It seems daft to dismiss “scientific diet research” upon the basis of most people not using any real scientific methodology. I agree that it would be folly to believe any of it, but there is no reason to not have some standards instead.
Slight hyperbole here (probably from frustration), but it’s a good starting position. Anything you hear, 99.999% of all dietary results (that might even be low) will be misleading or wrong. Even For Sure This Is Our Really Important Super Scientific Confirmed National Policy stuff like cholesterol, wrong. Eggs, wrong. Salt, wrong. Even ‘drink lots of milk for healthy bones’ looks possibly wrong now (better to just say f@#$ it and drink milk if you want to drink milk). The minor stuff is almost certainly wrong, like this tomato study and the kiwi study.
If anything is generic enough that it holds up for 30 years, like ‘you should probably eat more veggies’ then you can make a rare exception.
“cabbage ---- innie belly button”
What a classic!
I’m reminded of The Sleeper:
Dr. Aragon: You must understand that everyone you knew in the past has been dead nearly two hundred years.
Miles Monroe: But they all ate organic rice!
“All”? Really? The post itself even admits that “Tiny, difficult-to-disentangle effects” may have some merit. I’d also argue that the media makes a much bigger deal of certain studies than it should, which undermines the credibility of more rigorously conducted studies. There is also the perception that science “flip-flops” on what’s good for you (or not) over time, but I’d also argue that this is driven by the media and a lack of writers without good scientific backgrounds report on crappy studies with over-reaching conclusions as if they are the be-all-end-all of what’s known in the field. Hard-core nutritional epi folks know that association does not equal causation and are appropriately cautious in stating their conclusions and whether or not they should have an impact on clinical care or public health.
And while I do agree that there are some biases, confounding, and individual human/genetic/metabolic variations that need to be considered when interpreting the findings from nutritional epidemiology studies (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2921609/), to discount the field as a whole seems a bit short-sighted. Perhaps someone from the Harvard School of Public Health program in Nutritional Epi http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutrition/programs-offered/prospective-students/nutritional-epidemiology/) or the NIH (http://dceg.cancer.gov/about/organization/programs-ebp/neb) would care to chime in and defend the claim that their life’s work is “bullshit”? In particular, I’d point to nutritional epi as the basis for important discoveries such as prenatal folic acid and neural tube defects, calcium and bone health/osteoporosis, alcohol and fetal alcohol syndrome as well as certain types of cancer, and a handful of other foods/nutrients that have relatively well-accepted and moderately strong associations with particular diseases or medical conditions.
This showed up in my FB feed this AM. Seems appropriate.
Alors, je ne parlerai plus en anglais : c’est bien moins dangereux.
This just showed up in my RSS feed:
Obviously, doctors are angry that this one weird trick has been revealed!
Just off the top of my head, they’re all less (or far less) obese than Brits or Merkins?
Peut-être, mais signifie-t-il qu’il existe une corrélation entre l’obésité et la langue anglaise? En ce cas, plus sûr de renoncer à l’anglais, hein?
Wobei es auch adipöse Franzosen gibt - sind das dann diejenigen, die gut Englisch sprechen?
Do the French ever admit to speaking English?
if my theory is valid you can recognize them anyway : )
Wait wut? EXTRA NIPPLES???!!!???
how many ass-cheek nipples would be considered “EXTRA”?
i’m asking for a friend, i of course, totally have the normal number of ass-cheek nipples.
Under the circumstances, I’m surprised that anyone admits to speaking English - it’s a heart attack waiting to happen.
Liberté Egalité Fraternité.
Anglophones get stuck on Liberté.