4 ms·
I used to think this, but in the last year I've seen that the science isn't really so ambiguous. The /reporting/ of it is total chaos though. Which is what you'
by JofArnold 16y ago
I used to think this, but in the last year I've seen that the science isn't really so ambiguous. The /reporting/ of it is total chaos though. Which is what you'd expect given the various different stakeholders in the food industry.
- enjo 16y agoMuch like this article right? The article simply brought to light a study that says "previous studies suffer from a bias". The study did not appear to say "alcohol is bad for the heart" or that those studies drew incorrect conclusions. Simply that future work should really take this into account. That's important, because work needs to be done to identify other lifestyle habits that tend to be present in lifelong-teetotalers, but not in the drinking group. I think it's entirely reasonable to think that folks who abstain from alcohol over the course of a lifetime probably have a lot of other habits that are a bit healthier as well. So I think it's important to note that this article drew very little in the way of conclusions, but I get the feeling that folks are going to take it and run with it anyways.
- JofArnold 16y agoIs the nature of the beast; I guess epidemiological studies are hardest to get right and yet the easiest for which to collect data...
- olalonde 16y agoThen perhaps the mistake is to call nutrition a science as it is ambiguous in most cases.
- Bud 16y agoYou mean like biology, or psychology, or how chemistry was for centuries, or medicine, or how physics was for centuries?
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]
- deleted 16y ago[deleted]