Clarification on what and who may post in this forum

science

(Sharon A Peters) #1

Would like any clarification on this (am trying to locate a free link to underlying research article): I have removed the article in question since some found it offensive. I sincerely regret any confusion it may have caused members.

Thanks!

Sharon


#2

Where are you getting the information about high fat’s effect on the brain?
The best thing you can do for the brain is reduce systemic insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia, and supply it with ketones to provide an alternative energy source to glucose.

This is a good study (2017):

Combined overconsumption of fat and sugar, but not the overconsumption of fat per se, leads to excessive CML production in hypothalamic neurons, which, in turn, stimulates hypothalamic inflammatory responses such as microgliosis and eventually leads to neuronal dysfunction in the control of energy metabolism.

You may want to read this one too, but it doesn’t say anything much about fat.


(Sharon A Peters) #4

Ah, Carol! I am aware of those studies. I am not questioning the biochemical/metabolic processes. I was asking whether this even made sense. You might note that I said I was trying to locate a free link to the article - all I have found so far are behind pay walls.

Since this has alarmed you so, I will happily withdraw it and post it in a more science-focused group that is open to discussion and critiquing of such articles. In the meantime, please forward to me a copy of the rules, regs, and etiquette actually used for posting in Show Me the Science.

Thank you for you concerned notice.


(Meeping up the Science!) #5

Having not seen the posts, I am somewhat limited in my ability to comment. However, you are welcome to post studies you wish and inquire about them. I don’t see why anything you would have posted would be inappropriate? Unless it was due to disagreement, which is entirely appropriate especially when it comes to science. Sometimes we will move science posts here or merge them with other topics to clean up the boards. They are still accessible, however. It is not done pejoratively.

Feel free to post any studies for dialogue. Unfortunately, many are behind paywalls. Some of us with access are occasionally open to assisting when we are able.

Part of why I have stayed here at the forums is because it is science focused. Often I have been corrected myself; that is no indication of a lack of science. Rather it is an indication that discussion is necessary.


(matt ) #6

Holy sh*t what is all this drama about??


#7

I’m not alarmed. Just trying to answer the questions you posed in the original post.
If you can provide a link to the accessible part of the study, we’ll see what we can do to discuss the methodically. I suspect the first study I linked is a followup based on previous findings that implicated fat


(Sharon A Peters) #8

Matt,

I posted a digest of an article from Science News, and said that I would post the full article as soon as I could find one that was not behind a paywall. I received a sharp, abrupt, and rather rudely worded response from Carol who was, basically, wanting to know WTF I was doing posting such a piece (Korean/Japanese research that high fat and glucose appeared to have a negative impact on the brain, i.e.: dementia. I looked at the protocols, noted the absence of study subjects’ demographics - among other things - and, not being advanced in biochemistry, asked for interpretation. Carol’s reaction seemed to arise from some fear that I was rumor-mongering that high fat caused dementia. I withdrew the post; I am still looking for a “free” copy, and when I do get my hands on it, I will not risk posting it - or perhaps anything else - in the Show Me the Science forum. There is another that is inhabited by hard-core science types, and I will post it, and my questions there.

The response was out of line and it stood in great contraposition to all of the other responses - and experiences - I have ever had with 2 KetoDudes or with the ketogenicforum. So, I asked for posting guidelines.

Her rudeness truly cheapens what is being done here, and it is, as I noted above, not typical of my interactions with folks on this board and on this path. Carol’s reaction serves to undercut any respect she might otherwise be due in any comments she has or may make.

That is the sh!t that happened.

I withdrew the summary. I will not post in this forum again until I have run it through the scientist “geeks” in another group so I won’t run the risk of being dressed down.

Thanks for your comment. I have nothing more to say or to add on this matter.

Sharon A. Peters


(Sharon A Peters) #9

Donna,

It’s all ok. I deleted my post, and will not be posting in Show Me the Science forum; I will, instead, post such articles and my questions in the “science geeks’” group. I seek understanding of my T2D and my keto woe, not controversy or dressings-down.

Thank you for your kind and thoughtful response; it is greatly appreciated.

Regards,

Sharon A Peters


#10

@carolT is one of the most level headed people I know. She never looks to wind people up. You have really got the wrong end of the stick here. There is absolutely no need to start throwing toys out of prams. Always best to leave posts up too - this thread now just looks weird!


(Guardian of the bacon) #11

Poor form to bash a moderator for bashing your post after you removed said post so nobody knows WTF is going on.


(matt ) #12

Some people want attention John. You can’t win.


(Sharon A Peters) #13

So nicely put. Thank you. May I suggest, then, that if it is preferred that a post be taken down, that a simple request would suffice? Courtesy is a two-way street.

Thank you, Daisy, I appreciate your endorsement.

Sincerely,

Sharon


(Sharon A Peters) #14

Ah, it does no good to bash anyone; it works both ways. And that is something we should never forget.

Your opinion is noted, sir.

Sincerely,

Sharon


#15

Genuinely, you didn’t need to take your post down. Personally, I like to see all posts remain unless they are hateful nonsense of course. I am disappointed not to see you getting your teeth into a debate over the posts, it is not like you. You got the wrong idea about Carol - really. Get stuck into a debate about the studies and you will see. She is a smart cookie, just like you. x


(Sharon A Peters) #16

Daisy, thank you for this very kind email. I do not normally - as you are likely aware - back down; however, given the tone of Carol’s post, it struck me as the better approach. I took note of the conversations that followed my email, especially that of JFricke, who took umbrage that anyone would “bash an Admin”. Since he was not party to the posting or the exchange, his comment spoke loudly to me as a warning that one is not to have the temerity to upset an Admin.

I appreciate forthrightness, and I cite as an example of that Brenda Zorn, for whom I have the highest respect. Carol may be lovely, but when she’s dealing as an Admin with the peasants, forthrightness without the tinge of shaming - reminiscent of getting grape jelly and peanut butter on one’s mom’s heirloom tablecloth - would be preferable. There was an explanation in my post as to why it was a summary: the article was behind a paywall, and I was searching for it. Apparently she did not take the time to note that.

I take your comments in absolute good faith; however, for the time being, it fear it is safer if I avoid “Show Me the Science”, at least for the time being. and remain a reader rather than a contributor to the forums.

Very best regards, and again, thanks for your kind email

Sharon A Peters


(Doug) #17

Not my business, but sometimes it’s like a ping pong ball going back and forth. We don’t see body language or hear voice inflection online, and the back-and-forth may quickly take on some emotion and/or misunderstanding. Stuff happens.


(Sharon A Peters) #18

Thank you, Doug. I appreciate your comment. It’s not the end of the world - for me or for Carol. We go forward, no?

Regards,

Sharon