A new study investigates the link between processed meat, sugar-sweetened beverages, and trans fatty acids, to diseases such as cancer, heart disease and type 2 diabetes.
The EMF from power lines was a real mind virus that went around when I was a teenager!
I’ve been alive too long and have seen this pattern play out again, and again, and again. Feeling a little sad right now, actually.
For another example: all my life the common sense accepted wisdom, supported by real dermatologists was that to keep the likelihood of skin cancer to a minimum there is zero known healthy level of sun exposure. Well that’s all out the f’king window in 2025 because we now know the deleterious effects of insufficient sun exposure are vastly more severe compared to an increased morbidity for types of skin cancer.
I don’t want to be mr critical, but… there’s something wrong in our whole approach to these “studies” and I don’t know what fixes it. Any experts wanna help describe what I’m getting at with the right technical language?
My “maybe?” controversial opinion, shot off half-cocked and a little uninformed… is that the entire field of nutritional epidemiology is bad pseudo-science arising from a fundamentally flawed viewpoint and bias: That health outcomes are tied to nutritional intake vs nutritional intake arising from the conditions of individuals’ lives.
I’d hate to be a nutritional epidemiologist tbh. I can’t think of a less fruitful career searching for answers and finding what looks like answers, but are just the biases of your questions reflected back to you.
Well, you’re right and I’m surprised I’ve never thought of this before.
The EMF from power lines was a real mind virus that went around when I was a teenager!
I’ve been alive too long and have seen this pattern play out again, and again, and again. Feeling a little sad right now, actually.
For another example: all my life the common sense accepted wisdom, supported by real dermatologists was that to keep the likelihood of skin cancer to a minimum there is zero known healthy level of sun exposure. Well that’s all out the f’king window in 2025 because we now know the deleterious effects of insufficient sun exposure are vastly more severe compared to an increased morbidity for types of skin cancer.
I don’t want to be mr critical, but… there’s something wrong in our whole approach to these “studies” and I don’t know what fixes it. Any experts wanna help describe what I’m getting at with the right technical language?
My “maybe?” controversial opinion, shot off half-cocked and a little uninformed… is that the entire field of nutritional epidemiology is bad pseudo-science arising from a fundamentally flawed viewpoint and bias: That health outcomes are tied to nutritional intake vs nutritional intake arising from the conditions of individuals’ lives.
I’d hate to be a nutritional epidemiologist tbh. I can’t think of a less fruitful career searching for answers and finding what looks like answers, but are just the biases of your questions reflected back to you.