work

You should know me by now. I give you the scientific facts. Unlike most “health gurus”, I don’t just keep serving up my prejudices as “information”. The truth is, however, I’m shocked by a new study. It goes against a great deal. But it’s a very interesting study, with an interesting conclusion, and deserves to be widely known. I will not take the usual amateur line that, because it conflicts with my knowledge, it must be flawed or fraudulent. I have no reason to doubt the sincere investigators in Tel Aviv. What did they find that is so shocking? That starting your morning with a high-protein food and a sticky “dessert” — such as a doughnut or a slice of cake — may help you lose weight and keep it off.1 Predictably, several nutritionists said they weren’t ready yet to embrace the study’s conclusions. Well, what’s the point of science, if you don’t pay attention to possible lessons?

You should know me by now. I give you the scientific facts. Unlike most “health gurus”, I don’t just keep serving up my prejudices as “information”. The truth is, however, I’m shocked by a new study. It goes against a great deal. But it’s a very interesting study, with an interesting conclusion, and deserves to be widely known. I will not take the usual amateur line that, because it conflicts with my knowledge, it must be flawed or fraudulent. I have no reason to doubt the sincere investigators in Tel Aviv. What did they find that is so shocking? That starting your morning with a high-protein food and a sticky “dessert” — such as a doughnut or a slice of cake — may help you lose weight and keep it off.1 Predictably, several nutritionists said they weren’t ready yet to embrace the study’s conclusions. Well, what’s the point of science, if you don’t pay attention to possible lessons?

A big story broke this week with discussion of the ethical use of brain boosting drugs (known imposingly as “cognitive enhancement” drugs). The row was triggered by an editorial in the prestigious journal; Nature (Dec 11th 2008), calling for the freedom to take such substances. Nature, a very “upmarket” science journal, had polled its readers and found 20% of top scientists already took cognitive enhancement substances. Studies have already suggested that between 5% and 15% of college students use brain-boosting drugs, mostly Ritalin or Adderall. Banned street drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and LSD are also “cognitive enhancement” substances, remember. So the outcry is understandable. Even if the must-meddle-in-other-peoples-freedoms crowd had failed to notice and get involved, the how-do-we-know-its-safe group, which includes me, might want to express their concerns. Then there is the issue of “Is it fair?” Are people who take drug enhancements not leap-frogging over everyone else? We ban sports performers from doing that because it’s considered not quite nice! What’s different about getting the edge intellectually and is that cheating? Maybe the fact that we could all join in means it’s not quite cheating. But then many people may not want to take such substances (I have never taken a mind-enhancing drug in my life and have no intention of doing so, even to keep up with the herd); are we not being left at a disadvantage?

A big story broke this week with discussion of the ethical use of brain boosting drugs (known imposingly as “cognitive enhancement” drugs). The row was triggered by an editorial in the prestigious journal; Nature (Dec 11th 2008), calling for the freedom to take such substances. Nature, a very “upmarket” science journal, had polled its readers and found 20% of top scientists already took cognitive enhancement substances. Studies have already suggested that between 5% and 15% of college students use brain-boosting drugs, mostly Ritalin or Adderall. Banned street drugs, such as marijuana, ecstasy and LSD are also “cognitive enhancement” substances, remember. So the outcry is understandable. Even if the must-meddle-in-other-peoples-freedoms crowd had failed to notice and get involved, the how-do-we-know-its-safe group, which includes me, might want to express their concerns. Then there is the issue of “Is it fair?” Are people who take drug enhancements not leap-frogging over everyone else? We ban sports performers from doing that because it’s considered not quite nice! What’s different about getting the edge intellectually and is that cheating? Maybe the fact that we could all join in means it’s not quite cheating. But then many people may not want to take such substances (I have never taken a mind-enhancing drug in my life and have no intention of doing so, even to keep up with the herd); are we not being left at a disadvantage?

Spending money on yourself to feel better doesn’t work. It’s official science. The trick is to spend money on other people. That’s PROVEN scientifically to make you happier. This is no kidding! It’s according to a study published last week in the journal Science (Science, March 21, 2008; vol 319: pp 1687-1688). 632 individuals were […]

Spending money on yourself to feel better doesn’t work. It’s official science. The trick is to spend money on other people. That’s PROVEN scientifically to make you happier. This is no kidding! It’s according to a study published last week in the journal Science (Science, March 21, 2008; vol 319: pp 1687-1688). 632 individuals were […] The post Retail Therapy Doesn’t Work according to a scientific study appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.