3 ms·

It's rather ridiculous overall. The more 'studies' I read, the less I take them seriously. If you don't like the result of any study, wait 2 years and you will

It's rather ridiculous overall. The more 'studies' I read, the less I take them seriously. If you don't like the result of any study, wait 2 years and you will have a handful of studies disproving them. It seems like every few years we bounce back and forth between if alcohol and coffee are good or bad for you. I'm not sure if these issues are with the methodology in the studies, special interests wanting certain results, or just poor execution. But it seems out of hand. Small off topic rant. If we want the masses to believe the results from sciences, then we need to be consistent. I'm not advocating lying in order to do this. The results from the studies need to be reproducible and accurate. How can we convince people that something like climate change is happening and real, when the earth is a massively complex system, when we can't even go 2 months without flipping dietary results from sugar is ok, to sugar is bad, back to sugar is ok. Or the other example would be the no amount of alcohol is good for you, when for years the common result from studies was 1 or 2 drinks was a benefit.

bhandziuk 8y ago
nutrition is especially hard though. I doubt any study which suggests that one changed input has this direct output. There's so much more than just ratio of macronutrients. Total calories, when during the day you're eating them, lifestyle, exercise habits. Obviously you can get away with eating a lot worse and not get fat if you are expending all those calories.
SketchySeaBeast 8y ago
The problem isn't this study, it's the reporting. We were initially taught that science IS truth, so every new study that was irresponsibly disseminated was believed. Now we've become so jaded by all these studies that we believe none of them (unless it follows our own prejudices). And unfortunately the news is built on trying to make things interesting - reporting the current scientific consensus just isn't news worthy. "This just in: Earth still flat." is much less interesting than "Watch this Californian kook launch himself into Space to prove the Earth is flat." or "Drinking straws - are they inseminating dolphins with reptilian DNA?"

bhandziuk 8y ago

nutrition is especially hard though. I doubt any study which suggests that one changed input has this direct output. There's so much more than just ratio of macronutrients. Total calories, when during the day you're eating them, lifestyle, exercise habits. Obviously you can get away with eating a lot worse and not get fat if you are expending all those calories.

SketchySeaBeast 8y ago

The problem isn't this study, it's the reporting. We were initially taught that science IS truth, so every new study that was irresponsibly disseminated was believed. Now we've become so jaded by all these studies that we believe none of them (unless it follows our own prejudices). And unfortunately the news is built on trying to make things interesting - reporting the current scientific consensus just isn't news worthy. "This just in: Earth still flat." is much less interesting than "Watch this Californian kook launch himself into Space to prove the Earth is flat." or "Drinking straws - are they inseminating dolphins with reptilian DNA?"