Optimal thought and optimal fitness through reason, logic, science, passion, and wisdom.
Bad Nutritional “Science”
Bad Nutritional “Science”

Bad Nutritional “Science”

I don’t know if “Fatty foods may cause cocaine-like addiction” (by Sarah Klein, Health.com, March 28, 2010 2:42 p.m. EDT) is incompetent reporting, or incompetent “science,” but it’s fundamentally flawed and incompetent somewhere. So they feed rats a diet that is not species-appropriate, and the rats develop health problems? Anybody with even slight knowledge of biology, nutrition, and evolution could tell you that.  I wonder what the actual diets were. I’d like to see that. Or is this stuff, “bacon, sausage, cheesecake, frosting, and other fattening, high-calorie foods,” appropriate and typical for rats? I cannot imagine that they evolved on that stuff. Have they had time to evolve to adjust to such foods? Bacon is very different chemically from cheesecake and junk food. So is sausage. So why are they classified together? The body would respond to these things differently. What’s more, they conflate “containing fat” with “causing fat.” And they draw conclusions about fat consumption based on feeding fat along with sugars and other crud. It’s impossible to tease out causes the way this study was done, or at least according to how it was reported. If A, B, C, D, E, F, and G, create a certain effect, how does one know A was the cause? Or B? It would be interesting to see the actual study report. Was this bad “science” or bad reporting? No wonder American health is bad and getting worse!!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.