Michelle is going to be pissed

So I can have bacon and eggs every day now? Afraid that I'll start to grow sideways again if I did.

Excellent. I make a nice cheese souffle. Kinda a pita, but tasty.

George H.

I have bacon and/or sausage and eggs probably once a week. ...Jim Thompson

Den tirsdag den 10. februar 2015 kl. 20.08.09 UTC+1 skrev Jim Thompson:

-Lasse

Same here, every Saturday. It's been tradition with us since forever. The problem are business trips which thanks to web conferencing are few and far now. The millisecond I come down the hotel stairs and smell waffles it's too late.

"Science failed my generation on the topic of food and exercise the same way science failed my parents generation with cigarettes."

Science didn't fail anyone with respect to cigarettes; the studies showing definite links between smoking and lung cancer had been around since the early 1930s and only grew with each passing decade. It's not science's fault that the cigarette industry spent billions to quash them and sow FUD, or that doctors and the public chose to believe the propaganda over the research.

My father remembers people calling cigarettes "cancer sticks" when he was a kid in the 1940s.

I eat a single fried egg sandwich every day. With sharp chedar added and fresh ground black pepper, sometimes with a slight bit of ground cayenne. Frien with using only one teaspoon of peanut oil where most all of it stays in one corner of the skillet, and the egg pour area gets a fine. microbead wipe of the hot oil just before frying. The rest of the oil is brought over after it starts and allows it to slide and be flipped.

Pop the yolk, cook the whites... leave the yolks wet. Place onto toast with no butter or margarine, add cheese. No salt... it is in the cheese.

Great breakfast. Small portion, but I still thank The Lord as I am eating far more than some folks in the world.

On friday... sometimes... My "fish-on-Friday" meal is a sub $3 speacial I whip up in minutes.

$1 mac cheddar from walmart, 10 Oz.

$1.38 Albacore Tuna can in water or oil, but I prefer water. Then drained, of course.

$1 bag of frozen peas, with which to make several dinners worth of from.

$0.50 worth od Sargento's shredded sharp cheddar.

So, heat mac-chee up. Heat peas (one portion worth) up. Add peas to mac-chee.

Add Tuna in as chuncky a manner as possible, to the mac-chee pea dish. Slowly fold in without breaking up the fish much.

Heat again, add shredded cheddar, heat a bit more.

Add fresh ground black pepper to taste...

I guarantee you can't put it down once you start.

Don't like peas? Try tiny, hand prepped Broccoli fluorettes .

Practically everything they ever told us about diet and nutrition has turned out to be wrong. OK, vitamin C does prevent scurvy; that's about it.

Most published, peer-reviewed scientific studies in the biological and social sciences are probably wrong. Ditto climate studies.

That's almost like our Sunday breakfast except that the egg and the cheese goes between bagel halves instead of bread. We vary the kind of cheese and my favorite is brie. I like it heavy on the pepper, sometimes Cayenne pepper. No salt added. When sweat beads show up on the forehead it's just right.

Sturgeons Law was that 90% of everything is rubbish. This isn't saying that it's wrong - just unhelpful.

My experience of the peer-reviewed literature is that a lot of it was rubbi sh, but not because the offending papers were wrong, but because they repea ted and extended earlier studies producing predictable and totally unintere sting results.

John Larkin's claim that most peer-reviewed scientific studies in the biolo gical sciences are probably wrong has to be nonsense. There's been much too much progress in the biological sciences for this to be true. John Larkin won't know about much of it - he gets his information from the Murdoch cont rolled media, which isn't too strong on science.

John Larkin's claim that most peer-reviewed scientific studies in the socio logical sciences are probably wrong is unlikely to be any better-founded.

The Diederik Stapel affair makes it clear that field was slow to detect tha t Stapel's papers based on faked evidence were wrong, but there's no eviden ce that anybody else has faked data - some probably did, but psychopaths ar e rare in the population as a whole, and don't seem to be particularly pron e to become academic sociologists

The real question is how would John Larkin know? He's not Jim-out-of-touch- with-reality-Thompson but he does regularly post links to nonsensical artic les denying the the reality of anthropogenic global warming, which suggests that his scientific judgment is a good deal less than reliable.

The 1930s were quite a bit early - the latency for lung cancer is up to forty years for smoking. Cigarettes existed before the 1920s, but were not widely used until then.

The 1965 Surgeon's General Report was also based on studies that used brand spanking new statistical techniques that could not have existed in the 1930s.

See chapter 14 "The Question of Causation " Excellent series, the Annenberg one - I'd guess it's at a middle-school level give or take, and it looks to be no cost to you or your kids to watch.

The reports in the '30s showed a high correlation of lung cancer with smoking, which is not conclusive. The extremely long "gestation" period was a huge problem.

So why would people believe them anyway? Most of the people I've known who smoked started way after 1965. It was an existential crisis for the tobacco companies; so no fair being surprised.

I think it was more common by the 1960s. "Coffin Nails" I'd believe, and the Tex Williams song "Smoke! Smoke! Smoke! (That Cigarette)" is from 1947.

By 1960, half of everybody smoked, so it didn't work :)

I heard/ read? somewhere that no one repeats someone else's research, (I think this was mostly in the squishy sciences.. no offence implied) If you get the same result it's not news. and if you get a no result it's also less interesting. negative results are mostly boring.

George H.

My Ph.D. project repeated research that had previously been done in 1917 an d 1930.

In each case, different measurment techniques were used and the research co vered a wider range of conditions.

An American graduate student did much the same measurements as I did at muc h the same time - and published them (which I never did). He used IR absorb tion to track the NOBr concentration in the gas phase, where I used near-UV absorgtion, and he didn't cover quite as wide a range of concentration or temperature as I did.

My wife's Ph.d. work gets repeated from time to time - in languages other t han English, so even the more squishy sciences do do a certain amount of re plication.

Yup, there's a fairly large class of people who really like to tell other p eople what to do, because of course They Know Best. The ones in government are dangerous. Nutrition folks are mostly just tedious, and will usually su bside into gloomy muttering when one mentions their former glories, such as margarine and baby formula.

Being too fat or very much too thin, smoking, and inactivity do seem to be very bad for you. Not eating a vaguely balanced diet is probably bad as wel l.

Choosing the wrong grandparents is even worse.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I've been eating mostly meat, eggs, cheese, vegetables, and nuts for the past year, including enough bacon that I've got a bit sick of it at times. I'm down 25-30 pounds, and my LDL cholesterol has gone down by 30 points or so.

A really low carb diet also helps my state of mind, and seems to help a lot with reflux and various sorts of inflammation such as my sinus difficulties. YMM of course V.

Cheers

Phil "higher on the food chain" Hobbs

social sciences are probably wrong.

Squishy stuff is less reproducible, and hence harder to falsify. Tom Lehrer, after he quit touring, wrote a song called "sociology" about that. (He was apparently teaching applied math in the MIT poli sci department at one point.)

OTOH some sociological stuff is interesting and helpful: I'm just rereading Diane Vaughan's excellent book, "The Challenger Launch Decision". Highly recommended.

Another sociology book is Charles Perrow's "Normal Accidents".

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

people what to do, because of course They Know Best. The ones in governmen t are dangerous. Nutrition folks are mostly just tedious, and will usually subside into gloomy muttering when one mentions their former glories, such as margarine and baby formula.

e very bad for you. Not eating a vaguely balanced diet is probably bad as w ell.

There's not a large market for advice on grandparent selection.

I refer to this problem as well as a host of other similar psychological maladys in men, as "Zimmerman Complex". We ALL have it, just most of us are in civil control of ourselves.

Cops, managers, politicians, and a few other "types" seem to have the worst problem with it.

I'll second that notion.

I think a person's metabolism is very singular. I am a perfect example. If sugar were so bad for you, I'd have been dead decades ago, because I eat a ton of it. White bread too. Who cares they bleached the friggin flour? I also drink gallons of soda a week. Don't see no 30 pounds a year adding to me. I guess I am an anomaly.

I think you covered everything. Being reviled in Usenet for no reason is a pain in the ass too.

Funny... my ancestry includes President Garfield.

All that tells me is that if I ever got into office, they'd be killing me too, as I step on toes as a rule. I'd probably never make it to my desk before they off me.