Even worse - would the baristas administering the coffee enemas harangue you about Ferguson, Missouri at the same time?
That’s just brilliant. Brought a tear to my eye.
I’d rather not. The SDMB is my secret world where I can complain about terrible people in airplanes, and ask stupid questions about dentistry.
“Savages,” huh? Let’s see, you were the 98.6F in the cup and 160F through the funnel, right?
My feeling is if I’m going to have to detox, I better have something really toxic to make it worth my while. Who wants to drink all that freakin’ veggie juice for no reason? I’m just off to have a drink and a cigarette now, while the juicer warms up…
Skeptics want proof of ridiculous assertions reguarly made by self-proclaimed “nutrition” experts. Things like “organic apples are ‘better’ than non-organic”; or “sticking apple cores up your ass makes you lose weight (as long as the apple cores are organic)”; or “apple cider vinegar rubbed into your skin makes fat cells explode!”.
(Though I’ll agree that “fat white dudes” is the default setting for America…since over half of Americans are overweight, and more than half are white, and about half are male.)
Okay, get lives is just a complete idiot making shit up. But the nature of how the media (sensationalistically and often out of broader research context) reports on health and nutrition information does make it difficult for the many generally well read, intelligent and scientifically literate people to decide what is fad and what is real. Case in point:
There is a difference between say the current assessment of risks from global climate change and a single media report of a single article that claims everyone needs vitamin D supplementation.
An actual scientific study should be viewed skeptically and within context of what supports and contradicts it. A media report of a study should be taken with as many grains of salt as your blood pressure allows. Even four or five studies should be viewed skeptically. The media jumps on every study as if it represents the new truth which gives the public a false sense that “experts” keep changing their minds.
The skeptics’ position is pretty simple: we have solid evidence that the “standard American diet” as sold by Big Food Inc. - high in refined carbs, sugars, added industrial fats and salts, processed meats, low in high fiber foods including legumes and nuts, vegetables, fatty fish, so on -and the typical American lack of regular exercise - is not so ideal. Lots of room to debate what alternatives are best but the no question that diet plans based off “real foods”, including Mediterranean style plans, or the DASH plan, or even both so-called Paleo inspired approaches and their philosophical opposite, vegan ones … along with regular exercise (ideally both cardio and strength focused) will have substantially better health outcomes than that. At least for populations as a whole. Doesn’t make for exciting headlines though.
Yes, it makes sense to doubt the most recent study and to judge a new claim with a critical eye and to assume that media reporting of a study is sensationalistic pap until proven otherwise.
The skeptics position is not that deep fried Oreos are healthy.
Cite that they’re not?
True. It’s also not that kale is made out of food. 
While I recognize you are just having some fun a response is indicated to help explain to those who do not quite get it what the skeptic’s POV is.
As a skeptic I do not need evidence that Santa Claus does not exist; I require convincing evidence that he does and in the absence of such evidence I doubt mightily.
“The ear of the rear.”
“I’ll have a skinny, half-caff Venti, half-temp. To go.” And you grab a paper funnel as you leave, like the kind you can get from an auto shop for your oil.
“Too hot?”
“No, too sweet!”
Cite that you don’t weigh 350 pounds and subsist on deep-fried Oreos, Pringles and Cool Whip?
I am a French super model and my post is my cite!
Hey the French have a thing for short bald and funny looking, what can I say, when you’ve got it you’ve got it.
Mr DeVito is that you?
Didn’t you once say the same of oysters? 
Fighting Ignorance!
Good, because that costs extra.
If we’re looking at obese/overweight in a racial group, divided by total members of that racial group, yes, you’re right.
But percentages vs total numbers aren’t always the same thing. Consider:
71% of white men are obese or overweight according to the link. That ***is ***lower than other groups, but consider that:
[ul]
[li]Whites make up 77% of the US population, according to the 2013 census. [/li][li]49.2% of the US population are men (the 2013 census again).[/li][/ul]
So there are still *numerically *more obese/overweight white men than any other group.
I suspect that the data at the link was calculated as “obese/overweight [ethnicity] people divided by all [ethnicity] people”, which supports the group’s premise that obesity is more likely as a percentage within minority groups. But it doesn’t mean there are numerically more obese/overweight of any other group than white guys.
Not that it matters except to public health geeks. There are still too many obese/overweight people in the US.
BTW, thanks for the link. I’m going to pass it around my office. My company’s software uses this kind of data to identify gaps in care or possible effects of care. We’re trying to get clients to send weights/heights and/or BMI to make some of our gap/risk calculations more effective.
And the whip is only worth it if you get the full-caf Innuendo.
Yep.
Also liver, buttermilk, and I’m beginning to lean toward quinoa. 