How to cite nlm nih Videos

Great video and I wish I saw more nonreligious people, that don't necessarily identify as being buddhist, talking about this. I've been getting more into meditation lately. It's a wonderful way to clear your head, get rid of stress and just relax. Another good video on this is to the right by a girl that goes by lightactivation. She talks about meditation and even meditates a bit in the video. Very calming.

I began meditating for the health benefits back in college, and I've also found it to have emotional and intellectual benefits. It puts me more in control of my emotions, and it allows insights to arise. It's not a religious practice, and atheism has never stopped me from meditating. I've added my own earlier video on meditation as a video response to this video.

@michaelsmith2911 I'm having difficulty making this a habit to get any real results. I do notice that when I do it (about 3 days) I do feel my anxiety decreasing but for the I know I need to do it longer. I have no excuse since my first week is only meditating for 5 minutes a day. I'll get back on it and report back later.

also learn to concetrate : - take a ping-pong ball and place it in front of your frontal lobe, so when you look at it, your eyes have 20 grd with horizontal, Focus your atention on the ball and concetrate. Try then to close your eyes and imagine the ball and the ball only. Ignore any other thought, gently.

@GeniusAtheist Awesome, I'm just starting myself. To me if science supports it, there are positive benefits, and it doesn't cost anything to try, then why not meditate for about 5 minutes a day at least to see if it works. I'll try to remember to post my findings later on. Tell me how it goes for you!

An other one, with measurement - take an analog clock which does not tick (no sound) and concetrate on the second -hand (the one moving with the seconds) . Then close your eyes and try imagine the same. Try to be successfull (by having the inner picture match reality ) without counting .

★★★★★ Meditation is actually an excellent way to work through problems. The Zen philosophy offers a lot of excellent insights into the practice of paying attention and letting go beliefs without all of the religious aspects of Buddhism.

Thank you so much for this vid I recently read the Harris article and am really looking forward to giving this a try. Your reasons were right on. cost, secular etc. The links and podcast info is just great. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

AWESOME , just what i've been searching for clear instruction & facts about meditation without all the esoteric balderdash THANKS !

@missmusic2k I drew the pic of sam harris with a tablet and used a photo as reference. Thanks for the comment!

Mantra meditation is very effective at calming the mind. I say "AUM" but to me it's just a word.

Great video...I've posted on the Facebook group "Atheist Meditation" join us

+Vegan Health Fitness   Cool !  I always wanted to attend the Mick Jagger School Of Fitness.

+Blooze Daddy Not only that, but you will start to grow turds out of your eyeballs.

+martbook thank you martbook for speaking up. only people that have actually gone of the diet will understand this. i did it for 33 days, lost 26 lbs, had so much energy, had a super clear and sharp mind, had perfect sleep. i just felt amazing on it. its not a lifestyle for me, rather i use it for health therapy. i do it every two years for 3-6 months. then i go back to eating my regular diet

Same here. I tried everything to lose weight EXCEPT HFLC. Once I cut out the sugar and carbs, the weight practically fell off. And not only did it fall off, but my depression has eased up as well. Really pisses me off when hard liners like this tool advocate the opposite with no scientific background.

Shhh, don't disturb the vegans with the truth. It gets them all agitated!

+Natalie P. You're right, he doesn't have the right to tell anyone how to live. But you are misunderstood. If the science says "x is healthy and y is unhealthy" then you don't have the right to tell people to do "x" but you do have the right to tell people the benefits of x and the negatives of y. You inform people and let them make their own decisions. He hasn't debunked anything. The science has already done that. He isn't telling you to do anything. Eat all the fat you want Natalie. He is just showing you the science. There is nothing ignorant about it.

+iHatebologna59 Lol don't I know it...

You're introducing logic and that won't work with this idiot.

+Lennart Nielsen I swear people just claim vegan to promote themselves in fitness because other vegans will blindly follow regardless of whether nutritional advice is good or not. I'm tempted to make a channel and say im the only vegan with a 4 plate bench press. Would prob have 100k subs in a month. . 

+Vegan Health Fitness Without having looked up the specific reference at the moment of writing (I dont have the book with me) I cannot state with certainty that a fully adapted ketogenic person is 100% comparable in power output + time to exhaustion to a high carb person. but I'm pretty certain: //www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC524027/"Because you still need the carbohydrates". That statement shows how unknowledgeable you are about basic metabolic regulation and human biochemistry. I recommend that you educate yourself on these subjects making you a sensible, intelligent vegan instead of one that just panders to a specific demographic, who will most likely agree with you regardless of what you say, I suggest (for starters):Keith N Frayn, Metabolic RegulationStryer et al, BiochemistryVolek & Phinney, The art and science of low carbohydrate livingVolek & Phinney, The art and science of low carbohydrate performanceDisclaimer: I am not living according to the Ketogenic Diet.Kind RegardsMSc in Biochemistry

+Vegan Health Fitness So your proof is that moderate exercise uses 50% fat, 40% carb, 10% protein? Mostly fat. Carb comes from glycogen, which can be replenished while ketonic and consuming no carbs. So where does fat get fazed out by carbs? Only in sprinting and bodybuilding. Replacing intra-workout carb supp with fatty acid supp will be as effective in energy production (if not moreso, due to light weight chemistry) and will create less lactic acid byproduct and cramping than that associated with glycolysis.  sourcing info from: "The Future of Sports Nutrition: Nutrient Timing," by J. Ivy Ph.D. and R. Portman, Ph.D.

+Frank Arrietta Because you still need the carbohydrates https://www.google.com.au/search?q=energy+substrate+exercise&espv=2&biw=1920&bih=955&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=Q-oMVdrKHpLt8gWutoG4Aw&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=qNUsIlnczoYSrM%253A%3BfV5TCsujU263mM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kaizenactive.co.uk%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F08%252Fenergy-substrate-use-kaizen-active.png%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.kaizenactive.co.uk%252Fblog%252Fnutrition%252Fnutrition-for-exercise%252F%3B579%3B391

+Vegan Health Fitness How do you explain that? Both wind up being turned into ATP all the same, no? Maintaining relatively constant speed for 2+hrs is majorly considered aerobic exercise i'd think, and fat burning is done via an aerobic pathway for sustained energy..whereas carb burning is anaerobic, i.e. short bursts and immediate energy like in sprinting.  

You simply cannot get the power from fats that you do from carbohydrates. You would be running too slow to be competitive.

+TriopticonEven worse, industrial hemp IS legal to grow in parts of the world (and 13 US states!), and so far has failed to revolutionize the durable fiber industry.There was an Industrial Hemp Farming Act of 2009, by the way, that clarified federal policy with regards to US states with legal industrial hemp industries.  It separates recreational cannabis and industrial hemp into two categories.  There is no federal scheduling for industrial hemp, and hasn't been for 6 years; some states have had industrial hemp laws since 1982.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_Hemp_Farming_Act_of_2009I wish the cannabis evangelists would do some actual research before they make claims.

+TheFubbick "the wood industry and pharmaceutical industry which would both crumble if cannabis/hemp was legalised"On the scale of idiocy, that sentence is right up there with the dumbest things that Deepak Chopra has said. I can promise you with 100% confidence that no-one in either the wood industry or the pharmaceutical industry is worries about marijuana/hemp.

+TheFubbickDid you read the paper that quote is from?  It's the first link in the description.  Read it through and come back here and tell me if you think I represented it fairly.

+C0nc0rdance do you have trouble understanding what you read? I said that twisting a fact that says one thing into saying something else for the purpose of benefiting yourself is the same as lying.This is no different from when that charlatan Deepak Chopra took a piece of theoretical string theory and twisted it to mean that we humans can literally change reality by thinking positive thoughts. And he got even richer from the book which told this lie. Do you understand what I'm trying to say now? Using that text, which says one thing, to then paraphrase it into meaning that cannabis will give you psychoses and/or schizophrenia (when that is far from proven) is lying for your own benefit.

+TheFubbickSo you don't object to the research, you just object to people finding out about it because the data might be used in a way you dislike?  Can't help you there.  This isn't a channel about politics or policy; it's a science and medicine channel.

+C0nc0rdance That still does not justify having cannabis illegal. There is risk in every single thing we do every day of our lives and yet we do not outlaw living, do we? The people who try to use this research to make cannabis out to be worse than alcohol, cocaine, heroin and other drugs that can actually kill you on the very first try are twisting the facts in the favour of their agenda, which most often is to keep cannabis illegal so that their benefactors can continue making money off of it; the private prisons alone make huge money from weed arrests alone. And that's not even mentioning the wood industry and pharmaceutical industry which would both crumble if cannabis/hemp was legalised for induslrial and full medicinal use.It's a dishonourable tactic and outright lies for monetary gain. 

+TheFubbick The rest of your comment was about the idea of a component cause, which is a complicated topic I tried to make a little more accessible. Not everyone who smokes cigarettes gets lung cancer or emphysema. Not everyone who is obese gets diabetes. Not everyone who eats a high sodium diet develops heart problems. We still know that these are risk factors that, combined with other factors, produce a higher probability of disease.Outside of infectious diseases, you won't find that many sufficient causes (things that always cause disease, and are the only cause of that disease). Only ebolavirus causes Ebola Hemorrhagic Fever, and almost everyone who is infected by ebolavirus develops EHF... but even in infectious diseases, there's not always 100% specificity or 100% penetrance of disease which would mean they fail the Bradford-Hill criteria of causality.

+TheFubbick The genetic disposition in question is COMT Val158Met (SNP RS4680). The people at high risk are Val/Val. Between 20 and 30% of the individuals in various human populations have this genotype, ~40% have the lower risk Val/Met marker, and 20-30% have the lowest risk status, Met/Met. These are not rare mutants, they're SNPs, normal heritable variation like hair color or eye color.//www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs4680//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15866551

+C0nc0rdance Great advice it sucks people have to suffer because they were tricked into thinking weed is good for you, that's why I love your channel. Keep it up bruh!

+Gan Bj It's always a challenge talking about medical research. I'm a scientist, not a clinician. Unless you're a mouse, you probably don't want me giving you medical advice. Unless your doctor is a specialist who read the latest science, he might not be aware of emerging research. Unfortunately, my best advice to you is to find the most informed doctor you can, a specialist in neurology or psychiatry.Long-term cannabis use is linked to "anxiogenic" (causing anxiety) effects in mice and rats... on the other hand, it's also linked to anxiolytic (reducing anxiety) effects and is being looked at as a potential therapy for PTSD. That's not unusual for cannabinoids to have opposite and paradoxical effects, and our understanding of it is still pretty poor. We know the cannabinoid system regulated anxiety, we know what brain regions, but we don't actually have a fine-tuned ability to do anything about it.I hope you do find relief and good health, Gan! Don't trust the Internet for health advice, and I might steer clear of heavy metal detoxification... a lot of people doing that are quacks.

+C0nc0rdance I didn't think you were doing it intentionally, nor do I think it's particularly harmful (in this case). It's pretty clear you set a high bar for intellectual honesty. However, considering the tone of the rest of your video is that of a scientific review, inserting diagrams that are not being referenced is...confusing, at best. My argument really only applies when the image shown is some sort of diagram. Other images, even irrelevant ones, would seem to be more appropriate ones in those cases where relevant imagery cannot be found. Again, it's not a huge thing, and happens infrequently enough that addressing it may not be worth the time. It's just something to keep in mind. Thank you for clarifying Cocausality. Are you planning at some point to examine the evidence against your position? You've presented a reasonable amount of evidence for your case, and have referenced common beliefs, but as a relative lazy layperson I can't be sure you're not cherry-picking studies that agree with you. Of course, if there isn't any evidence, that's fine, but I don't believe you've mentioned that yet.I still need to read through the primary source again. I'm no great shakes at statistics at the best of times, let alone 2am. Thanks for getting back to me.

+Ben "the image you display in your video is not relevant, or it's relevance is not readily apparent at the time it's displayed."That's not an intentional effect; it's a consequence of my terrible video-making process. I write the script, record the audio, and only then do I try to find or create images to accompany. Sometimes there just aren't any directly related images to be had, so I use figures that are related or will be important later.This is a style that was fairly common when I started on YouTube (cdk007, DonExodus, ExtantDodo) but has been replaced in more recent times by the live speaker/talking head."You mention reverse causality, but does that cover an underlying cause for both marijuana use and psychosis or schizophrenia?"Cocausality is usually indicated when two correlated factors both fail the Bradford-Hill criteria. In this case, only reverse causation consistently fails.Thank you for taking the time to verify my sources and report back.

+Jason Howard "Cannabis in the refeer madness era likely had a higher CBD:THC ratio than in the current era and likely had higher levels of CBN as well."Yes, a group in Georgia has monitored street drug for the last 20 years, and the THC content actually is steadily increasing. I agree CBD antagonizes the psychosis effect of THC."look at various populations of people that use different levels of cannabis to see if there is an increase in the number of people with mental illness related to the level of cannabis use"It's a tempting strategy, I agree. In practice, there are so many inter-related variables that finding the effect of only one variable is really, really hard. For something like smoking and lung cancer, it took decades, and the effect size there was much larger."For most people in these studies there was likely many other drugs involved"They do test for that. They run covariate tests to make sure they aren't picking up tobacco, alcohol or amphetamine effects in what they call "polydrug users". The control population are carefully selected to match the experimental in every way except the use of cannabis.

+Triopticon Sorry bud but there are studies that show CBD has anti psychotic properties. GW Pharmaceuticals is developing a strain of cannabis for treating psychosis.

+silverisking2 Let's see... Dozens of medical studies vs your retarded "self medicating" hypothesis . One side supported by mountains of evidence, the other by absolutely nothing. Hmm...I wonder which side I'll take.

I haven't watched all your videos, or read all your comments .sometimes because I don't see them as relevant to my interest, but I've seen a lot. I would dare say I have seen a helluva lot. But I have never seen you concede a point. (and ive seen a couple of good points being made )which is one of the things that prompted me to think of you as an intellectual brawler. I mean some people like to stir the pot, its in their make up. to be specific greyknight 30% of mothers comment. was one a few.

Either or both of two things that were patently absurd. The either or was: am I suggesting it's proper to cherry pick data, or have a sample that isn't representative of the population, or both. So, yes, asking a loaded question like that is analogous to the "beating your wife" question. And I'm still waiting for him to describe why a study which can be generalized to a population isn't representative of same. Or evidence for his objection to those four stats. Or source that slippery 1-30%...

Oh, for a quick example (this doesn't even require you to compare numbers or anything because they wrote this out in words for people to read), I'll excerpt from the study a line that can't possibly exist since you are totally correct that none of the deviations I mentioned were written in the study. Because, you know, you're totes a genius. Information that just popped into my skull: "Father presence (82%) was higher than the national average for this age, thus limiting generalizability..."

It's "apparent" because i actually read the study (AND understood what it said) and they made no mention of deviations from the national average in any of the areas you mention. I'm wondering where you get your "information" from. It looks an awful lot like you're just saying whatever pops into your skull, manufactured stats and all, and refusing to back it up with evidence now that you're in a corner. Hell, I'm STILL waiting for you to cite where 1-30% came from. So, try to redeem yourself

I'll concede the part about being a stubborn idiot. But I still don't see why you'd say that this sample is flawed, and why the effects noted are invalid. Simply put, the issue with the 82%/74% isn't that they aren't identical, it's that the "experimental" part is examining an effect represented by that other 18%, which would be better represented by a 26% rate, if not oversampling it. But that objection goes as far as critiquing power (as they did). It doesn't invalidate the whole shebang.

In your opinion. Yes, I understand you're essentially nit-picking on a technical level. I'm not disputing the criteria on which you're doing this, I'm questioning why even bother when you've made it fairly clear that you think studies in this field are bollocks to begin with, You might as well say: "On a technical level I disapprove of this and I reserve the right to believe what I want". Others will say that informally they see some truth to the general premise of the study, nitpicks aside

But your reading skills are lacking. You missed the part where I said your claim isn't supported by that report. You also missed where you were invited (several times) to bestow upon us the source of your evidence that the report deviates from the nation average with respect to: race "2 parents" (I guess some people in NorCal reproduce by budding?) income weight Those are your claims. All the snark in the world can't go back in time and change it. Don't disappoint with everyone watching. ;)

Allow me to further elaborate for those who may be confused by the muddy waters. Given a large national sample, such a survey or a poll, you will have a mean derived from this. Later, if you sample smaller subsets of that sample, you will INEVITABLY have small differences between that larger mean and your sample. Statisticians don't throw up their hands and cry, "IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT POPULATION, NOTHING APPLIES!" in such situations. They weigh their results...exactly as was done here.

I understand that you're trying to equivocate now, and pretend that what I correctly named a fallacy isn't. I'm pretty sure most of your viewers are clever enough to see it, as well. You should probably drop the pretense. Interesting that you leave the meaty bit of the rebuttal until the end. Also, unfortunate that your claim is apparently wrong about how the sample's not representative of the population. You should spend more space justifying that instead of banging around in the weeds.

You claimed that the study wasn't REPRESENTATIVE on 4 counts: race, weight, income and "2 parents". Setting aside that that the last one you spewed out was nonsensical as they ALL have 2 parents (it's just that one is absentee, you fucking moron) and that you (likely) meant to say "father presence". You have failed to evidence even one of these. You may be naive enough not to understand the difference between a non-representative sample and one with limited generalizability, but I'm not.

And if you wish to dismiss the results of this study based on a misapprehension about statistics, and insist (loaded questions and all) that the data is bad without being able to describe in any way why this is the case, you're free to do so. Convincing anyone else, however, is the work you've still got to do. I'm comfortable with the consensus that populations can be sampled. But if you'd like to start, begin by explaining why the sampling totally precludes the effects demonstrated. ^_^

I'd be very interested to know what source informed your opinion that up to 30% of mothers in this study (presumably all across the US, or is this worldwide?) are necessarily lying about their child's paternity. That's quite a statistic for you to take at face value, given your reticence to accept this study. Also, if you'd be so good as to explain how even this proposed (absurd) rate of 30% misreporting will cause this study to indicate a false positive, given the design, I'm all ears.