Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift. If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results.
Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses..
"Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift"
What's "Big Science"? You are also claiming it's all a scam? Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise?
"If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results."
Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it? Wouldn't that make them more bias if they did?
"Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses.."
Why? Many times in the past people have stated that mice and other rodents aren't ideal subjects in studies that relate to humans but that doesn't appear to be the case
And another article states 'Nobel-winning scientific achievements such as the discovery of vitamin K, the development of the polio vaccine, the invention of monoclonal antibody technology now used for cancer treatment, and the unravelling of how neurons talk with each other in the brain all would not have occurred without mice."
> Every scientific study related to diet, nutrition, and exercise?
Pretty much. All the mouse stuff, self reporting, and meta-studies and you're already at what, 90-95%?
> Why do they have to practice some fitness or nutritional art to study it
Skin in the game and incentives besides "increase # of studies/citations" and "get grant money."
Discovering vitamins was great, same for vaccines and probably monoclonal antibodies. I don't know anything about monoclonal antibodies.
What I do know is that Big Science knows 0 about diet (fat loss in particular) and exercise. They're not even wrong, they're just so insulated from reality that they're in the wrong ballpark.
Look at the cholesterol and fat-related "common wisdom" they promoted for decades: saturated fats bad, animal fats bad because cholesterol, etc.
Meanwhile I looked at my biochemistry textbook where the biosynthetic pathway for cholesterol began with Acetyl-CoA, which means that almost everything can be a precursor for cholesterol in the organism, be it carbohydrates, proteins, sugars, anything. The corollary for this is that should you want to reduce your cholesterol levels, a more appropriate course would have been to lower your calorie intake and perhaps a strategy to block cholesterol reabsorption on the digestive tract (the enterohepatic cycle) than just seeking a "low-fat" diet.
Today this perception was corrected, but it was sacred dogma for decades despite it conflicted with the basic facts of human biochemistry.
And since bad medicine dies one physician at a time, I know diabetics who were warned about saturated fat literally THIS WEEK. So the mistake might've been corrected in that it's not taught as dogma any more, but it'll take another 20-30 years for physicians to stop doling out this misinformation. To a diabetic, nonetheless.
How many people have they helped lose weight? Reddit alone works way better than Big Science does in any practical, skin-in-the-game domain like diet/fat loss/exercise.
I also know that many of the things they say or used to say that are still standard doctrine are just flat-out wrong, which I've confirmed in my own experiments.
Big Science in nutrition, diet, and exercise is a grift. If the researcher is not also a practitioner (e.g. body builder or losing lots of weight) you can usually ignore the results.
Also ignore any studies involving mice, food questionnaires or other self-reporting, meta-analyses..