- Home
- Find a Therapist
- Topic Streams
- Get Help
Mental Health
Addiction
ADHD
Anxiety
Asperger's
Autism
Bipolar Disorder
Depression
Eating Disorders
Insomnia
OCDPersonality
Passive Aggression
Personality
ShynessPersonal Growth
Happiness
Goal Setting
Positive PsychologyRelationships
Low Sexual Desire
Relationships
SexEmotion Management
Anger
Procrastination
StressFamily Life
Adolescents
Child Development
Elder Care
Parenting
SiblingsRecently Diagnosed?
Diagnosis Dictionary
- Magazine
- Tests
- Psych Basics
- Experts
When making the choices needed to optimize health, it is critical to have accurate information. Otherwise, our diet and lifestyle sacrifices, for which we sometimes give up things we enjoy, may kill us instead of helping. The truth? Do the things that feel good, and you may live longer!
References?
Is it possible for the author to post the actual academic references to these claims?
Brilliant
Our Puritan ancestors seem to have left us with a very dangerous message: If it feels good...It must be bad. Unless you get hit by a bus, your life span is mostly a matter of your genes. Do everything right and you add two years. Do everything wrong and you subtract the same. But how much you enjoy whatever time you have...that, my friend, is almost entirely up to you.
Steve Mason
PT Blogger
PS
To Anonymous: If you never learned how to find "actual academic references" on your own, you're certainly not going to understand them if they're handed to you.
Hehe, I thought the risk of
Hehe, I thought the risk of dying is always 100%!
Sources?
It would indeed ideal to have references to back up these claims, that are not related to the author's expertise. It's not hard to google around and find many sources with more pertinent qualifications claiming the very opposite.
http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002114.htm
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/butter-vs-margarine/an00835
To Stephen Mason, Ph.D I'm
To Stephen Mason, Ph.D
I'm not the first Anonymous, but what you said is preposterous. To begin with, it's not just a matter of "hey, I can't find, plz put dem there dude", but actually a healthy high standard of substantiation over controversial claims. What's the point of just go on "debunking" "myths" and expecting the readers to accept at face value? If it's not expected, if it is expected that they won't, but that they'd rather seek to confirm, then it's just pointless to do an essentially empty article that just appears on search engine results on the subject, occupying the space of a more relevant, substantiated result.
It's surprising that someone who has received a CSICOP prize can yet shows this posture adverse to skepticism.
Now I noticed that the author
Now I noticed that the author is actually an MD, not a psychologist, as I had assumed. I don't know if it makes it any better though. For each of these claims/debunkings there are quite many dissonant voices in the actual peer reviewd literature, the article lacks nuance and overtly simplified many important issues here. Very disappointing.
Post new comment