User talk:Healthwise

Health issues

Hello.

I'm intrigued by the misconceptions of the general public concerning what causes overweightness. There's this irrational notion that if you eat only fat-free foods, you won't get fat. Is there a name for this misconception? I'm often amused by products that are packed with sugar that have labels which prominently proclaim that they contain no fat, as if implying that you can eat as much of it as you want and not gain weight. Does this particular example of misleading advertising have a name, and if so what is it called?

Have you noticed that the health food sections of most supermarkets are packed with products that look suspiciously like cookies and candy bars and sugary drinks? Does the issue of disguising sweets as health food have a name? How have we wound up with so much health food that isn't healthy for us?

But it's natural, and therefore it must be good for you - at least that's the message that many of the labels seem to be suggesting. It happens to be true that sugar and corn syrup are 100% natural. But so is hemlock, and remember what happened to Socrates when he drank tea made from that! I searched for "natural" to see what Wikipedia had on the subject, but it just led to the article on nature. But how natural is refined food really? You don't find snack bars growing on trees.

I'm no longer surprised that people can eat 3,000 calories a day and still wonder why they are so huge. Some don't wonder about this, they know why they are overweight, but they feel helpless about their predicament, left wondering why they are so hungry all of the time. They may not be aware that hunger is not only triggered by a lack of calories, but also by a lack of nutrients. As of 8/4/2007, Wikipedia's article on hunger only mentioned this with respect to rats. Many refined foods are stripped of the most nutritient-rich parts of the food, retaining the parts that have mostly calories. That's why such foods are said to contain "empty calories". You can eat a ton of potato chips and not get the vitamins and nutrients you need. It should be little surprise that we're still hungry, but most of us are.

I'm interested in health: what it is, how to get it, and how to keep it. I'm also interested in the causes of unhealth, whether they be environmental or sociopolitical, and how people make lifestyle choices which result in poor health - are they disregarding their health, or simply ignorant of their choices? Are doctors and pharmaceutical companies selling cures, or just treatments with no end in order to maximize profit? I wish to understand more about the circumstances and issues pertaining to society's health and health-awareness, and to find the articles (on Wikipedia and abroad) covering these issues. I wish to learn as much about these topics as I can.

If you can point them out to me, please do.

Healthwise 20:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biomedical Gerontology and 'Life Extension'

I'd just like to point out that the there is a rift in the 'biogerontological' community. The mainstream, elite, old-guard establishment doesn't see 'life extension' as desirable or possible for society (Bush appointee Leon Kass, for example, argues that the old must pass away to make room for the new and to make life more exciting...as if having a 'time limit' is exciting). Those working for the U.S. government, for example, tend to be mainstream and conservative in their estimations. Then there are far-out 'prophets' like Aubrey de Grey predicting 5,000-year life spans. These types tend to chase foundation funds; the less scrupulous (such as the A4M) are seen by some as 'anti-aging' quacks or those trying to make a profit by making fantastic claims, such as 'try this skin scream and take years off your age'). Then there are those in the middle, such as Olshansky, that are skeptical of huge increases but believe that moderate life increase is possible (i.e. from 122 to 130 in the next century). For this reason I question whomever decided to combine the articles of 'life extension' and 'biomedical gerontology' and 'experimental gerontology.'Ryoung122 10:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The old guard studies biogerontology for the purpose of preventing its application to extending human life? That doesn't seem to fit the definition of an applied science.

If there is a rift, then both factions would generally have a name. What is the name for the branch of biogerontology which seeks to prevent life extension?

Please point me to some references. Healthwise 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

: The old guard studies biogerontology for the purpose of preventing its application to extending human life? That doesn't seem to fit the definition of an applied science.  
 +  
 + : If there is a rift, then both factions would generally have a name. What is the name for the branch of biogerontology which seeks to prevent life extension? 
 +  
 + : Please point me to some references. Healthwise 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, they argue for an increase in the 'health span' instead of the life span...they say it's better to add 'life to years' instead of 'years of life'. They fear becoming struldbruggs and ironically have sometimes allied with pro-death (euthansia) arguments. Critics see this as more of a bean-counter approach: since old age (after 65) is funded by a government pension, and one's 'job' is to keep the budget under control, finding ways to reduce costs wouldn't see life extension as a positive. Moreover, life extension is an idea that has not been conclusively proven in any higher-order species (not even a mouse).Ryoung122 10:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Google searches will turn up lots of stuff:

http://www.argonaut.uidaho.edu/archives/012301/newsstory5.html

http://www.enhanceproject.org/life.html

There really is a limitless supply of coverage.Ryoung122 10:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obesity

When making numerical claims (such as "Diet and exercise programs produce an average weight loss of approximately 8% of total body mass (excluding program drop-outs)") it is imperative that you provide reliable sources. Could you edit obesity to that effect? JFW | T@lk 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't me. Healthwise (talk) 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, BCeagle0312 (talk) 10:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]