Walking is good for your brain ….

Discussion in 'Media Links' started by cathyjc, Jan 1, 2020.

  1. cathyjc

    cathyjc Thru Hiker

    Last edited: Jan 1, 2020
    Lempo and Michael_x like this.
  2. PhilHo

    PhilHo Thru Hiker

    cathyjc likes this.
  3. Chiseller

    Chiseller Thru Hiker

    *post removed due to sensitivity*
    Last edited: Jan 2, 2020
    PhilHo, Charlie83 and Michael_x like this.
  4. Stuart

    Stuart Ultralighter

    I've said this before, with regard to the environmental impacts of meat production, I think.

    It is not The Guardian making this claim, they are reporting scientific research, in this case from a professor of experimental brain research.

    @Chiseller I don't understand why you'd respond negatively to this story unless you've got some other information.
    cathyjc likes this.
  5. PhilHo

    PhilHo Thru Hiker

    They're not reporting scientific research at all. They are reporting a chat with a scientist "Neuroscientist Shane O’Mara believes that plenty of regular walking unlocks the cognitive powers of the brain".

    With regard to the CO2 effects of meat production. If you start from a vegan standpoint you can cobble together statistics to show that cattle are a bad thing and lazy journalists who have sympathies with the vegan cause don't bother to add balance. If you do take a more balanced view you see that the argument is far more nuanced. It is physically impossible for a cow (for example) to produce more carbon than it consumes. That carbon is fixed by plants from the atmosphere. There is balance, at least in the UK. With regard to methane and ruminants, this is also in balance but on a longer cycle. It can be argued that it would be a good thing to reduce the amount of methane from ruminants but the solution to that does not have to result in eating less meat and dairy products unless that is the objective of your argument.

    In short newspapers like the Guardian and broadcasters like the BBC need to be less lazy and more inquisitive to provide balance and more powerful messages.
    Charlie83 and cathyjc like this.
  6. Stuart

    Stuart Ultralighter

    The article and the chat cover the book he's published based on his and others' research. He has a PhD from Oxford and works at trinity college Dublin.

    I'm still not sure why you'd respond negatively.

    I only mentioned meat production as this was another occasion on this forum when scientific research was dismissed as "The Guardian says xxxxx".

    I thought we'd agreed not to have long threads on environmental topics so I'll just say that the emissions from meat production relate to the whole production process.
  7. Enzo

    Enzo Thru Hiker

    That very topic was covered on R4 more or less before Christmas where a vegan academic or journalist wrote that a leg of lamb for Sunday lunch emmited more Co2 than a flight to America.
    The argument turned out to be completely fallacious. He was assuming that if the UK didn't farm sheep all upland areas would be wooded and he was using the counter factual of the non existent trees absorbing Co2 rather than Co2 emmitted breeding sheep.

    I think it's fair to say that all the papers are preaching to their own congratulations. The guardian colours topics from their idiological perspective same as the Telegraph. I think both have good, well thought out pieces as well as just junk propaganda.
    PhilHo likes this.
  8. Chiseller

    Chiseller Thru Hiker

    My apologies Stuart. Thank you for bringing to my attention that my post and picture of a children's movie character, may be deemed as insensitive and provocative.
    Your own black dog (if you have one, not that I'm interested) may well be more attention drawing than my own black dog.

    As for the meat reference... By Odins Beard.... Please Give it a rest or at least keep your opinion on meat and the meat industry to its own thread or other relevant threads...
    Peace & thanks
    PhilHo likes this.
  9. cathyjc

    cathyjc Thru Hiker

    Pick your subjects ?
    The Guardian has a bee in it's bonnet about Veganism - I generally take anything they have to say about it with a large pinch of salt. Carbon/CO2 in food producion is a lot more complicated than they take into account.
    However, their science reporting is usually good (but not perfect) - better than the other news rags out there.
    I thought the piece was relevant, and well argued from an expert in the field.
  10. Michael_x

    Michael_x Section Hiker

    Had a reread, the article does seem deficient on the issue of climate change and the impact of agricultural and dietary practices thereon.

    In fairness though it is a lifestyle piece plugging his book. Which I shall now go off and look further into, maybe read.

    When it comes to science I'd like journalists to provide less "balance" and more science. The harm done by the anti-vaccine movement has been immense, yet the science was clear cut. Or climate change, again clear cut science on the key issues, yet again, and again, we had to listen to Nigel Lawson as "balance".

    99.9% of scientists say "x" but not everyone agrees so it gets presented as 50:50 for way too long seems to be how it goes. Then when you look into it. Oooh, tobacco companies funding research muddying the waters about cancer. Oil companies funding think tanks denying climate change. The list goes on and on.

    "What do we want?". "Evidence based policy".

    "When do we want it?". "After peer review".
    WilliamC and cathyjc like this.
  11. PhilHo

    PhilHo Thru Hiker

    I was meaning a more balanced view of the statistics, not a "more balanced view" as such.

    The thing is if you start from the point of view of believing something and then look for statistics to support it you will do, but that proves nothing. Science is all about disproving hypotheses, if hundreds of studies don't disprove the hypothesis then eventually it becomes a theory. Climate change is a measurable fact, greenhouse gases being the reason is a very strong theory. Peer review is mostly about testing that the science and statistics were done correctly it isn't supposed to be weighted by the reviewers own opinions, but often is.

    My BSc jt hons degree was in Zoology, Bio-Geography and Climatology. You'd think I was qualified to comment but I concede that I'm definitely not. When I did climatology the accepted theory was that we were moving towards a mini ice age. I think I have the text books somewhere.
    Enzo, Michael_x and cathyjc like this.
  12. Michael_x

    Michael_x Section Hiker

    Understood, "balance" is one of those words that can trigger me.

    My BSc was Human Biology and my only published research was cell biology, before I headed off to being a medic, so likewise not qualified in this field. Still I think we, and many others here also, both understand the scientific method and the way science works. It pains me that many journalists/broadcasters appear not to.

    In their defence though it has to be said they don't make the editorial policies and rules they must work within. Plus they get there eventually though the damage done before they do is sickening. Must have been awful having to interview Nigel Lawson, yet again, just because you spoke with some Nobel prize winning internationally renowned climate scientist.
    cathyjc and PhilHo like this.
  13. PhilHo

    PhilHo Thru Hiker

    At least you're unlikely to make some vague generalised, potentially interpreted as anti GP comment like I did once. That can really get certain parents backs up on here :rolleyeses: but I've learned my lesson now ... until next time foot gets too close to buccal orifice.
    Michael_x likes this.

Share This Page