Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 19 submissions in the queue.
posted by janrinok on Wednesday February 04 2015, @03:51PM   Printer-friendly
from the I'll-never-close-my-eyes-again dept.

Scott Adams of Dilbert fame writes on his blog that science's biggest fail of all time is 'everything about diet and fitness':

I used to think fatty food made you fat. Now it seems the opposite is true. Eating lots of peanuts, avocados, and cheese, for example, probably decreases your appetite and keeps you thin. I used to think vitamins had been thoroughly studied for their health trade-offs. They haven’t. The reason you take one multivitamin pill a day is marketing, not science. I used to think the U.S. food pyramid was good science. In the past it was not, and I assume it is not now. I used to think drinking one glass of alcohol a day is good for health, but now I think that idea is probably just a correlation found in studies.

According to Adams, the direct problem of science is that it has been collectively steering an entire generation toward obesity, diabetes, and coronary problems. But the indirect problem might be worse: It is hard to trust science because it has a credibility issue that it earned. "I think science has earned its lack of credibility with the public. If you kick me in the balls for 20-years, how do you expect me to close my eyes and trust you?"

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:02PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:02PM (#141231)

    now is the greasy meat killing them (very unlikely given what our ancestors thrived on)

    Cooking something on an improvised spit, where the fat can drip off after melting, is nowhere near the same as cooking something in such a way that it not only soaks in its own fat, but gets smothered with even more. The difference in cooking method (allowing fat to drip off vs. cooking it in the fat, where it stays smothered in it) no doubt affectws the amount of fat taken in. Cooking meats on a George Foreman Grill [] would be a lot closer to what our ancestors thrived on than the grease-soaked crap you get from cooking on a flat-bottomed cooking surface.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2) by tynin on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:06PM

    by tynin (2013) on Wednesday February 04 2015, @07:06PM (#141268) Journal

    I think about the only thing I cook that sometimes gets this way is ground beef. But even then when the fat is rendered, you just pour it off before adding in whatever comes next. Beef fat, at least from burger meat really isn't that flavorful anyhow. Anything that goes in the oven, does so on a wire cooking rack. But with meats I rarely cook inside, as I favor cooking on the grill. It is hard to beat the flavor charcoal adds. I only just recently learned you can cook directly on the coals []... it is worth trying.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:52PM

    by VLM (445) on Wednesday February 04 2015, @10:52PM (#141343)

    You have a valid point AC, but the fundamental problem is if demonization of fast food is a given, and the options are one thing my skinny ancestors have eaten for about a million years plus or minus some admitted minor technique differences, and the other two options are off the wall never eaten by my ancestors more than a century ago my stomach asking WTF is this weird semi-edible highly profitable chemical waste... its probably not the meat.

    As a general rule, if, given a time machine, you grabbed a biologically identical ancestor 10000 years ago and gave them a plate of dinner, if they wouldn't even recognize it as food you're probably screwing up. On the other hand I think my ancestors would love my beef and veg grilled kabobs, my steaks, my salads with a side of grilled chicken, or my fruit plate deserts. They'd flip their shit for my fruit plates. They'd probably understand and like my stir fries although a little freaked about complicated technique and weird sauces. On the other hand give them some pop tarts, pizza rolls, and doritos and I'm not sure they could identify those items as food. Because they're not, not really. At least not food for humans.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @11:48PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 05 2015, @11:48PM (#141678)

      I don't think I would be able to find a biologically identical ancestor from 10000 years ago. For one, I believe lactose tolerence developed more recently than that, there could be quite a few more biological differences too.