View Single Post
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Jun-12-17, 03:46
Calianna's Avatar
Calianna Calianna is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,851
 
Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63
BF:
Progress: 50%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
OK, so we got kids who grow taller cuz of cow milk, now we got kids who grow more cuz of eggs, next we'll get kids who grow tallest and mostest cuz of uber fat ribeye at every meal. Just kidding, but it would be logical.

I have a big problem with using infants for experiments. The results sound good, but what if the intervention was exactly the same as the controls in this experiment? It would show a certain detriment to the intervention thereby making the experiment unethical by its very nature. Well, that's exactly what this experiment did - it showed a detriment to the controls intervention, because a controls is an intervention in its own right. Imagine any other comparison where there is an obvious benefit for a group - there's a concurrent obvious detriment for another group.

I have read something about that a while ago where the interventions were monitored and once a benefit was noted for one group, all groups were then put on that intervention. This then allowed an a priori unethical intervention to become ethical by virtue of discovering the detriment, stoppping it, then switching to the beneficial intervention. I still have that big problem with experiments on kids, but then maybe it was needed to establish precisely that the controls were put on a detrimental intervention outside the experiment by some standard guidelines?


I'd say that's the case.

If they'd done the study on rodents, then despite the fact that the study showed eggs as a superior nutritious food for growth, we'd say rodent studies are fine, but rodents are not humans.

They couldn't do the study on adults, because they're past the point of vertical growth. It needed to be done on children, and the younger the better, because the younger they are, the faster they grow.

I'm just glad it's another step towards exonerating the much maligned egg - as someone mentioned earlier, eggs contain enough of all nutrients necessary to nurture a chick - there's enough nutrients there for the chick to grow and become strong enough to peck it's way out of the shell. Eggs even have vitamin D, a micronutrient which can be very difficult to come by naturally in food, since the primary sources of it these days is as a chemical addition to milk and cereal products.
Reply With Quote