It's more like he says that these should be an intense area of study.
I got this myself the other day, a friend brought up Asians eating rice and being just fine. I really don't take the position that carbs are poisonous, I take the position that there are circumstances where removing carbohydrate from the diet is helpful. Increasingly common circumstances.
Arguing about whether it's the coconut oil or the popcorn that does the damage, or the fat or the potato in french fries and potato chips or doughnuts seems sort of moot when combining the two in these and other common snack foods that make up a large part of the diet wind up containing three or four percent protein. I absolutely think there are diets you could make worse, based on this alone, by adding beef or coconut fat to.
Yoinking cottonpal's quote from Tom Naughton;
Quote:
|
"Some researchers use the tools of science to seek the truth, while others use those tools to design studies that will tell them what they want to hear. And if the studies don’t tell them what they want to hear, they hear it anyway."
|
When it comes to meat and dietary fat, this seems to be what epidemiology is
for. The correlation of these with disease in the modern, crappy diet is repeated so often, it's fairly predictable. And for raising cholesterol--everybody knew that. Everybody knew that at least in the context that it's studied in, lauric acid, like palmitic and myristic acid, raises cholesterol. The only reason to do the study was to make headlines. I hate reading headlines about studies where the point of the study was to make the headline. Cherry picking? Worse, it's an editorial masking as a study.