I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, …
I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, somebody maybe takes up a new sport or tries a new diet for a while. If it works for them its great, if not they will stop. The effect, therefore, is that it gives people motivation and new ideas to try something "healthy". I would guess the net effect of that is positive, since they do at least something, even if the science that was reported is not entirely accurate.
I know a guy who decided to take the carnivore diet to the extreme of eating only pemmican, which resulted in a flaming case of scurvy and weeks in a hospital.
I'm with grape soda on this one. No one can now if it has a net positive net negative or net neutral effect. There is no public health justification for promoting sloppy science and deception. Truth matters.
I disagree. Whole swaths of people were scared of salt and stayed away from eggs because of “science” reporting. Is running really heathy if you blow out your knees?
Walking doesn't blow out the knees, nor does running on an elastic surface nor if you run in such a manner as to take most of the concussion in the muscles. I used to run and have no knee problems, despite being elderly.
I agree that the studies are bad and reporting is even worse. However, critiquing the the whole health and excercise journalism from the accuracy perspective is in my opinion misguided. Changing human behavior is very hard and thus the influence of any of those studies and their reporting is likely not that big or negative. If anything, somebody maybe takes up a new sport or tries a new diet for a while. If it works for them its great, if not they will stop. The effect, therefore, is that it gives people motivation and new ideas to try something "healthy". I would guess the net effect of that is positive, since they do at least something, even if the science that was reported is not entirely accurate.
I know a guy who decided to take the carnivore diet to the extreme of eating only pemmican, which resulted in a flaming case of scurvy and weeks in a hospital.
Dried meat is a problem, but cooked meat is fine, I would imagine.
I'm with grape soda on this one. No one can now if it has a net positive net negative or net neutral effect. There is no public health justification for promoting sloppy science and deception. Truth matters.
I disagree. Whole swaths of people were scared of salt and stayed away from eggs because of “science” reporting. Is running really heathy if you blow out your knees?
Walking doesn't blow out the knees, nor does running on an elastic surface nor if you run in such a manner as to take most of the concussion in the muscles. I used to run and have no knee problems, despite being elderly.
You said it: IF
IF one is prudent...