How can so called "experts" look at the same exact science and literature, studies and papers, and come to two totally opposite conclusions ...

How can so called "experts" look at the same exact science and literature, studies and papers, and come to two totally opposite conclusions about the health of this stuff?

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68

Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because most of these "studies" are BS cash grabs with no merit in premise or execution.

    >t. work as a contractor on NSF-grant funded scientific projects for a living
    the shit I have seen......

  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because "health" is a hard to define parameter that we have a hard time benchmarking mostly

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      What a wiener sucker shut the frick up

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    FART ON MY DICK
    A
    R
    T

    O
    N

    M
    Y

    D
    I
    C
    K

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Because science always follows what the current socio-political climate says.

    Did you hear? Static stretching is good for max strength and hypertrophy now. It also doesn't make you slow anymore.
    Science!

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    sneed oils are bad in that sense that if its reheatead 1000x times a day its going to be unhealthy, this is the practice in fast food. otherwise it has no negative health effects.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >this is the practice in fast food. otherwise it has no negative health effects.
      you are so fricking clueless about seed oils and how they are made its not even funny

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        heating it once does nothing.
        inb4
        >reeee its processed
        stop drinking water to, moron.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Last time I checked heating water doesn't produce trans fats

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >heating it once does nothing.
          wrong
          r
          o
          n
          g

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        >removing impurities from your products is bad
        do amerilards really?

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >transfats are le good xdddd
          anon, you ARE a fricking amerilard

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >anon, you ARE a fricking amerilard
            wrong
            r
            o
            n
            g
            point ignored

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              ok keep eating transfats then you moronic homosexual i literally dont care

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you seem to care an awful lot actually
                how's your relationship with your mother?

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Science has become a corrupt thing, accepting this has been one of the main reasons why I refused any totally materialist philosophy. Scientists used to make studies about how healthy smoking tobacco is, or how asbestos isn't really all that bad for you. Enjoy being a sucker for globocorp if you doubt any of this.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/7xrDBpT.jpeg

      How can so called "experts" look at the same exact science and literature, studies and papers, and come to two totally opposite conclusions about the health of this stuff?

      This was always an issue, but it’s times 1000000 now. Science used to be filled with highly intelligent nerds in it out of intellectual curiosity. Now it’s increasingly filled with people filtered for ideological leftism and ethnicity/gender

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        social studies were always israelite infested, it’s why they were never considered science

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    99% of papers are grant seeking garbage, when unsaturated fat is heated it turns to trans fat which kills you, they fraud the serving size to not have to label it, or just lie

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Depends which papers you decide to include/reference. Beyond that you'd need to look at the specifics of each experiment because they all have flaws. Which flaws invalidate the result if any? And so on...

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    No point in arguing with these people, just let them poison themselves lmao

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Olive oil.
    Fish oils.
    Those are the ones that beat the others. I think lard comes after that, or possibly certain nut oils.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    because for every study on pubmed that says A you can find two more that say B

  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    money and personal bias

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > How can so called "experts" look at the same exact science and literature, studies and papers, and come to two totally opposite conclusions about the health of this stuff?

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    we will forever live in this loop
    >conduct study poorly
    >get funding from entity with direct financial stake in the outcome
    >results say X may be ok under certain conditions
    >media: X IS BEST THING EVER, SAYS THE SCIENCE
    >time passes
    >conduct new study poorly
    >study is again funded by an entity with a direct financial stake in the outcome
    >results say X may not be ok under certain conditions
    >media: X IS WORST THING EVER, SAYS THE SCIENCE

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *