I didn't want anyone to miss out on this "quite robust" research that "could" make you live longer and "may" be healthy if the research hadn't been just a case of reading other people's lobbox research.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-39057146
Morning everyone.
I think you're missing the point about scientific research findings. They don't consist of a blinding flash of inspiration providing instant truth, but of a lengthy process of research, peer review and correlation and validation of available data to provide a convincing case. It's common to conduct studies - particularly in epidemiology - that bring together all the validated research findings in support of an overall thesis. Because there is no absolute proof in this example, the researchers have qualified their language to reflect the fact that, however improbable it may seem, an alternative answer may be out there.
I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that it's healthier to eat fruit and veg than to stuff yourself with donuts (to take an extreme example) but you then have to fine-tune your intake to suit your personal circumstances. For example, I eat no more than two bits of fruit a day, usually, because of the sugar that they contain, but I wallop down as much suitable, low carb veg as I can - probably not eight units but certainly five or six - which seems to work for me.
We expect scientists to give us absolute answers to everything, but that's not always possible. In the end, with all scientific research and findings, you can take it or leave it. I'm happy to accept that these findings have a high probability of being valid.
Morning to you, as well.
