4 ms·

I think the general conclusion isn't just "If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution" but "If it relates to food or drink,

by mhd 12y ago

I think the general conclusion isn't just "If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution" but "If it relates to food or drink, we know diddly squat". And even less if the purveyor of said knowledge is not even a full-time research scientist. Or heck, not a scientist at all. Sadly that seems to be the source of 90% of diet "wisdom". Now let us get back to honestly saying that we like to drink to get sloshed, without any excuses of health or even just taste.

T-hawk 12y ago
My general conclusion is more like, if it relates to food or drink, there's both positives and negatives that can be spun either way. Take eggs, an easy example. The protein is good for muscles, but the cholesterol is bad for arteries. A scientific study will balance these variables in depth. But the clickbait headlines that filter up to public internet visibility will polarize on one or the other because that's what gets the clicks and attention. Moderate drinking: good for stress, bad for the liver. Easy to frame a headline to highlight either aspect. Agreed that the real problem is 90% of diet "wisdom" coming from clickbait headlines rather than seriously considered science.
- mhd 12y ago
  Bad science reporting is yet another bad commercial exploitation of the scientific data, but quite often you don't even have to go that far. We're talking about really long-term effects and lots of variables. It's quite rare that you can just watch something happen metabolically and draw your conclusions from that. Most of the time, we're talking about surveys or small studies. And it's not like the people surveyed are getting in-depth tests every single day. Then add some bad statistics and interest groups on top of that. Your example ain't that easy, either.

4 ms·

I think the general conclusion isn't just "If something looks too good to be true, it should be treated with great caution" but "If it relates to food or drink,

by mhd 12y ago

T-hawk 12y ago
My general conclusion is more like, if it relates to food or drink, there's both positives and negatives that can be spun either way. Take eggs, an easy example. The protein is good for muscles, but the cholesterol is bad for arteries. A scientific study will balance these variables in depth. But the clickbait headlines that filter up to public internet visibility will polarize on one or the other because that's what gets the clicks and attention. Moderate drinking: good for stress, bad for the liver. Easy to frame a headline to highlight either aspect. Agreed that the real problem is 90% of diet "wisdom" coming from clickbait headlines rather than seriously considered science.
- mhd 12y ago
  Bad science reporting is yet another bad commercial exploitation of the scientific data, but quite often you don't even have to go that far. We're talking about really long-term effects and lots of variables. It's quite rare that you can just watch something happen metabolically and draw your conclusions from that. Most of the time, we're talking about surveys or small studies. And it's not like the people surveyed are getting in-depth tests every single day. Then add some bad statistics and interest groups on top of that. Your example ain't that easy, either.