Comments on: Scientific Research: The compilers, commentors and the researchers http://www.yewhealth.com/2009/10/08/scientific-research-the-compilers-commentors-and-the-researchers/ Handstands @ 90 Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:37:58 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: tanyewwei http://www.yewhealth.com/2009/10/08/scientific-research-the-compilers-commentors-and-the-researchers/comment-page-1/#comment-42 tanyewwei Sat, 17 Oct 2009 23:19:45 +0000 http://www.yewhealth.com/?p=201#comment-42 That last statement is questionable. Given the fact that first, we don't know what our ancestors ate, and it is likely to be different for different groups of people. One thing for sure, it wasn't processed stuff, but saying that it was just a specific group of items like some "paleo" diets have claimed is also too simplistic. <br><br>My opinion is still the same: that science, especially this field of science, benefits from large scale experimentation. In this sense, there are no wrong questions, just over-simplified ones. So you are right when you say that its not a certain macronutrient, and not a certain biomarker or hormone that will give us the ultimate picture. Of course, it would be great if we can find a single marker that correlates directly with health (meaning that if it goes up we can 100% sure we will be healthy), but I doubt that will be the case given the complexity of the human body. <br><br>That is my main pet peeve in this post: over-simplification and generalisation.<br><br>The way to solve this the, is to keep being sceptical, and keep asking questions - specific and varied ones, and then ruling out the implausible explanations. Tiresome and inefficient, but its all we got =) That last statement is questionable. Given the fact that first, we don't know what our ancestors ate, and it is likely to be different for different groups of people. One thing for sure, it wasn't processed stuff, but saying that it was just a specific group of items like some “paleo” diets have claimed is also too simplistic.

My opinion is still the same: that science, especially this field of science, benefits from large scale experimentation. In this sense, there are no wrong questions, just over-simplified ones. So you are right when you say that its not a certain macronutrient, and not a certain biomarker or hormone that will give us the ultimate picture. Of course, it would be great if we can find a single marker that correlates directly with health (meaning that if it goes up we can 100% sure we will be healthy), but I doubt that will be the case given the complexity of the human body.

That is my main pet peeve in this post: over-simplification and generalisation.

The way to solve this the, is to keep being sceptical, and keep asking questions – specific and varied ones, and then ruling out the implausible explanations. Tiresome and inefficient, but its all we got =)

]]> By: Baimengling http://www.yewhealth.com/2009/10/08/scientific-research-the-compilers-commentors-and-the-researchers/comment-page-1/#comment-41 Baimengling Sat, 17 Oct 2009 15:56:51 +0000 http://www.yewhealth.com/?p=201#comment-41 Thanks for this long post, most people need a reality check when it comes to science.<br>Now I'm wearing my devil's advocate outfit again: why do indian have lots of heart problem compared to french or inuits?<br>Being french, and having travelled to India, I 'm not sure Indians eat more fat, but I'm sure there are many, many more vegetarians over there, first because of religion, secondly because of poverty.<br>Though a non scientist might jump to the conclusion that meat and fish are great for health, I'll keep on thinking out of the box.<br>What do vegetarian people eat INSTEAD of meat and fish? dairy and cereals. You have rightly assumed our brains to follow our ancestral genetic set up, may I suggest our guts and heart do, too? <br>Let's go back to science, paleontologist teach us our ancestors not farther than 10,000 year ago (yesterday, compared to our deriving from apes several millions years ago) ate no dairy, and almost no cereals, but could eat lots of meat or fish (or insects) depending on their locations.<br>Therefore may I suggest that searching heartproblems links in fat types, or fat amounts or carbohydrate amounts is too restrictive, because it's not the macronutrient quantities of the diet, but the nature of food in the diet, that should be investigated in proper science studies.<br>So my conclusion is that scientist asking the wrong questions can't find the right answers in their studies. Thanks for this long post, most people need a reality check when it comes to science.
Now I'm wearing my devil's advocate outfit again: why do indian have lots of heart problem compared to french or inuits?
Being french, and having travelled to India, I 'm not sure Indians eat more fat, but I'm sure there are many, many more vegetarians over there, first because of religion, secondly because of poverty.
Though a non scientist might jump to the conclusion that meat and fish are great for health, I'll keep on thinking out of the box.
What do vegetarian people eat INSTEAD of meat and fish? dairy and cereals. You have rightly assumed our brains to follow our ancestral genetic set up, may I suggest our guts and heart do, too?
Let's go back to science, paleontologist teach us our ancestors not farther than 10,000 year ago (yesterday, compared to our deriving from apes several millions years ago) ate no dairy, and almost no cereals, but could eat lots of meat or fish (or insects) depending on their locations.
Therefore may I suggest that searching heartproblems links in fat types, or fat amounts or carbohydrate amounts is too restrictive, because it's not the macronutrient quantities of the diet, but the nature of food in the diet, that should be investigated in proper science studies.
So my conclusion is that scientist asking the wrong questions can't find the right answers in their studies.

]]>