This is pretty cool on the face of it. I love it when people really go for it and demonstrating/measure an effect which is both complex and hard to define. Also worth a look is the effort they had to go through to get a dissenting voice:
Can't they just call a slam dunk a slam dunk? Or maybe read the paper and discuss some real flaws? Also, did the nuts drive people nuts? They didn't die of heart disease, but maybe they got into extreme sports?
Dr. Esselstyn said those in the Mediterranean diet study still had heart attacks and strokes. So, he said, all the study showed was that “the Mediterranean diet and the horrible control diet were able to create disease in people who otherwise did not have it.”Yes... 'cause if you followed Dr. Esselstyn's special diet you'd never get a heart attack... just buy the book! I don't know whether Dr. Esselstyn produced any more coherent statements on but this topic, but if not then the NYT is really stretching to tell us "both sides of the story".
Can't they just call a slam dunk a slam dunk? Or maybe read the paper and discuss some real flaws? Also, did the nuts drive people nuts? They didn't die of heart disease, but maybe they got into extreme sports?
No comments:
Post a Comment