Scientists find healthy living good for health; "No Shit" says Darkside

[Darkside55]

LONDON (Reuters) - People who drink moderately, exercise, quit smoking and eat five servings of fruit and vegetables each day live on average 14 years longer than people who adopt none of these behaviors, researchers said on Tuesday.

Boy I'd love to be a scientist. They don't even science anymore, they just test facts everybody already knew and then announce them as big discoveries. It's like Mythbusters, except you already knew the outcome, plus they have a gigantic budget and can afford to sit on their asses all day hypothesizing.

"I say, my mum always told me to eat five servings of fruit and vegetables. I wonder if this really has an effect on my health."

"Indeed, good sir. I say we spend four years questioning people who eat fruit, and then we see how many of them die several years later."

"TO THE GRANT MONEY!"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080108/hl_nm/longevity_lifestyle_dc

 

[Pulse]

People who eat fruit and vegetables also get hit by trains.

 

[Maxi]

Yeah, I read that. Sounded really stupid.

 

[Avoidist]

Conventional wisdoms don't always mean truths, thus experimentation and statistical analysis are often employed to prove or disprove what appears to be blatantly obvious. That said, this looks like an outright completely inanely stupid investigation that has already has enough supporting evidence to make Newton's Laws in simple non-relativistic experiments seem questionable and is a serious waste of time and money.

 

[Tyguy]

This just in, eating may help you live. More on this at 10...and next, are your kids in dire jeapordy?

find out at 11

 

[Eejit]

They quantified it.

 

[clarky003]

Seems as if there is no creative people in science these days. The government seems to just pay scientists to do retorical research, to keep us somewhat satisified that they are doing something. So it shall be known as sheeple science, not innovative creative science, but rather something that gives us something to bahh about.

 

[Narvi]

Don't be stupid. Quantification is important, and harder than it looks.

 

[Krynn72]

They just discovered today that those who breath tend to live several years longer than those who dont. The length of life for breathers is still under study.

 

[ailevation]

haha I saw that on my Yahoo page and was like, "wtf duh" I thought it was widely accepted and known that if you exercise and eat right and dont abuse drugs or alcohol you'll be on your toes longer. I mean i've been hearing this shit since as much as I can remember which is about when I was 5 years-old.

 

[Avoidist]

That statement is the exact opposite of the scientific method and borders on something which the politics section has had a bit too much debate on. Let the scientists have their fun.

 

[ailevation]

So, my statement was never backed by the scientific method back when I was 5 years-old? My parents and teachers told me this stuff, possibly because doctors and scientists were saying this back then.

 

[Avoidist]

How would you know if it was or wasn't?

(Ok, you got me there. But "I heard it" isn't exactly the best argument in the world.)

 

[clarky003]

Don't you mean let the scientists waste our money?.

Look I agree you need to quantify things, but when it's a no shit Sherlock subject area you need to chill out a bit.

 

[Avoidist]

All I'm saying is that what seems logical is not always necessarily true and thus should be scrutinized and quantified and never simply assumed. There are so many examples in physics and astronomy it is mind-boggling. Yes, in biology it is a little more clean cut, and they could have been doing far more valuable research. None the less, they have set out an hypothesis, acquired quantifiable results, and proved what they set out to investigate. Had they had different conclusions, as some studies in different areas might, we would be considering the ramifications. All this did was add more evidence to a strongly held belief, and that is perfectly good science.

 

[ailevation]

How would you know if it was or wasn't?

(Ok, you got me there. But "I heard it" isn't exactly the best argument in the world.)

Well I did say, "I thought it was widely accepted and known" meaning it'd be a standardization if it is, if not then it's a norm. Therefore justifying "I heard" instead of "I know so" which then would clearly be against the scientific method, as I would claim to know something without proof.

But since it is standardized I can say it all day long without proving it, since it's already been proven.

EDIT: I mean it'd be a standardization, if it were widely accepted and known with proof, otherwise it'd be just a norm

 

[Avoidist]

True. I concede.

However my point on assumptions should still stand.

 

[<RJMC>]

news discovery

if you close your eyes you cant see

thats because the eyelids block the light from entering the eyes that make you see

 

[clarky003]

Rofl I approve, you never fail to amuse RJMC.

 

[Pesmerga]

Seems as if there is no creative people in science these days. The government seems to just pay scientists to do retorical research, to keep us somewhat satisified that they are doing something. So it shall be known as sheeple science, not innovative creative science, but rather something that gives us something to bahh about.

Man... what? You're basing the assumption that every researcher out there is doing absolutely nothing creative because one college based team made a captain ****ing obvious conclusion?

Hell, I watched a 30 minute episode of eco-tech on the Science channel where chemists were doing all sorts of crazy shit with our waste, trying to convert it to usable energy. Robotics, chemistry, neuroscience, astrophysics, mathematics, and a hundred other fields of study are becoming more knowledgeable about the universe every day.

You really should pull your head out of your ass and do some actual research of your own before you make a blanket statement like that.

 

[clarky003]

I'm not pigeon holing all sientists, so there's no need to over react. I respect alot of them, especially particle phsyicists, They are very academic and often arithmatic wizz's which I am not. So don't jump to insults and daft conclusions about what I'm like just from my opinion on the fact that money is wasted on some practically pointless research.

 

[Tyguy]

clarky hates pigeons

 

[Dekstar]

I was actually doing some research on drinking a while ago, and came across the annoying fact website that said drinking in moderation is better for you than abstaining.

**** that, I thought. I'm getting the bum end of the deal.

 

[Polaris]

Seems as if there is no creative people in science these days.

Except your beloved free energy perpetual researchers...
Yeah, let's blame scientific community for some random shit in media!

 

[clarky003]

No that's your opinion, you don't understand so your not willing to give it the light of day. It's the it has to be fake attitude, because someone said this and this can't happen within certain classical model scientific beliefs. For instance the failure to realise electron spin in the magnet is an energy field maintained by the vacuum. Described in particle physics, which explains perfectly how magnet motors can work, but not described in classical or quantum.

The observations using classical models don't explain alot about our universe atall. Infact they can't even put a unified theory together because they can't unify these models. Mainly because they all contradict each other theoretically in places. Now think about it.. it's all one system, not seperate chunks put together, so how can what we understand fit correctly?. It can't unless you introduce vacuum energy and unify all energy fields as different manifestations of one field. That field is the energy source that powers this world, it gives us atoms, planets, fossils, Stars, life.

Nature does what it does without human input, not because our science laws say so. I believe it because it fits within the workings of unified field theory, and that is something that is far more inclusive and clear than any specific theoretical model ,classical ,quantum ,whichever you have learned.

Every time I have to answer this same childish 'point and laugh because you think differently attitude' I feel like I'm feeding trolls.

 

[Angry Lawyer]

There's no such thing as a bad research subject. If something's not quantified, it's probably worth studying.

-Angry Lawyer

 

[Eejit]

No that's your opinion, you don't understand so your not willing to give it the light of day. It's the it has to be fake attitude, because someone said this and this can't happen within certain classical model scientific beliefs. For instance the failure to realise electron spin in the magnet is an energy field maintained by the vacuum. Described in particle physics, which explains perfectly how magnet motors can work, but not described in classical or quantum.

No, it's the 'it has to be fake' attitude because it's a bloody random youtube clip instead of an article in a respected peer-reviewed journal.

 

[The Monkey]

I eat 10-15 fruits a day, which means I'll life 28-42 years longer than the other people. W00t, I'll be 122 years old!

 

[Krynn72]

I eat like 3-5 fruits a week. Ima die soon

 

[Lamarrfz]

To the particular team that made such startling discovery:

"You scientists are a fraud, ha ha!".