Talk:Food woo

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon food.svg

This Food woo related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes

This page is automatically archived by Archiver
Archives for this talk page: <1>

This whole page is a disaster and should be scrapped[edit]

Look at this shit: "Even legitimate health food advice is plagued with lack of good information on how much, how often, and for whom. Misinformation, doubt and anxiety concerning nutrition find fertile ground in the fact that scientific studies about the matter are rarely reliable, since they use one of the following two methods: Statistics and sample analysis (risk of confusing cause with correlation — as in the coffee makes you live longer claim) Studies on laboratory animals (their physiology is slightly different from humans)" The only woo here is the moron who wrote this using that precious truism...and missing the point of animal testing entirely. Yes, it's different. The way it works is that the more animals from C. Elgans to vertebrates like lab mice respond positively - or at least not negatively - to the compound, the more likely the effects will translate to the human specimen, since, you know, we're related, thus suggesting the need for further testing directly on human subjects. When someone suggests something because of preliminary lab trials, they are not "pulling it out of their ass" but highlighting, within context, promising signs for use on human guinea pigs in the overwhelming majority of cases. But congratulations on being completely in the dark on this subject while holding pretenses of being reasonable, or a skeptic. You're in over your head. The entire regimen of macronutrients and all vitamins and minerals eludes precise dosage guidelines: this does not mean carbohydrates, calcium and fiber are flakey snake oil things in the same nonscientific strata of folk cures as tiger penis or barley water (which may have positive health effects!)

This article carries other preposterous admonitions like those suggesting `any food and drink is dangerous in sufficient quality!!" and that BHP plastic is harmless or that Green Tea is a fad. It is not. It holds Aspartame to be safe merely because the FDA approved it. Dangerous naivete, that. The whole sentence after "coconut oil" reads like the demented ravings of an advanced Alzheimer's patient. Worst of all, it doesn't even bother to justify any of it's reasoning or desperately affected pleas of sensibility. It just assumes a bizarre hostile attitude toward trendy food stuffs like Acai that are potent antioxidants. See also: coffee. Coffee, I'm sorry to alarm you, will make you live longer in the absence of the effects caffeine and cacao have on other causes of mortality, especially in the case that you don't consume it moderately or are predisposed to risks arising from medical conditions stemming from coffee's excitement of particular aspects of your anatomy and physiology. It is a neuroprotective and antioxidant. There's no debating that.

There is more woo in this irrational article than there is at the Raiki crystal stall — Unsigned, by: Lambchowder / talk / contribs

Lambchowder - please sign your contributions.
Your initial statement is wrong - some animals can eat material we find poisonous (would you share a meal with vultures and other consumers of decomposing material?) and vice versa (aspirin is toxic to some animals).
What is preposterous about `any food and drink is dangerous in sufficient quality'? Such a statement of fact cannot be preposterous. The comment above that 'wait six months and attitudes towards food X will change' is more valid than some of your points.
Good grammar makes good arguments. (talk) 10:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
@Lambchowder "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:20, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
So, Lambchowder, is caffeine good for you or not (or 'if you like coffee and don't drink too much of it')? (talk) 21:36, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

How harmful are processed foods?[edit]

Here's a discussion that's short and sweet (pun intended). Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:56, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Alternate title for People in Food Woo[edit]

I was slightly concerned when I noticed "Woomeisters" being used as the alt-title of the people section, when the "see also" (and the top of the page) link offers a perfectly good pun - Wootrionists!

Yes the only reason I made this was to recommend you add another pun. Oh well. (talk) 20:15, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I like it, very punny.GrammarCommie (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
Food for thought could be brought into the discussion somehow. Anna Livia (talk) 22:18, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Rainbow foods[edit]

Have seen a couple of references to the term recently and there are various websites eg [1] (and even [2]). Should there be a mention here? Category of 'not quite woo.' Anna Livia (talk) 17:37, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Containing woo[edit]

Does food woo come in punnets (not necessarily recyclable) or trugs (olde worlde, old fashioned goodness)? Anna Livia (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2018 (UTC)