4 ms·

Every study cited in that wikipedia section is at least 10 years old, and the headline survey is 35-years old.

• stfu 12y ago
  And? Do you think smoking became all of the sudden healthy again over the last 50 years since they discovered it is a main cause for cancer? Unless there is a reasonable expectation that things have changed, studies are valid and do not get invalidated by age. Considering that a decent study might take easily a year to run and another year to get through the peer review process, 10 years are actually rather recent. I've seen papers (although in a different field) that in 2013 describe discoveries from the late 199x as "recent".
  • daliusd 12y ago
    Your comparison with smoking is completely unfair. The problem is that we have scientific proof that smoking tobacco causes lung cancer (the emphasis is on "causes"). The problem with nutritional science is that we only have correlation data (or at least it looks like so).
• PerfectElement 12y ago
  For the new research (that haven't been proven over and over again, like the Lipid Hypothesis) go to http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org and this Youtube channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition http://www.youtube.com/user/PrimitiveNutrition