|
|
|
|
|
by nradov
1959 days ago
|
|
Your hypothesis is incorrect, or at least not justified by the data. The whole field of human nutrition actually is in a very bad place. Most of what we think we know comes from low quality observational studies which don't rate well on the evidence based medicine scale. By all means let's continue research. But people generally shouldn't rely upon most of it when making dietary choices. A better approach is to conduct your own n=1 informal experiments and determine empirically what works best for you. |
|
I don't mean to say that this narrative can't be pushed back, but these articles comes from the [wrong] premise that these findings are not solid. They are. It's the same as trying to advance the idea that trans fat is not dangerous to someone's health: you surely could try, but the prior should be low. That's is why I advanced the hypothesis that people are craving for these types of news that validate their lifestyles: they don't seem to be properly calculating their priors and are dismissing too quickly solid evidence.