4 ms·
There are so many incidental factors that it's very hard to form a practical conclusion from such studies. I find the only way to approach this is similar to a
by theprotocol 9y ago
There are so many incidental factors that it's very hard to form a practical conclusion from such studies. I find the only way to approach this is similar to a neural network with a very slow learning rate: each data point nudges my understanding at a weight determined by how credible, objective, and applicable to me (because everyone is different) the study seems.
I see no other way than to ultimately treat this as a soft science rather than a hard one, focusing on qualitative takeaways, and sometimes taking away a "consideration" rather than a conclusion, e.g. "there's a chance eggs might ultimately be bad, best not overdo it; rice contains arsenic, it's probably best to get rice produced in low-arsenic places, and follow a soaking/rinsing procedure before eating it..."
- wppick 9y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doubt_Is_Their_Product The goal of articles like these (in my opinion) is to cast doubt in your mind about eating or not eating certain foods. The article might be "sponsored" by a large food industry who wants you to think there is no right answer, so you might as well a bit of eat anything (meat, sugar, oils, fast food). As a rule of thumb: the higher up the food chain you eat, the more likely you are eating pollutants. Fish have been found to have like levels of heavy metals and even plastics. Also avoid eating anything processed with ingredients you can't pronounce
- trapperkeeper74 9y agoOr stop eating processed foods stuffed with preservatives. Also, stop dining out for the most part: such food is heavy in calories (ie unhealthy oils and cream), salt, sugar and carbs. Fix your own food from sources you trust, eliminating many problems.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]