greatest health risks for an aging population" and then they say that "they found that while annual healthcare costs are highest for the obese earlier in life (prior to age 56)". Excuse me, and I'm not probably not as proficient as these people or are able to bull-shit my words in such a subtle and artfull way yet but:

    If A: being obese poses no health risk for an aging population and don't contribute to health care costs
    and B: they found annual healthcare costs highest for obese earlier in life (prior to age 56) then..

    What are they telling us? Answer: A beautiful contradiction!
    Did they surmise the memory span of the general public has dwindled to being capable of remembering a paragraph at a time? Such bullshit---

    While this new study can provide a much needed balance to the "costs of society" being assessed on fat people and anyone else not perceived as following a "healthy lifestyle" hopefully, it will also serve as a call to end all such cost estimates. They are used, along with distortions of science, to point blame and lodge wars against those seen as costing too much or "using more than their fair share" of resources ... under the guise of health promotion and the common good. But, in reality, there are only two truisms:
    1. Shit happens and no one gets out alive.
    2. No one really knows how to change.
    No self-respecting author who is serious in representing information accurately and truthfully, I'd think (my opinion), would convey themselves in such a way. But then again, that was taken from the author's blog, so, they can do as they please as they have.

    ...and a columnist for FoxNews.com
    FoxNews. They are the fairest in the land, I'm sure.

    a "Top Resource" and one of the "Most Popular" health news web sites by Yahoo!
    "One of the 50 Best Web Sites" by Popular Science
    a "Hot Pick" by Science.
    A "leading debunker" of global warming by Rolling Stone magazine.
    "Most Popular" is supposed to make them more credible, I suppose, and yet they'd dare to say on their introduction, I paraphrase, how "pop"/ular science is advertised to influence the easily influenced person? As though an easily influenced person wouldn't see "Most Popular" "Rolling Stone" etc and not buy into them --- Right.

    At the bottom it states:
    Material presented on this page represents the opinion of JunkScience.com. ......Material copyrighted by others is used either with permission or under a claim of "fair use."
    I don't recall ever reading any disclaimer such as that for any other credible scientific site but maybe I just want to dig them a deeper grave....

    And btw, I commented as I was reading. That's probably why I haven't gone out to get myself a vaccination because it doesn't cause autism and not my future kids either, oh no, despite massive claims from families with children who were injected and either died 30 days later or developed autism despite seemingly being normal before the damned shot---

    I'd also have probably forgotten how the one I had 4 years ago helped to hinder a head injury I'm still suffering from. The physical pain had stopped years before I took that shot and then BAM--- I still feel the pain stemming from the point of fracture travelling my nerves all the down to stop at where the injection struck me in mid-arm. I'm not exaggerating either. Never again, never for my children if I choose to expose them to this world.

    Conclusions:
    Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity-related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life-years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost-effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures
    Funding: This work was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.
    Now I get it! They thought people would trust them implicitly, wouldn't bother to go read the other site (well I just read the conclusion but JunkScience's entire compliment on that article refutes the damned thing).
    Somewhere, up above in all their scam and my comments, they stated when paraphrasing that Netherland scientific research article: (enterfalsehood) "The greatest differences in healthcare costs, they wrote, are not those caused by smoking- or obesity-related diseases, but by unrelated diseases that occur with aging and living longer. They conclude that medical costs will not be saved by

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    Zzzz
    Posts
    2,629

    Default cont'd...forgive me....



    Conclusions.
    Although effective obesity prevention leads to a decrease in costs of obesity related diseases, this decrease is offset by cost increases due to diseases unrelated to obesity in life years gained. Obesity prevention may be an important and cost effective way of improving public health, but it is not a cure for increasing health expenditures.

    Funding: This work was funded by the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sports.
    Now I get it! They thought people would trust them implicitly, wouldn't bother to go read the other site (well I just read the conclusion but JunkScience's entire compliment on that article refutes the damned thing).
    Somewhere, up above in all their scam and my comments, they stated when paraphrasing that Netherland scientific research article: (enterfalsehood) "The greatest differences in healthcare costs, they wrote, are not those caused by smoking, or obesity related diseases, but by unrelated diseases that occur with aging and living longer. They conclude that medical costs will not be saved by "preventing obesity." (endfalsehood)

    What I understood by the original, undiluted and probably factual article, is that while prevention for obesity is a good way to help lower the cost of obese-related diseases, it don't count for shit because of all the other diseases peope shake hands with and put in their pockets from their embryonic state until the age of whenever one becomes obese, becauseeee those diseases unrelated to obesity are gonna increase the cost for health care anyway. Although obseity-prevention is a cost-effective way of improving the Netherland's people's health as their study was taken from a database in Netherland (they never said it was for Americans, or Italians or the Leprechans hiding in Ireland either but you know that game, broken-telephone?)

    Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy living people and lowest for smokers.
    The Netherland people wrote that life expectancy is HIGHEST among healthy-living people and LOWEST for smokers. I'm debating now on whether I should go call a news station and tell them I have breaking news of the US yet again, or one of their lackeys from FoxNews, blanketing the American people's eyes with outrageous propraganda mitigating the real issues in order to further their messed up, selfish, exploiting goals----

    So, I'm ready to discount all the rest now. Yea, JunkScience, how ironic.
    *btw, I'm not venting at you, make no mistake, I'm just Fe-ing out of my belly button.

    If you think I'm spouting crap. Please read all information for yourself on: The Real Netherland study WHICH STATES IT'S A SIMULATION, ANYWAY vs JunkScience

    You said you find it interesting. Were you waiting for people to accept or reject these articles before commenting yourself? If so, how verrrry sly of you~~!

    Dejavu--- and lastly, as much as I hope this site is a hoax, it doesn't seem that way....

    Too lazy to edit, so sorry for typos, but my arguments are very sane and I wager a more accurate rendition of BOTH JunkScience and "The Netherland's Report".

    Edit: This was so trying....

    Last Edit So Help Me: "Until age 56 years, annual health expenditure was highest for obese people. At older ages, smokers incurred higher costs. Because of differences in life expectancy, however, lifetime health expenditure was highest among healthy-living people and lowest for smokers".

    I somehow overlooked 'expenditure'. So, it still costs more for obese people until 56yrs. etc And the life expectancy being higher for healthier people etc is rescinded (based off what was actually said). But there are differences with life expectancy, so a healthier person will cost more because they LIVE longer and probably it cost lowest for smokers because they die out sooner. Okie *wiped out*

Similar Threads

  1. Food and types they remind you of..
    By Eiddy in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 02-14-2011, 01:05 AM
  2. Militant Belief in Health Food and Alternative Medicine
    By heart in forum Health and Fitness
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-23-2010, 12:09 AM
  3. Do Nanoparticles in Food Pose Health Risks?
    By heart in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-07-2009, 10:26 AM
  4. Animals as food and sexual partners
    By Virtual ghost in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 10-18-2008, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO