4 ms·
I didn't know about this, thanks for the explanation. > It's quite insightful to see how this error then spawned a whole new series of 'approved' explanations
by verisimi 1y ago
I didn't know about this, thanks for the explanation.
> It's quite insightful to see how this error then spawned a whole new series of 'approved' explanations for why wine was supposed to be healthy for you, such as antioxidants or whatever.
Your analysis provides a very nice example of how science studies can be meaningless. And that this isn't a problem, as long as someone is making money. How many years did we see yet another study being rolled out about France, red wine, red wine extracts in pill form, etc. And yet all that literature is based on a pretty obvious false assumption. That no one was inclined to correct.
- giardini 1y agoAnd yet the French continue to have lower heart disease than is present in the USA - the so-called "French Paradox": https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1768013/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1768013/ This discussion despite the failure of the "cholesterol hypothesis" (i.e., the idea that hi cholesterol causes heart disease.
- keybored 1y agoThe French Paradox as explained there is summarized as “despite cholestrol and saturated fats”. Nothwitstanding the “paradox” being invented by a Frenchman (in the 80’s), the idea that cholestrol and saturated fats were unhealthy is an American idea from the 80’s and prior which was supposedly deduced from the Food Pyramid. And the Food Pyramid seem to have been based on what foodstuff makers were willing to lobby the federal government. Well maybe it was a paradox back then. But now there are good theories as to why cholestrol and saturated fats are not that bad. (Or even bad?)