thanks I am familiar enough with falsifiability and interventional studies to understand what you mean.
As I said I have carefully studied epidimiology and it’s historical successes. And I have directly experienced how the branch is viewed in the communities of actual scientists. I trust their judgement more than some health influencers and guys on the internet obsessed with spreading carnivore diet.
I don’t think we’ll make much progress here. I’ll go with carnivore diet bad.
I fail to see how epidemiology is different from any other branches of science. Apart from all the successes I mentioned it has done a great deal in understanding infectious diseases.
a lot of high quality epidemiology says
With better data you can overthrow any theory or hypothesis. I don’t think anyone thinks the consensus view cannot be changed or plant based results from epidemiology are unfalsifiable.
I don’t consider epidemiology to be bs or just hypothesis generating as do most scientists.
It finds subtle long term trends that are too impractical to find with other methods like RCTs. So if a lot of high quality epidemiology says saturated fats increase heart disease risk by 20-30% over decades then I will likely believe it. Just like it found a trend with smoking.
Why do you consider this epidemiology better quality than other epidemiology?
The same reason why any experiment can be better quality and well respected than others. You should look at a study’s design, strengths, weaknesses etc and evaluate it.
Let me ask you one question back. Do you consider astronomy or evolution to be bullshit too because they are based on observation as well?
I’ll check them out.
But my initial thoughts are that those are highly cherry picked (and probably funded by meat companies, I have to check) and that the highest quality epidemiological studies like Framingham show eating plants is way better for heart and brain in the long run.
Your original claim is about the world.
Now you are talking about western diet which is only a small part of the world.
It’s funny how most real scientists highly respect epidemiology—the field that uncovered the harms of smoking, forever chemicals, thalidomide etc.
The company dupont had to confess and pay a hefty fine for poisoning the planet with pfas chemicals. Clearly they aren’t as smart as carnivore influncers.
Why don’t they hire some lawyers to hand wave and ignore observational studies because they are “weak evidence” or bad science?
Maybe smoking is good too because it helps you lose weight, reduce anxiety and issues like ibs. You can do a 30 day test and see it for yourself.
A zero carb carnivore eats the same amount of meat as 98% of the world.
These kinds of claims are the reason why I can’t take carnivores seriously.
You eat about 400g of beef a day. (some carnivores eat twice that or more. I’m making a conservative estimate) Not to mention some of the “fat” you eat is tallow. which is basically rendered from meat like beef or pork.
That’s about 150kg of meat per year.
Most humans are in China and India. Chinese eat about 60kg of meat per year and India is 6 kg.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_meat_consumption
I guess it’s better than nothing but the amount of pollution and deforestation due to unregulated manufacturing and traffic is insane in India. There’s no clean air or water left - especially in the cities.
Yep. This pretty much happens every year. Oct to November.
Pollution is a huge problem in this country. Few take it seriously because for most people, life here is all about earning enough to eat and make it to tomorrow.
The air quality in Delhi is usually around 150-250. (Quite horrible as it is)
This huge spike in AQI is caused by unregulated stubble burning in the neighbouring states. Farmers harvest rice and burn the leftovers so that they can hurry up and plant the next crop.
Then they are making compost too (eventually) 😆
Fair enough. You do seem well read. I’ll check out that paper and some of the other things in your community sometime.