Ringel05
Diamond Member
- Aug 5, 2009
- 63,118
- 20,628
Uuuummmmmm, that's what I've been trying to point out in terms of one aspect of why nutritional science is junk, only one aspect.We obviously don't know anything since one day eggs are bad for you and the next they aren'tWhat percentage of the world population is 100,000...........? Your last statement was about as fallacious as you can get, we're talking nutrition not smoking, partially related but different areas of causative research.The last question is a fallacy. Think about it.Psych is one of my backgrounds, what you're doing is obvious to those who are trained to see it. I never denied the diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many. You're still focused on the either or and mischaracterizing what I am saying.
Where did I ever propose an either or choice?
The categorical denial of cumulative evidence is just as bad as confirmation bias.
Better yet try it yourself and see if all your risk markers come down.
Every diet tweak I have ever done was to evaluate the results on my performance.
I gave up dairy products years ago and have suffered no calcium deficiency and that flies in the face of what the USDA food pyramid tell us.
I've moved to what I believed were cleaner sources of animal protein ( very little red meat, more poultry and fish) but still need medication for blood pressure and cholesterol
And again I'll ask you what does a plant eating animal do to vegetable material that transforms it so much that people who don't eat the animal but rather eat the plant matter are going to be malnourished?
That last question is more of a thought experiment
What works for you will work for others but not all. What works for me may not work for you. What works for someone else may not work for either of us.
What works for me? What about what works for 100000 people all over the world?
Tell me give me some evidence from a stud of any size that people have had their health deteriorate by eliminating animal based foods
OK so really what about your body's nutritional requirements are so different from mine that you would get sick if we followed the same diet?
You do know yours is not a dependable position because there will never be enough evidence to say that anything is beneficial or detrimental
You might as well say that smoking 3 packs a day can be good for some people but not for others because we just don't have enough evidence
Of course we don't know empirically whether certain things are detrimental of beneficial, we're still scratching the surface of our knowledge of the human body and it's interactions with all things that potentially affect it. The genome project has opened a door and given us a small peek but we most likely have decades if not centuries of research to do before we can start making larger definitive claims in the area of nutritional research.
I will say this again, maybe you'll get it this time; I never claimed a non meat diet wouldn't be beneficial to some, maybe even to many, maybe even to most on a short or long term basis, I said take current and past nutritional research with some degree of skepticism especially if that research claims an all encompassing cure all.
One day red meat is good for you the next it's not
Do you think the rise and fall from favor of these products has anything to do with the amount of money spent by the supporting industries spend and given to the so called health associations and agencies that we look to for advice?