A lot of the research published these days is based on data that's manipulated (selectively derived and/or selectively chosen) in order to yield results that conform to preconceived ideas of what the results should be. IMO, here is another example of such research, that involved the use of the Mediterranean diet to influence the condition known as metabolic syndrome:
Another Study Links Mediterranean Diet to Better Heart HealthThe Mediterranean diet didn't lower the odds of developing metabolic syndrome -- a collection of risk factors for heart disease -- compared to following a low-fat diet, the study found. But, the Mediterranean diet did increase the chance of reversing metabolic syndrome, said lead researcher Dr. Jordi Salas-Salvado, a professor of nutrition at the Universitat Rovira I Virgili and Hospital Universitari de Sant Joan de Reus, in Spain.
When you read that, do the claims seem logical? Does anyone really believe that a diet could reverse the metabolic syndrome, but not be capable of preventing it in the first place? I find those claims to be highly incongruent, because they contradict logic. Why would a diet be capable of reversing a condition (something that is typically very difficult to do), but not be capable of preventing the condition in the first place (something that is typically much easier to do)?
Now I have nothing against the Mediterranean diet, and I'm not claiming that these results are not possible — I'm just pointing out that part of it at least appears to be highly implausible, because of an apparent contradiction. It smacks of either data manipulation, or more likely, a trial that was poorly-designed in the first place.
Tex
.jpg){kind=avatar}
