scrapking said:
Dietary science only appears to constantly change if your primary source of dietary science is the media. Journalists usually don't understand science and regularly misreport it, or believe it at face value even when it's sketchy in nature. Just as the tobacco industry did in the 60s through 80s, the food industry is trying to use science to sew doubt amongst the public. If you look just at independently-funded science (public health agencies, charities, etc.), nutrition science tends to change relatively rarely, and relatively slowly. Sure, daytime TV shows like Dr. Phil may report on any old study that comes down the pipe. But it's important to consider who paid for a study, to look at its methods to see if they're credible, to see if the people performing the study have a history of publishing and submitting their work to peer review, etc. Junk science suggests consuming saturated fat and cholesterol is benign, whereas reputable science says otherwise, for example. Here's a good video on how vested interests can design a study to fail (and why they might wish to): https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/ Your link about the neanderthals was interesting, but it's important to note that we're not neanderthals and that neanderthals weren't humans/homo-sapiens. We have many fossilized turds from around the world, not just one. :P We can also analyze hair that has survived, as that gives you months or even years worth of data on how the person lived. You can tell a lot about what someone has been eating by their hair. What the evidence suggests is that ancient humans would tend to eat whatever was available, but the evidence suggests that in areas with both animals to hunt but that also had abundant plant foods, that they tended to eat mostly plants. And that makes sense, since plants don't run away, or fight back, or spoil as quickly. In places without abundant plant foods year round, they tended to hunt more. In places with lots of edible plants, early humans tended to gather almost exclusively. |
This one is a "Viking" turd and lots of meat there despite the availability of fruits, nuts and veggies.Granted if you are familiar with the Lloyds bank coprolite he doesn't sound like the healthiest of individuals
This one is early North American but would seem to support your claim and is older than the viking turd.
@bolded
https://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated
This lends credence to some things you've said while also kind of shredding some other things. for those who don't wish to follow the link here is and excerpt from the end of the article:
Here's what they came up with:
A healthy dietary pattern is higher in vegetables, fruits, whole grains, low- or non-fat dairy, seafood, legumes, and nuts; moderate in alcohol (among adults); lower in red and processed meats; and low in sugar-sweetened foods and drinks and refined grains.
Additional strong evidence shows that it is not necessary to eliminate food groups or conform to a single dietary pattern to achieve healthy dietary patterns. Rather, individuals can combine foods in a variety of flexible ways to achieve healthy dietary patterns, and these strategies should be tailored to meet the individual’s health needs, dietary preferences and cultural traditions.
Anyone who tells you it's more complicated than that — that particular foods like kale or gluten are killing people — probably isn't speaking from science, because, as you can see now, that science would actually be near impossible to conduct.
