this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2023
94 points (73.5% liked)

science

14486 readers
1477 users here now

just science related topics. please contribute

note: clickbait sources/headlines aren't liked generally. I've posted crap sources and later deleted or edit to improve after complaints. whoops, sry

Rule 1) Be kind.

lemmy.world rules: https://mastodon.world/about

I don't screen everything, lrn2scroll

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Telodzrum 73 points 11 months ago (6 children)

The article doesn't specifically state it, but it does appear to indicate that the relationship is correlative and not due to direct causation. This makes sense and shouldn't be surprising.

[–] markstos -2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

The finding aligns with all the science reviewed for the book How Not To Die. For details, see the summary video by the same doctor.

https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-best-diet-for-diabetes/

[–] [email protected] 6 points 11 months ago (2 children)

nutritionfacts is run by a quack

[–] collinrs 2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The guy links to so many controlled, double-blind experiments. It's not like he is just making wild health claims out of nowhere. Why do you think he's a quack?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

he often misinterprets the study, or claims it shows the exact opposite of what the researchers concluded. you shouldn't believe him just because he links to something: you need to read the actual literature and the body of work around it to understand the subject. he is an ideologue who will grasp onto any datapoint he can find that he believes supports his position.

load more comments (2 replies)