Sigh. If they can't figure this out, exactly how much do scientists know about diet?
Despite the recent judgment against Johnson & Johnson, the evidence against talcum powder is, at best, unclear.
30-minute video by Mark Rippetoe. It starts out slow, but the rest may be of interest for people with shoulder problems.
Link via Instapundit.
Cancer research has seen its share of disappointments, but the revived work on harnessing the immune system is starting to look very promising, indeed.
Just in case you don't have enough to worry about.
A neuroscientist discusses the psychology of losing weight. The author makes some interesting points.
The hunger mood is hard to control, precisely because it operates outside of consciousness. This might be why obesity is such an intractable problem.
Related: "Why you eat so much".
"Extract 'reverses build-up of deadly plaque that clogs arteries and triggers heart attacks'".
Since thinking about cancer is scary and difficult, the book reviewed here might well be worth reading.
It certainly sounds promising. Bring it on!
The annals of cancer research are full of brilliant ideas that failed, but neoantigen vaccines just might be an exception.
Link via Kottke.org.
Related: "The Man Who Would Tame Cancer".
Amen to this.
The problems with nutrition science begin with how most of its research is conducted. The vast majority of nutrition studies are observational in nature -- scientists look at people who eat certain foods and examine how their health compares with the health of people who don't eat those foods or eat them at different frequencies. But as I reported earlier this year, these sorts of studies have a high chance of being wrong. Very wrong.
What we need, pronto: "Precision weight loss based on genetics may be future of dieting". (See also "The ‘DNA diet’ could be a game-changer for losing weight".)