Your link references a single study of 18 research participants who were male, exercised exactly once or twice per week, and were between the ages of 18 and 40.
It's an interesting result, but it hardly "refutes" the hundreds of larger studies that show the opposite result.
The most likely thing is that this paper is just a complete anomaly though. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else ever replicates this result, or does so in a more representative participant population.
Did anyone else find it wrong that trends like fat-free, lots-of-fat, keto, proteins, sugar-free, low-carb are put in the same category as trends like GMO-free, organic, natural, clean? Lack of differentiation in this regard unmasks the article as opinionated and over-generalizing in a way that I have to ignore it, I think.
Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.
GMO free is anti-scientific. At least a ton of overlap between those who pursue it and also have a whole lot of other woo-woo food related eccentricities. A rounding error of people against it when you talk to them will bring up "big ag" monopolies/etc. which are legitimate concerns vs. various vague health concerns from eating it.
Organic I suppose is borderline. My parents were in this space as farmers, and the commercial scale operations putting the "certified organic" labels on mass produced food would be largely indistinguishable from the farm or large ag business next door. It devolved into a near-meaningless label to me seeing how it's been completely gamed to the point of being meaningless.
I put all this stuff - including the fad diets - somewhere on the "started from a kernel of truth and descended into crazy" spectrum.
I assumed the focus on protein in advertising was because china is souring on soybeans so we have to train Americans to get excited about processed bean protein addditives. As it stands 99% of Americans get enough protein, 1% of us get enough fiber.
My understanding is that nutrition lags behind other sciences add is significantly impacted by the replication crisis. In this, much public health messaging lacks credibility.
Perhaps the best advice to “the people” is to encourage them to stick to their guns?
Yes most people in the US would be healthier if they started eating 10% less, even if that 10% came entirely from their protein intake. We just eat too much period.
It's an interesting result, but it hardly "refutes" the hundreds of larger studies that show the opposite result.
The most likely thing is that this paper is just a complete anomaly though. It'll be interesting to see if anyone else ever replicates this result, or does so in a more representative participant population.
Sure, some market dynamics may be similar, and all are probably luxury topics, but the underlying intent and motivation of customers is completely different. The article's main point is to criticise blindly following bogus and unscientific health trends. But this is not really justified for decisions to avoid dirt, food additives, and optimised and exploitive farming methods.
Organic I suppose is borderline. My parents were in this space as farmers, and the commercial scale operations putting the "certified organic" labels on mass produced food would be largely indistinguishable from the farm or large ag business next door. It devolved into a near-meaningless label to me seeing how it's been completely gamed to the point of being meaningless.
I put all this stuff - including the fad diets - somewhere on the "started from a kernel of truth and descended into crazy" spectrum.
Perhaps the best advice to “the people” is to encourage them to stick to their guns?