Sun, Mar-11-18, 12:22
|
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
|
|
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
|
|
Comments will be printed obviously. Think of those comments as the same as comments published in a scientific journal, they all have references at the end, these references aren't links but standard IDs like PubMed uses for example. So instead of links to web pages, use standard IDs to pertinent research to support your comment. I'd go with comparative diet experiments, like the A-TO-Z study for example (doi:10.1001/jama.297.9.969 or PMID 17341711).
Bear in mind that it's hard to support health arguments with diet experiments since they're primarily done to figure out what makes us lean or fat, not what makes us healthy or sick. They still measure some health markers so you could go as far as that.
I just thought of a strategy but maybe it's too much in-your-face kinda thing. Cite studies paid by tax money, then ask why, as the case may be, they were not considered as basis to design DGA. I mean, why would tax money pay for that if we're not gonna use it for tax payers' benefit, hm?
-edit- The A-TO-Z experiment, as a for instance, was funded with lots of tax money, but as far as I'm aware has not been even mentioned in any official document wrt DGA:
Quote:
Funding/Support: This investigation was supported by National Institutes of Health grant R21AT1098, by a grant from the Community Foundation of Southeastern Michigan, and by Human Health Service grant M01-RR00070, General Clinical Research Centers, National Center for Research Resources, National Institutes of Health.
|
Last edited by M Levac : Sun, Mar-11-18 at 12:29.
|