...going against recent studies, and backing the otherwise-disproven science of the fifties.
I quit. Don't make me look at these articles unless there's at least an N>10 meta-study.
I quit. Don't make me look at these articles unless there's at least an N>10 meta-study.
I'm not sure if these issues are with the methodology in the studies, special interests wanting certain results, or just poor execution. But it seems out of hand.
Small off topic rant. If we want the masses to believe the results from sciences, then we need to be consistent. I'm not advocating lying in order to do this. The results from the studies need to be reproducible and accurate. How can we convince people that something like climate change is happening and real, when the earth is a massively complex system, when we can't even go 2 months without flipping dietary results from sugar is ok, to sugar is bad, back to sugar is ok. Or the other example would be the no amount of alcohol is good for you, when for years the common result from studies was 1 or 2 drinks was a benefit.
A handful of studies that find different results to a majority of studies to date do not "disprove" the majority results. Not even if that handful of studies is more recent. Especially if those more recent studies are few among many, also recent, that confirm the "science of the fifites".
I understand it's hard to know who to trust, like one of the responding comments says but here's a rule-of-thumb: don't listen to your gut, listen to the majority opinion of the experts.
... because "your gut" will typically be strongly biased towards discounting evidence you don't like (e.g. because it tells you not to eat the things you crave in large quntities).
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...