I mean, it's a pretty clear poisoning of the well situation. You can't on one hand claim that there's insufficient evidence while on the other "highly doubt" that future evidence will demonstrate the outcome in question
-
-
Sorry, must resume tomorrow. I've just realised it's after 1 am!
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
There are too many variables here for me. We can't even agree on high vs low quality. There's no way to test this meaningfully. But we can certainly agree on the goal (health) and certain properly defined principles (improve quality)
-
My personal experience; was eating home cooked, fresh and very high quality ingredients, 10+ servings of fruit and veg/day, &properly prepared grains/beans/lentils/nuts/seeds My health improved dramatically upon eliminating plants, especially veg&wholegrains
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I'm not sure this gets us far. I'd be agreeing with "F&V is better for you than those things that are worse for you." which I'm sure is right. But that's different from F&V are an ideal replacement, or we need F&V. Also, F&V is kind of a broad category.
-
I was giving a talk last weekend on problems with metrics for dietary quality. I ended up excluding this slide but in it there's a table comparing sources and ranking them for nutrient density per nutrient. The point was how you categorise matters.pic.twitter.com/8f3bxDJgF6
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
