21–30 of 85 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
what's really crazy is how much money it takes to not make much progress, either. Modern labs are washing cash down the drain.
Is there a shortcut? I'm sure some improvements can be made but I am skeptical of the idea that science is just doing it wrong.
A much, much deeper understanding of how humans work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is the anti-egg science was convincing at the time as well.
It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.
acsh.org == industry front group
Nutrition Science, ah yes. What would your reaction would be if I told you that we claim that the interaction of seven billion human beings to many thousands of previously living organisms will be the same for each of those human beings? That's obviously nonsense. In other words, you can't just say consuming eggs does X to everyone. You need to partition foodstuff AND partition humans, the partitioning likely based o…
My favorite quote from Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-da...
Quote from an interview[1]: "I’ve been doing this for 27 years, and I have never once put a drug into a pharmacy. I tell people: “If you want to know why your prescriptions cost so much, it’s me.” I’ve done nothing but spend money the entire time."
[1]https://www.statnews.com/2016/03/05/derek-lowe-chemist-blogg...
Nutrition Science, ah yes. What would your reaction would be if I told you that we claim that the interaction of seven billion human beings to many thousands of previously living organisms will be the same for each of those human beings? That's obviously nonsense. In other words, you can't just say consuming eggs does X to everyone. You need to partition foodstuff AND partition humans, the partitioning likely based o…
It's almost as if different human populations separated by insurmountable geographic barriers in wildly differing ecological circumstances for myriad millennia underwent selection pressure!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Studies of communities that have longitivtiy confirm this. For example, the "Ikaria" study, a university of Athen's study of the island of Ikaria, where males reach the age of 90 2.5 times more frequently than Americans, their diet consisted of hardly any red meat at all (and also hardly any sugar), but rather beans, legumes, wild local greens with lemon juice and olive oil, fish, honey, and red wine.
Was the study of this island controlled for climate, compared to a nearby island with different diets, or compared to a distant island with similar diets? One of the points made by Ioannidis is that we’re far too easily swayed to believe what sounds plausible when no one has yet asked “Could this be for some other reason altogether that we aren’t testing for?” and then tests for those reasons. That flaw applies here:…
Nutrition Science, ah yes. What would your reaction would be if I told you that we claim that the interaction of seven billion human beings to many thousands of previously living organisms will be the same for each of those human beings? That's obviously nonsense. In other words, you can't just say consuming eggs does X to everyone. You need to partition foodstuff AND partition humans, the partitioning likely based o…
It's almost as if different human populations separated by insurmountable geographic barriers in wildly differing ecological circumstances for myriad millennia underwent selection pressure!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From your link: >This is because there is probably a link between eating a lot of red and processed meat, and bowel (colorectal) cancer. Probably? Link? "Link" as in "co-occurring but not necessarily causally related"? No references to the studies or methods? This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels.
This is the same quality material that has been used to promote eating less fat for several decades, while obesity exploded to record levels. It’s a bit ironic you are questioning the study with regards to causality and then mention obesity exploding to record levels with an unsubstantiated, implied connection to the promotion of eating less fat. Your coment would have been perfect without the obesity comment since y…