mardi 25 février 2014

Is nutritional "science" woo?

And does it do great damage to other sciences by being so utterly useless?



I'm sparked to make this thread by recent news that whole fat actually makes us lean:



http://ift.tt/1foILNn



And the also recent "vitamins are useless" BS (where the rather enormous caveat was: they don't do much good for people having a PROPER BALANCED DIET, which I imagine not many real actual humans have).



Plus in my lifetime studies have shown that:



Eggs are bad for you. No wait, they're good. Bread is bad, no good. Red meat bad, no good, no bad again. Drinking a glass of wine a day reduces risks, no it doesn't. Margarine is a better butter substitute, no wait it isn't, but no, actually they're virtually equal. High fructose corn syrup is deadly, no wait it's really not much different than suger. This diet is the best. No wait, this one is. No, that one. And on and on and on.



So after being inured and cynical, I'm currently thinking:



1. Why in the hell should I trust any new "study" when it's likely going to be 180-degree refuted in 5 years? Physics doesn't do that. Math doesn't. Archaeology doesn't. Large shifts in those actual sciences do happen, but not several times a decade. And not 180-degree of the former theory.



2. These people are claiming they're doing actual careful scientific research (I assume), yet are often exactly wrong. How many folks on the edge of skepticism about woo look at this and think "wow, scientists really don't know ****** Bread is proven to be good, then bad, then good, then bad? How can I trust evolutionary or astronomical or any sciences?"



3. I'll just keep eating whatever the hell I want to, since it's going to be shown as good or bad for me +/- 10 years from the current time.



ETA: An interesting article that has a lot more footnotes and likely knowledge of the subject than I do:



http://ift.tt/1fm2bSl





via JREF Forum http://ift.tt/1fm2bSq

Aucun commentaire:

Enregistrer un commentaire