What "archy" is missing is that, no matter the source (NIH, Science, Nature), the world of dietary science is replete with fads, studies that advocate fads, and should not be taken verbatim. A classic example of this is the food pyramid--it has been revised a few times over the last 25 years since inception. Another classic case is the cholesterol story; yes, excess cholesterol is bad for you, but believing that your liver makes enough of it is misleading. You do need some exogenous cholesterol. Another example is that of "soy milk" as replacement for dairy milk. At the time of the fad, soy milk was the new "wonder" diet item; it has now been seen as a possible cause of thyroid disease (Graves Disease) in those drinking it to excess, mostly our female partners. Buyer beware. But the principal mistake he makes is believing that the data is static, the principal thread in his argument. Science evolves; it is dynamic. The worse department for that is dietary science; what is written today is invalid before the ink dries......
So by your comment any science you recite to reinforce your argument is invalid as well. Eat what you want. Like I said earlier, eat what you want. I'm not trying to persuade you otherwise.
But you call others ignorant because they don't believe as you do. It's not ignorance, it's just a different way of life, by choice.
Aside from the argument that science is invalid, I know it's safe to say that a diet of processed foods like McSh!t, Twinkies, Doritos, 7-11 Toquitos, Hot Pockets, etc. is very unhealthy and disease causing. Being ignorant of the health consequences of these foods is not healthy, different way of life or not.
Couple of pages ago you were slamming lettuce down everyones throat and belittling those that didn't wanna chew. Youre gonna bust a flip flop goin back n forth like that, step on a pop top maybe
A person can be fully aware of such things but just simply not give a F, that's not ignorance, that's just not giving a F. Didn't say him specifically, wasn't referring to him
"ANY science"? Nope--never said that. Never said it is ALL invalid. Let me put it this way. Believing in ABSOLUTES when reading science, believing that every study has no flaws, is an error many make. Every study has flaws to one degree or another, especially in dietary science. Flaws such as lousy "controls", small sample size, bad statistics, etc. Skepticism is a healthy characteristic of a person that reads studies to determine outcomes or direction. It was my job for 35 years. Take every data point with doubt; take nothing for granted. Just because it is in print, doesn't mean it is totally valid, or totally invalid for that matter. just my opinion, arch. For what it is worth, my observation is you know where to go for to back up your thinking. That is great!! Just remember, NO ABSOLUTES, okay? We once thought the Earth was flat (ABSOLUTELY, even killed heretics on that point!) and that the Sun revolved around us. WE were the center of the Universe!! But, nowadays?? Not so much. And I agree with you, fast food, "most" (non- absolute term) of it sucks big time!! Now go get some waves!!
Wait is Utah really a cop or FBI agent? Cops don't surf. Also, cops in suburbs are a joke. Just writing traffic violations and stopping at dunkin. Collect a pension and live off everyone else. Put these suburb cops in an actually city and see them crying like little girls.
I wouldn't say all cops in suburbs are a joke. But majority lack training, are lazy and most likely got their Job because who their daddy was. But because of their pay they probably have the best water filters!
Well there seems to be a resurgence of the flat earth thing, which personally is laughable, but Like I said IDGAF what you eat. It was you and others that questioned my food choices and were vehement on discouraging them. Happy surfing Barry!