Quote:
Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog
This story is about a month old and "the science" is about as flawed can be. |
Despite your, umm.... flair, I actually intend to read the stuff you have linked to here. In my first several minutes of doing so, I see a lot of deeply bad math (or, rather, deep misunderstanding of math) that rivals the "bad science" these folks seek to decry.
The more I read in these subjects, the more it starts to take the shape of political debates, where players on both/all sides seem overeager to embrace any argument that bolsters their pre-supposed claim, and equally overeager to tear down any argument that refutes their pre-supposed claim.
If you're a committed paleo, then you will find ample evidence to suggest it's the one true path everywhere you look. If you're motivated to protect animals, then you'll likely cling to every study that finds animal products to be evil. if you make a living off livestock or their products, then you're shocked that not everyone is fully understanding the latest report from the Egg Board or the meat Council like you are.
And yes, as someone who has embraced a deliberate path along the way here, I'm probably affected by this as well. I have done certain things, have had certain results, and through some combination of personal pride and obvious direct observations, I'm probably inclined to think that what I'm doing (and what I have been persuaded to believe) is at least pointed in the right direction.
I also, like pretty much anyone, have a saturation point. What if I find things in the attack articles linked by CB above that sound fishy or unfairly dismissive to me? Do I need to go track down the original report and pore though its findings myself? Maybe, I suppose. Am I going to do that? Probably not. So, do I end up falling into the familiar trap of siding with my pre-conceived notions here? Maybe. I am personally pretty convinced that cholesterol and saturated fats, both present in eggs, are bad for you, especially if you have a predisposition toward heart disease. I am generally convinced that some measure of egg consumption has a positive correlation to heart disease... sure. And same with smoking. Sure. And that you could reasonably calculate the two correlations and some up with a cross-equivalence between the two causes, that could be constructed into "This Much A is as bad for you as That Much B." Sure.
So, will I ever have the certainty that CB does above? Maybe not. Whether it's because I'm a coward, or because I'm just a bit tougher in my standards... tough to say. I'll keep reading and trying to learn, it's the best weapon in the fight, seems to me.