Better drink your organge juice, kiddies. You wouldn't want heart disease or diabetes page

[Stabby]

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/184092.php

Sigh. Basically the group that drank orange juice had less reactive oxygen species than the group that didn't. Yuh think? And because reactive oxygen species contributes to heart disease and diabetes, they figure that drinking orange juice is something that people wishing to avoid such ailments should drink plenty of. Of course they choose to ignore the fructose contributing to pathological insulin resistance in ways far more profound than the purported reduction in SOCS-3, forming new AGES, and contributing heavily to high VLDL and low HDL, contributing to obesity, etc etc. Talk about selectivity!

"The research is supported by grants to Dandona from the Florida Department of Citrus, the National Institutes of Health and the American Diabetes Association"

Oh okay makes sense.

I don't know about you guys but I think I will get my flavanols where there is no fructose. And my cocoa without sucrose. And my resveratrol without the alcohol. Or maybe I will just avoid contemporary frankenfood all together and reduce my need for miracle elixirs and witch-doctory. What do you guys think?

[Griff]

This is the basic problem with nutrition research. They assume that because X is present in food containing ABCXYZ, then X must be the causative variable in whatever M problem is. They don't look at A, B, C, Y or Z because that's not what their theory predicts.

The problem is, a lot of times you can't separate X and Y from one another, but that means that most nutrition research is meaningless.

[jo]

I don't know about you guys but I think I will get my flavanols where there is no fructose. And my cocoa without sucrose. And my resveratrol without the alcohol. Or maybe I will just avoid contemporary frankenfood all together and reduce my need for miracle elixirs and witch-doctory. What do you guys think?

Yeah that sounds a lot easier.

[Stabby]

This is the basic problem with nutrition research. They assume that because X is present in food containing ABCXYZ, then X must be the causative variable in whatever M problem is. They don't look at A, B, C, Y or Z because that's not what their theory predicts.

The problem is, a lot of times you can't separate X and Y from one another, but that means that most nutrition research is meaningless.

Fallacy of composition

And it's really sad that a lot of well-meaning people who want to be healthy but just aren't very good at reasoning will be harmed by this.

I CAN ONLY YELL SO LOUD!

sigh

[tamo42]

Multivariate analysis is way to complicated for most scientists to understand