Obviously the quacks cannot figure things either. Otherwise they would have actionable evidence of good statiatical quality. Scientific method (esp. RCTs) provi

Obviously the quacks cannot figure things either. Otherwise they would have actionable evidence of good statiatical quality. Scientific method (esp. RCTs) provides actionable evidence. Just be careful whom you call a quack... dietetics has way too many facets that are being analysed at the time. We also have science that works quite well on unknown systems - epidemiology and statistics. While it is not good enough to figure out causes, correlations are good enough in typical cases to be actionable. The strongest one we have is "eating plenty of greens and raw vegetables will make you look like other healthy people". I haven't seem any contravening evidence to this very not ground-breaking conclusion. The problem is that it flies in the face of 70 years of dietary recommendation (which was grains) and in the face of all the industry (because it is not shelf stable). Exercise so far while improving health in the elderly has not been linked to persistent weight loss. I could be more specific about thresholds there as well. (In terms of volume.) Butt what good does it do? These are fuzzy thresholds. Them we have evidence that high fat diets are effective at weight loss (about the same as low fat diets) but some that they have no other health effects that are not really explained by weight change. Thus the diets are not specifically recommended, one over another. Even the high fat diets resulted in caloric restriction. The long term analysis gives slight but existent increase in all cause mortality that is not explained by CVD mortality nor cancer. Thus we do not know the cause. Quacks like to tell that they know the causes. Or other that any kind of diet is somewhat effective so the right placebo in weight studies is regular weight monitoring. Not no diet. And a lot of evidence that people cannot really self regulate to health with bad substrates.