Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynic
I consider that Darwinism. The information about what is healthy and what has the greatest chance of working is out there. If they disregard it and go with fallacy, it's Darwinism, pure and simple.
|
It's only Darwinism if they get fat enough not to mate, get sterile, or die before they have kids. Or, produce sterile kids or fewer kids than they normally would have.
Information like this can be used to decide how to best educate people who could care less. Or, who care just a little bit and choose a method that they
think will work, but won't. Diet Coke vs Coke.
Come on, people think juice is a good sub for soda.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynic
How many rats can you say have cognizant self-control? That's the bottom line. Humans are so unique in the world, I don't see how we can apply so many rat studies to humans.
If rats are so genetically similar to humans, why don't they have opposable thumbs? Why do they have mating cycles?
Why rats over monkeys? Chimps? Chimps are 99.4% genetically similar to humans. I seem to remember that a lot of mammals are within 95% genetic similarity to humans, some that have little in common with humans, except that they have one nose with two nostrils, two eyes, ears to listen with, give birth to live young, etc. I'm still trying to find how close rats and mice are to humans. Still, enough distinction to make me look sideways at any study on rats applied to humans.
I'd like to think we're all a bit more intellectually capable and physically evolved than rats, but hey, if rats are the key to knowing what drives humans instincts and behavior...I have a sudden urge to rummage through my garbage.
I'm still going to stand by the idea that studies on rats are going to shine a light on rat behaviors.
|
Okay,
Willard. I understand.
But, a rat study is cheap and a monkey study isn't. Things like rat poison kill us both. Too much food makes us both fat.
The fact that they used rats doesn't prove or disprove anything, but it gives us a clue at where to look next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoddelm
It was observed that the rats were eating more, but that doesn't mean that accounts for 100% of the weight gain effect.
Also, one might speculate that something that physiologically (not psychologically) makes a rat want to eat more is having some kind of physiological impact on its metabolism. Not something that was examined in the study but certainly something that could be tested -- on rats as well as humans.
In terms of talking about human willpower, it seems that most people use artificial sweeteners to satisfy a craving for something sweet. So even if 100% of the weight gain effect is that it makes you (if you are a rat) want to eat more, why would you eat something to satisfy a craving (the food containing the artificial sweetener) that causes more cravings?
|
Well said.