3 ms·
Nope, not ironic. But if your aim is to increase people's health, you're going to do a better job using accurate information. The initial studies showing anti
by spingsprong 12y ago
Nope, not ironic.
But if your aim is to increase people's health, you're going to do a better job using accurate information.
The initial studies showing anti-oxidants have health benefits have struggled to be replicated, and new studies have shown anti-oxidants may be having negative health impact.
Edit: since a couple of people have asked, here's one fairly good source, there are others if you search. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419320 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22419320
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- arethuza 12y agoI can recommend Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" - I read this in book form, any time I see "anti-oxidant" in the context of nutrition I also start to engage full skepticism mode. Here is an article from Bad Science pointing to a Cochrane Collaboration review of the effectiveness of anti-oxidants: http://www.badscience.net/2008/04/cliff-richard-gloria-hunniford-carole-caplin-the-60bn-food-supplement-industry-and-the-quantum-xrroid-dude-refute-a-cochrane-meta-analysis/ http://www.badscience.net/2008/04/cliff-richard-gloria-hunni... Michael Shermer, the author of Why People Believe Weird Things, also had an interesting direct experience with nutritional pseudo-science: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_People_Believe_Weird_Things