Otzi and I have locked horns on the RS topic before, mostly due to the somewhat breathless promotion of things that aren't fully understood and contradictory, actually. As a very simple example of this, notice the part I've highlighted above. As soon as one reads that sentence it ought to beg the question: is it the abundance of RS ingested by people eating the SAD that explains all of the attendant benefits of that diet? We believe that diet to be unhealthy, which means that that conclusion is a non-sequitur, it simply does not follow from what we know.
This does not stop Otzi from advocating that everyone include RS in their diet. This is quite remarkable in and of itself, because I know of very few things that I would feel comfortable recommending universally. Otzi's confidence seems to be made of sterner stuff than mine.
Assuming that you buy the pitch, you probably have some questions, the first of which might be, how much is enough? Is it possible to get too much of a good thing??
The very first thing Otzi tells us:
We can give Otzi the benefit of the doubt and say that maybe he is unfamiliar with what RQ measures and how to interpret that. We could, but the problem is that the authors discuss this in the paper, and they also include this particularly simple graph:
I'm not sure how one would misinterpret that.
So when I see things like this, I have a fundamental problem: I cannot possibly take any conclusion from any study that Otzi produces at face value. And Otzi definitely throws out a lot of studies. Maybe Otzi gets really excited and reads or skims articles too quickly. My problem comes from the fact that I have to read all of the studies in detail and attempt to understand them to validate the conclusions that Otzi draws. This is a losing proposition for me because skimming and looking for things to confirm your beliefs takes a lot less energy than reading for comprehension and identifying inconsistencies!