"Scientific" Studies That Make Me Angry

RDKirk said:

Neither of us has access to the information in question, so making such a demand as though you're actually making a rhetorical point is absurd.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

After a certain point...which they hadn't reached.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Limiting ultra-processed foods does not necessarily make for a healthy diet

Surprised? Anyone?

Okay, I think we can all agree that it's certainly possible to create a bad diet with foods right off the hoof and out of the ground. There is plenty of existing information about natural diets of primitive people groups that lacked vital nutrients and resulted in poor health. We don't need a study to prove that such a thing is possible.

Who besides them would classify any of those foods as "ultra-processed?" An Oreo cookie is ultra-processed...a separated egg is not ultra-processed. Pureed apple is not ultra-processed. Drying fruit and simple canning is not ultra-processing. If those were the foods they included in their ultra-processed menu...no wonder there was little difference.

And although they claimed to have gone by the Nova food processing classification system, in fact they did not. According to the Nova food processing classification system:

So, nothing they mentioned would be considered "ultra-processed" by Nova. They simply lied. Or they're stupid.

Whether being stuck in the face with a thrown brick causes facial damage also remains unexplored...do we need a federally funded study for it, though? I'll bet a high school student can find Google information on that.

And we also already know that an apple costs more and has a shorter shelf life than a Twinkie.

We paid for this.

Bless their hearts.

Click to expand...

RDKirk said:

Not according to Nova classification.

Click to expand...