aliceBB Posted January 19, 2014 Share Posted January 19, 2014 I provided you a link to a double blind scientific study, that's not scientific enough for you? You're right, it was a discussion of the study, not the paper itself. So can we have a link to the double blind study itself (and any peer revieiwing of it which has been conducted?), rather than just to a forum with anonymous randomers discussing it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Maybe later if I have the time to find it. Did you think it was all a hoax though, and that the study didn't exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 Maybe later if I have the time to find it. Did you think it was all a hoax though, and that the study didn't exist? I have absolutely no idea; I'd never heard of it before (there are hundreds of thousands of recent studies out there on nutrition and metabolism). But even if the study did/does exist, you can hardly use it to try to occupy the intellectual high ground in this debate if you do not know who conducted it, in what context, funded by whom or whether or not it was peer-reviewed! Add to that your inability/disinclination even to find the study, your earlier claim that you are only convinced by 'the scientific evidence' starts to look a bit dubious, to say the least. I am not a scientist by training (although I have read widely about nutrition, child health and diabetes), but my husband is and so is my daughter. One conducts research and other has studied and has to use the results of research (mainly biochemical and medical) in her work. They both tell me that not all 'research/studies' are as valuable as each other and that there is a methodology for objectively evaluating their validity. We cannot apply that methodology if we only have a second hand reference to a study and not the study itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I didn't know about it at all and earlier in the thread I shared your opinion. I'm prepared to change my opinion though (and have done so) on the basis of the evidence. Inability/disinclination - or call it a need to go to work, I don't know about you, but I'm now in the office, whereas before I was having my cup of tea at home. Presumably your husband and daughter have told you that the plural of anecdote is not data? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 I didn't know about it at all and earlier in the thread I shared your opinion. I'm prepared to change my opinion though (and have done so) on the basis of the evidence. Inability/disinclination - or call it a need to go to work, I don't know about you, but I'm now in the office, whereas before I was having my cup of tea at home. Presumably your husband and daughter have told you that the plural of anecdote is not data? Well, I'm at home because I have been told not to work for two weeks following an operation. Have a good day at work! Normally I'd be up a ladder by now, painting the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, or the Yorkshire equivalent. Saying you'll change your mind on the basis of 'the evidence' (as if this is some kind of intellectual Holy Grail) is pretty meaningless, if you think about it. What 'evidence'? Apart from anything else, there is always than one lot. Some evidence is more trustworthy and thus more useful than others. Of course anecdote is less valid than hard data collected in a scientifically sound way, but all I have done is describe what I and others have observed empirically over many years working with children, and asked those who dispute my interpretation of the biology underlying it, to explain why I am - or might be - wrong, or even to produce some scientific research which purports to prove that a different mechanism is at work. So far nobody has done that. Actually...remind me what it is exactly in what I have said which you dispute and why? There is no point in our arguing if you agree with my basic premise! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted January 21, 2014 Author Share Posted January 21, 2014 AliceBB, is there a difference between concetrated fruit drinks and smoothies, ie is one more healthier than the other? I ask because concentrated orange drinks are thicker, so I wondered if anything else was added to make them so thick, such as the pulp. Also, I note that concentrated juices do not mention the word fresh. At least Fresh fruit juices and smoothies consist of Fresh fruit juices. Would you say one is more healthier than the other? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Well, I'm at home because I have been told not to work for two weeks following an operation. Have a good day at work! Normally I'd be up a ladder by now, painting the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel, or the Yorkshire equivalent. Saying you'll change your mind on the basis of 'the evidence' (as if this is some kind of intellectual Holy Grail) is pretty meaningless, if you think about it. What 'evidence'? Evidence of the factual kind... Personally I'd prefer a rigorous double blind scientific study, but I'd also settle for a statistical analysis. What I won't include unless there's no other options is anecdote, it's just too unreliable. It is some kind of intellectual holy grail, holding an opinion despite the evidence is just wilful self delusion. Apart from anything else, there is always than one lot. Some evidence is more trustworthy and thus more useful than others. Of course anecdote is less valid than hard data collected in a scientifically sound way, but all I have done is describe what I and others have observed empirically over many years working with children, and asked those who dispute my interpretation of the biology underlying it, to explain why I am - or might be - wrong, or even to produce some scientific research which purports to prove that a different mechanism is at work. So far nobody has done that. Rather than asking someone to believe the evidence (be that for or against you), you're challenging them to either come up with a biological explanation for why you're wrong, or shut up and accept your anecdote. Which hardly seems fair. Actually...remind me what it is exactly in what I have said which you dispute and why? There is no point in our arguing if you agree with my basic premise! I can't entirely remember. My original point on this thread was that sugar isn't physically addictive. After that there was something about sugar causing bad behaviour in children, which seems to be disputed when scientifically investigated. I certainly haven't disagreed that glucose can be absorbed quickly, causes blood sugar to rise quickly, gives you a quick burst of energy, but is then quickly used up/removed from the blood stream and leaves you back where you were before. ---------- Post added 21-01-2014 at 08:29 ---------- AliceBB, is there a difference between concetrated fruit drinks and smoothies, ie is one more healthier than the other? I ask because concentrated orange drinks are thicker, so I wondered if anything else was added to make them so thick, such as the pulp. Also, I note that concentrated juices do not mention the word fresh. At least Fresh fruit juices and smoothies consist of Fresh fruit juices. Would you say one is more healthier than the other? A smoothie made at home is healthier as all the fibre in the fruit is still present. It still makes it easier for your digestive system to extract the sugar though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Evidence of the factual kind... Personally I'd prefer a rigorous double blind scientific study, but I'd also settle for a statistical analysis. What I won't include unless there's no other options is anecdote, it's just too unreliable. It is some kind of intellectual holy grail, holding an opinion despite the evidence is just wilful self delusion. You seem to be under the illusion that there is such a thing as 'the evidence' which is the one, indisputable truth about an issue. Even mathematicians and physicists do not claim that; there is always more than one set of research findings/statistical analysis which (depending on context) can be used to 'disprove' something which has been 'proven' by someone else using equally valid methods. All we can do is look at all the evidence which surfaces and try to evaluate how likely it is to hold the key/be useful (if we can). This is especially true of human physiology and biochemistry, perhaps because however big your sample, there is more variation between individuals (for whatever reasons) for results to be seen as 100% conclusive or applicable to all humans. And to dismiss as 'anecdote' the consistent empirical observations of many teachers and childcarers over many years, when those observations are widely supported by paediatricians, nutritionists and even the World Health Organisation, seems to be a tad...well, blinkered. ---------- Post added 21-01-2014 at 11:15 ---------- A smoothie made at home is healthier as all the fibre in the fruit is still present. It still makes it easier for your digestive system to extract the sugar though! Agreed. With fruit, the rule of thumb is : a whole raw apple is better than a baked apple, apple purée or an apple smoothie the baked apple, purée or smoothie is better than the freshly pressed juice the freshly pressed juice is better than the concentrated processed product (and the concentrated product is still better than a fizzy apple-flavoured drink with added sugar and caffeine...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 No I don't. I believe that there is evidence, and the weakest kind is anecdote. There could be contradictory evidence, incomplete evidence, or very clear evidence, it still needs interpreting. From what I've seen so far, the only evidence that sugar causes kids to misbehave is anecdotal and contradicted by better evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 No I don't. I believe that there is evidence, and the weakest kind is anecdote. There could be contradictory evidence, incomplete evidence, or very clear evidence, it still needs interpreting. From what I've seen so far, the only evidence that sugar causes kids to misbehave is anecdotal and contradicted by better evidence. Great! Let's see this 'better evidence,' then. So far neither you nor anyone else on this forum has been able to produce any. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.