Why Should We Reduce Our Ignorance Of Nutrition (And Eating Meat)

2021-02-09   |   by CusiGO

Doubt is essential in science. The precautionary principle arises from this, and its purpose is to avoid promotional activities (such as intermittent fasting) until we are convinced that the benefits outweigh the potential risks. But for those who want to promote it, doubt is also a wonderful product: its existence may mean the difference between selling products and not selling products, and health factors will affect their purchase decisions.

Nutritionists come across some mediocre, interesting and distorted information about food every day. Laura carosi, a famous nutrition journalist, reported an advertisement about “sugar free” wine a few days ago. This advertisement has both meaning and meaning, because we are painted with nail polish.

Most of this unprincipled information comes from companies that are more interested in our pockets than in our health, But we found a lot in the media. A study by Benjamin E. J. Cooper and his collaborators (public understanding of Science) found that 68% to 72% of the best-selling British newspapers did not have strict nutrition recommendations. In April 2020, Montserrat rabbasa, Pablo Alonso coello and Gonzalo Cassino concluded that half of the nutritional claims received by the population can be classified as “incense”.

But if it’s painful for a nutritionist to conflict with opportunistic nutrition information in magazines, radio, television, web pages and social media, it’s even more painful to find it in science journals. This should be the cradle of research, the basis of expert advice, and the direction of people’s diet. When this happens, when the advertisement is covered by unquestionable nutritional evidence (in a few words, we will see an example of clarification), What we’re facing is nutritional disorientation.

The word “agnosticism” is formed by prefix a (SIN) and nouns gnosis (knowledge) and Genesis (creation). That is to say, it is a kind of ignorance. As we can see, it has the same root as agnosticism. But in this case, it does not refer to doubts about the existence of God or other religious or metaphysical claims, but refers to the intentional, interested and malicious ignorant generation. Spreading confusion or suspicion to convince people that nothing is true.

It’s a good way to make consumers believe that everything is changeable, that change is capricious, that there is no motivation, that there is no scientific basis. As a profession, skeptical advocates will tell us that, most importantly, we must be alert to any nutritional information that classifies any food as “bad” (unhealthy). In this way, we can “eat everything” and put countless products in our diet bags, not for the sake of a whim, but because what matters is “the overall quality of the diet.”.

In Ramon de Campoamor’s words, “nothing is true, nothing is a lie: everything is judged by the color of the crystal you see.” what’s the point? If you can convince consumers that everything is subjective by deliberately creating nutrition ignorance (Nutrition agnosticism), then these people full of unfathomable contradictions are likely to take one of the ways: a sign marked “just in case” It’s a healthy diet), or another sign says, “scientists don’t know, so don’t listen to anything.”. Both are at risk, as an unbalanced diet is one of the main risks of death. Both are conducive to the economic health of the food industry. Antonio Orti, another journalist specializing in the food industry, summed up the situation by reforming a famous saying: “rise in Rio, profit from the agro industry.”.

In November 2019, we saw a recent example. There is no reason to reduce our (high) consumption of red meat and processed meat. As I explained in my article “meat, sensationalism, irresponsibility and poor science”, the various authorities of nutrition and reference entities have their hands on their heads. But it’s too late: many media have responded to “discovery.”. Obviously, the media can play an important role in the transmission chain of nutritional agnosia in the case of ignorance or neglect.

Fortunately, Dr Nerea mart í n Calvo and her collaborators have just demonstrated (preliminary report) that the newly cited results are uncertain because of the use of inappropriate measurement tools. The quality of meat and health evidence associated with the hierarchy was assessed, which was insufficient to assess the impact of nutritional, environmental or lifestyle exposure. But Martin Calvo and his team agree that the newly cited controversy can be viewed as agnostic. Why complex distraction exercises? Why is there a lack of scientific knowledge about the health effects of red meat and processed meat? In the words of Dr. Marion Nestor, why should people fall into “nutritional nihilism”? So nothing will change. This would mean that too many people eat too much meat, which is a dangerous thing, as we read in this new study: “reducing the consumption of red or processed meat to less than three servings per week could have a significant impact on the mortality of the adult Spanish population (even more than avoiding all kinds of meat) The deaths caused by traffic accidents take place in this country

His analysis shows that “from a public health perspective, there is no doubt that reducing the consumption of red meat and processed meat will have a positive impact.” If we know that the number of Spaniards eating three or more servings of red or processed meat per week may exceed 60%, this is important.

But this is not the first time that agnosticism (also known as agnosticism) has occurred. It is well known that tobacco companies used scientific arguments to cover up the risks of smoking in the 20th century. According to Robert n. Proctor, a professor of the history of science at Stanford University, “tobacco merchants” were “masters of cultivating ignorance against knowledge” in the last century. To what extent do you try to advertise health products such as tobacco? To this day. As the famous food law expert Francisco ojuelos said in his article entitled “illegal advertising and health: closing the circle”, besides red meat and processed meat, so do alcoholic drinks and unhealthy food.

Nutritional agnosia is another aspect of predatory marketing around us. This is an advertisement in the hands of opinion makers, and it is a premeditated use of research for commercial purposes. In short, it is a kind of obscurantism disguised as science. It is placed in an irreproachable window, a prestigious space, which brings it a kind of brilliance that it does not actually have, but brings it credibility: a famous scientific publication.

Fortunately, as Dr Martin Calvo and her collaborators have shown, bad science is fighting good science. We will continue to do our duty, and if you allow, please remain vigilant.

Julio basulto, a nutritionist, is trying to convince the world that carrots can’t make up for bad eating. He also lectured, taught in a number of academic institutions, worked with different media, and wrote many scientific and communication publications( Julio basulto Page: 1

Scientific nutrition is a nutrition part based on scientific evidence and expert verified knowledge. Diet is more than just fun and necessity: diet and eating habits are now the public health factors that most help us prevent many diseases, from many cancers to diabetes. A team of nutritionists and nutritionists will help us better understand the importance of food and overturn the myth that we don’t eat well through science.

You can follow topics on Facebook, twitter, instagram, or subscribe to our newsletters here