3 ms·
It's more a push to whole foods. Before they thought fat was the issue, so skim milk wass better than whole. But now we know that the satiating effect of fat me
by goda90 10y ago
It's more a push to whole foods. Before they thought fat was the issue, so skim milk wass better than whole. But now we know that the satiating effect of fat means that whole milk is a better choice. Whole fruit, or smoothies/full pulp juices are better than the highly filtered juice.
- dom0 10y agoIt's pretty much always the same story with "food science" and has been for the last few decades ever since it came up as a "discipline". "Don't eat that, it's totally bad ... [literally 5 minutes later] ... what? You really ought to eat that, it's so healthy and reduces X and Y risks". I have literally no idea why (a) this stuff is still perpetuated (b) people still take this seriosuly (c) in extension of (b), why it makes it somewhat regularly to the HN front page. It's junk science in it's finest form.
- Retra 10y agoYou're not talking about food science, you're talking about reporting. Dietary science is as valid a science as any other. It is the people who eagerly impose their dogma and zeal onto it in the same way they do subjects like sex, child-rearing, and religion that cause these inconsistencies.
- kpil 10y agoBut is it really, for instance the process of finding 'recommended' amounts of nutrients seems to be more or less as good as picking numbers out of a hat.
- kpil 10y agoI guess it's hard to test, so they discovered that they can just continue to make shit up...