They call them "controlled trials" but they are anything but. Actually take the time to read them in detail and you'll find, almost invariably, long term surveys based on people who said they were "going to make X change to their diet."

I don't mean to be insulting, but I think it's quite naive myself to just think that the same academia culture that produced the "science" that we should stop eating saturated fats and animal based foods because they will kill us, and instead eat a bunch of motor oil, inflammatory grains, and insulin spiking carbs and sugars... maybe they don't have the perspective (or independent thought) necessary to even begin to make an honest assessment of something they are certain is bad before even beginning?

If you have a "controlled trial" that you think is better than what i described above, I'm happy to save it in my resources to dig into later. Feel free to share any that you think are actually solid & honest explorations of diet.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You can literally spin a narrative in any which way you can with data. Anything that has a mechanistic approach achieve this. Have a look into mendolian randomisation.

Again my point isn't to argue the point in favour of shitty foods out there but the note you made to begin is so grey it's actually laughable.

I've been in the health industry for many years and advised for a company that is well against these ingredients to our bodies but the truth is you can actually eat these things as long as you're tactical and still be optimal. It just grinds my gears how bticoiners seem to think that eliminating these oils and just replacing it with heavy saturated fats is good advice...