View Single Post
  #3   ^
Old Sat, Dec-22-18, 11:19
bevangel's Avatar
bevangel bevangel is offline
Posts: 1,915
 
Plan: modified adkins (sort of)
Stats: 265/176/167 Female 68.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 91%
Location: Austin, TX
Default

Interesting how, the least little bit of evidence that eating natural fats or red meat might possibly be bad for you is always blown into a "New Evidence Proves Fat/Meat is Deadly" headline and the warning is always made that everybody needs to stop eating fat/meat immediately!

Meanwhile when a study suggests that some pharmaceutical compound has a negative impact, the story is always accompanied by a disclaimer saying that one mustn't make too much of this study because the Drug is GOOD! The articles always say something like "all this study shows is that we need to conduct more research so we can maybe figure out just which small group of patients are going to be negatively affected by this drug. Until then, everybody just needs to keep on taking their prescribed drugs until we know for sure..."

Seems to me it should work the other way. When a naturally occuring substance has been consumed for thousands of years by hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people, one ought to have to have overwhelming evidence that the substance is actually bad for a large number of people before calling for people to stop using it.

Conversely, when a manufactured substance that has been being used for, at most, for a few dozen years, ANY reasonable evidence of LACK OF SAFETY ought to be accompanied by a clarion call to consider discontinuing the manufactured substance's use until further studies establish safety and efficacy. <sigh>
Reply With Quote