|
|
|
|
|
|
by ExactoKnight
2852 days ago
|
|
|
It's what scientists have to say to get into the headlines these days. That doesn't mean his underlying point lacks merit. But it is absolutely frustrating how inconclusive and frequently contradictory science around food and health continue to be. |
|
|
There are two possible conclusions from a study. First is "despite our best attempt our subjects did not follow the assigned diet". Second is has real conclusions, but the subjects are confined to either a prison cell or hospital bed and so the conclusion doesn't apply to you. This is a little cynical, but the point is valid.
The other problem is human lifespans are a long time. How does eating/skipping food X at 15 affect your lifespan - such a study would need millions of participants that are followed for as much as 80 years. It is very hard to run such a study, and the standards of science have been changing (for good reason!) over time such that it is unlikely any such study even if it completes would be publishable by whatever the current standard are.
To get around the second science studies markers. It is a statistical fact that people with high LDL tend to have heart attacks and die younger than people with normal LDL. However there are people with normal LDL who have heart attacks and die young; and also people with high LDL who live to an old age without ever having a heart attack - why we do not know. We know that saturated fat raises LDL, but we don't know if that is actually a factor in heart attacks - but lacking anything else to go on we assume saturated fat makes a heart attack more likely - this could be false but we have nothing better at this time, and are unlikely to find anything better.