The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Health & Fitness / Health and Nutrition
|Subject: Re: NuSi (...and Taubes)||Date: 10/4/2012 12:59 AM|
|Author: VeeEnn||Number: 37934 of 42181|
Not only can you not condemn him for something you think he MIGHT do in the future...
I wasn't so much condemning him for what he might do in the future as referring to his track record and what he does in the here and now.
There are people who believe that GC, BC is actually some sort of nutritional bible. A sort of unbiased history of the evolutional of nutritional science, say .......when, in fact, it's a compliation of cherry picked data and misrepresentations designed to support Taubes's carb-phobia..
And very clear about avoiding all of the flaws that compromise the results from most dietary studies. Pretentious? I don't see it.
I guess presumptuous would be a more accurate word. While it's a nice sounding idea to imagine that it's possible to design the perfect study, it's not how clinical research actually works. I think it's OleDoc that once said you have to be prepared to be "wrong" in science and that's true. Most novel research is little more than tentative hypotheses based on available data......and contingent on more (and oftentimes conflicting) data becoming availble as technological advances permit.....and a good many fruitful lines of research have developed serendipitously out of what initially could be called "flaws" in the original.
A patient bought me a book years ago by an Englsh journalist, James Burke, called The Pinball Effect.....a handful of examples of discoveries that have been made almost serendipitously while a totally different line of study was being pursued. So, not only is it a bit presumptuous to imagine it to be possible, trying too hard to control all variables (or eliminate flaws) might not actually be the Good Idea that it looks on first blush.
|Copyright 1996-2015 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|