1. A vegan group claims even 3D-printed cow milk is an abomination of their self-identification and mustn't be allowed. So they don't like our article. Mission accomplished, Dr. Kava!
Even if no cows are involved, they are against it. That means they don't want more ethical treatment of cows, they are just social authoritarians who want to force you into their world view. No wonder science pisses them off.
But vegans are generally pissed off all of the time anyway, though.
2. Was Rocky IV onto something? If you recall, tiny American hero Rocky Balboa, played by Sylvester Stallone at perhaps 180 pounds, fought in the heavyweight division against Russian giant Ivan Drago (Dolph Lundgren) in the 1985 film.
Drago represented the ultimate in Russian advanced technology (including some chemical cheating) and had state-of-the-art training, while Rocky did things the old-fashioned way. In the end, Rocky persevered, and was a harbinger of the end of the Cold War, but the Russians were likely onto something with their methods.
International Business Times cites our article on how high-intensity workouts with electrical muscle stimulation resulted in higher levels of lactate concentration in the blood, at 15.6 mmol.L-1, in comparison to only 2 mmol.L-1 for aerobic exercise. There was also significant differences in basal oxygen consumption at 60 minutes and 24, 48 and 72 hours after the different kinds of workout.
Plus, it looks a lot more scientific than pulling a sled in the snow.
3. I recently read a Center for Science in the Public Interest hit piece on us from 1982. It was the kind of thing they were famous for; claiming you are only a consumer advocate if you hate science and technology and every chemical in existence. To make their case, they hired an anti-science writer who previously worked for Earth Day and anti-pesticide activist groups to do an "investigation" and determined our science positions were in line with corporations in the science field.
Well, no kidding. You know who does no science? CSPI, NRDC, Greenpeace and all the rest. You know who does actual applied science? Corporations.
Oddly, in 1982, CSPI made a convincing argument for many people - if you agreed with a corporation about science, you must be a shill. Even the Wall Street Journal claimed we were under fire at the time. Today, that tactic doesn't work very well. Environmental groups and their Deniers For Hire like SourceWatch and Fenton Communications have gone so far over the top in their efforts to lie to the American people and undermine modern technology that no one takes them seriously, except people who are never going to accept any science anyway (except doomsday prophecies they can raise money on, like global warming) so the public knows their criticism is irrelevant.
What science then did CSPI criticize us for? We stated a low-fat diet would not prevent obesity. Obviously today, the public knows that we were right and they were fabricating scare threats. Yet another study says butter is better than vegetable oil for heart health, which is what we said all along.
Really, they insisted a low-fat diet would prevent obesity. It sounds shockingly stupid in hindsight, except the nutritional guidelines we get today are often no more evidence-based. Some nutritionists claim sugar can cause obesity and Miracle Vegetables of the Week will prevent cancer.
They also didn't like that we told the public coffee did not cause breast cancer. Seriously, they believe it did. CSPI was a running joke in the science community then, and they are probably no better now.
