We’ve all been hearing for years that eggs will be the death of us:
This March, a study published in JAMA put the egg back on the hot seat. It found that the amount of cholesterol in a bit less than two large eggs a day was associated with an increase in a person’s risk of cardiovascular disease and death by 17 percent and 18 percent, respectively. The risks grow with every additional half egg. It was a really large study, too — with nearly 30,000 participants — which suggests it should be fairly reliable.
So which is it? Is the egg good or bad? And, while we are on the subject, when so much of what we are told about diet, health, and weight loss is inconsistent and contradictory, can we believe any of it?
Quite frankly, probably not. Nutrition research tends to be unreliable because nearly all of it is based on observational studies, which are imprecise, have no controls, and don’t follow an experimental method. As nutrition-research critics Edward Archer and Carl Lavie have put it, “’Nutrition’ is now a degenerating research paradigm in which scientifically illiterate methods, meaningless data, and consensus-driven censorship dominate the empirical landscape.”
Timothy F. Kirn, “Nutrition Science Is Broken. This New Egg Study Shows Why.” at UnDark
Recently overheard in the smoky back room at Uncommon Descent News was “Okay, I see your “scientist who says AI is going to save Gaia” and I’m raising you one who says, “the way things are going, we’re all gonna have webbed feet.”
It was noted, however, that the winning player would be the one who comes up with an earnest, just-published study offering convoluted neuroscience theories as to why so many people don’t trust science.
Well and, what do you know, here’s – at least – a 2019 study, “Religious Affiliation and Religiosity and Their Impact on Scientific Beliefs in the United States” (paywall)
As if religious affiliation should be the big noise at this point.
Hey, brainstorm!: Why not do a study, with all the rumty-tumty and trappings, of who the suckers are who actually believe all that stuff uncritically? What else do they believe?
See also: Another well-earned jab at nutrition science
Also: From RealClearScience: No, we can’t trust government data on diet and nutrition. Censored researchers: Nutrition is a “degenerating” research paradigm. Also: The skinny on salt, veggie oil, skim milk, whole foods. Nutrition science is nearly baseless but it rules.
and
Science journalist fed up with nutrition science
Follow UD News at Twitter!