One could be a study that has found a novel mechanism under in vitro condition while the other is an epidemiological study.
Or, both could be the same type of study, but finding extraordinary results in both directions because the samples aren't actually completely random and representative of the population.
>If you have even a basic but solid understanding of statistics and the scientific method, this makes sense.
Objectively false. Even a cursory understanding of the scientific method would tell you that if 2 studies show opposing results then one or both must have a flawed methodology. So no it doesn't "make sense."
No one has any fricking idea how every tiny little part of the body and metabolism works in reference to the foods we eat, the sooner people grasp that, the better. Eat normal unprocessed foods, avoiding too much sugar and deep frying. That’s all it takes but everyone wants to obfuscate the issue to make it seem like only nth level wizards can grasp the intricacies of food, so people keep buying their slop/diabeetus meds/fad diet foods and programs
There is very little science being done anywhere in the world anymore. It's almost entirely a mixture of ideological activism and corporate grifting masquering as science. You cannot survive as a "researcher" anymore if you are neither an activist nor a grifter, you won't get any funding and you won't get published anywhere. That's how we end up with so many schizophrenic articles and why they can't replicate their own studies, because they are all either incompetent or fraudulent.
This. Science has regressed to anecdotal evidence and personal experiments being the most reliable sources of verifying claims. The destruction of real science is probably the worst thing about capitalism.
If you have even a basic but solid understanding of statistics and the scientific method, this makes sense.
Literally what
One could be a study that has found a novel mechanism under in vitro condition while the other is an epidemiological study.
Or, both could be the same type of study, but finding extraordinary results in both directions because the samples aren't actually completely random and representative of the population.
>If you have even a basic but solid understanding of statistics and the scientific method, this makes sense.
Objectively false. Even a cursory understanding of the scientific method would tell you that if 2 studies show opposing results then one or both must have a flawed methodology. So no it doesn't "make sense."
Brainlet take
Lets get a side profile anon
kek
That is not science, that is a clickbait article.
Woman:
Eat the eggs
Man:
Don’t eat the eggs
LMAO
>assuming gender
Crungeu
Can’t you read ?
No one has any fricking idea how every tiny little part of the body and metabolism works in reference to the foods we eat, the sooner people grasp that, the better. Eat normal unprocessed foods, avoiding too much sugar and deep frying. That’s all it takes but everyone wants to obfuscate the issue to make it seem like only nth level wizards can grasp the intricacies of food, so people keep buying their slop/diabeetus meds/fad diet foods and programs
experiments can sometimes lead to different results
especially in a field as complex as nutritional science
There is very little science being done anywhere in the world anymore. It's almost entirely a mixture of ideological activism and corporate grifting masquering as science. You cannot survive as a "researcher" anymore if you are neither an activist nor a grifter, you won't get any funding and you won't get published anywhere. That's how we end up with so many schizophrenic articles and why they can't replicate their own studies, because they are all either incompetent or fraudulent.
This. Science has regressed to anecdotal evidence and personal experiments being the most reliable sources of verifying claims. The destruction of real science is probably the worst thing about capitalism.
Yeah, you are gong to be very confused if you listen to clickbait journalism you moron
>daily mail
>science
>trust the tabloids probably written by AI
So did anyone here actually read the underlying papers, or are you all just here to comment on moron-bait headlines?
I’m here because I’m bored
Rest day?
Data is not scientific principle, it's just evidence. Why is it so hard for chuds to understand this did you pass middle shool
https://sci-fit.net/investigation-keto-scientists-companies/
Trust the science, don't trust 'journalism'