2 ms·
Apologies, I missed the username change. I thought it was fair game given the context of the comment chain but missed that a different person made the original
by n8cpdx 4y ago
Apologies, I missed the username change. I thought it was fair game given the context of the comment chain but missed that a different person made the original claim.
Most of what you’re writing about is sort of a silly basis for an argument though, by definition excess consumption of anything is bad. The issue is what counts as excess.
I don’t disagree on the findings. I repeated points of agreement not because I didn’t read your comment, but to highlight the shared understanding. I agree with your opinions on nutrition as shared, I just don’t think it’s right to claim that the specific underlying research is enough to support the overall nutrition guidance opinion as settled science or fact-based. I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake.
- bryans 4y ago> I think there are plenty of ways to read the underlying research and still support a claim that individual specific components of a diet should be chosen to moderate saturated fat intake. Yes, all of the ways. It's the only interpretation. It is literally what both the research and my comments state. You're still arguing against things that nobody said, while also redefining science and nutrition. I'm unsure of what you're trying to accomplish, but you're strictly making bad-faith arguments which don't reflect reality, and it's obnoxious.