The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.
Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.
I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!
When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.
Not typically, no.
The "low fat" craze was/is all marketing, and bad for your health.
Connected to this was also the incorrect idea that (especially animal) fat consumption was related to cholesterol and heart problems - none of which is correct. The half life of facts in physiology is around 25-50 years (meaning in 25 to 50 years, half of everything you were taught about the human body and its working will be known to be false).
Once you recognize something you were taught is false, you don't automatically gain the correct answer to replace it by gnosis. The correct answer to the majority of questions is "We/i don't know", and likely will always be.
No need to get bogged down in the "exception proves the rule"/"hair splitting" just to avoid understanding what i'm saying so you can half heartedly feign disagreement ;)
Meaning there are instances when it can
"Aye, and if my grandmother had wheels she'd be a wagon"
Meaning your comment is (once again) an irrelevant aside/non-sequitur. And now you are doubling down because ... ?
The "fact" that most everyone learned or was exposed to was that eating fat was largely responsible for being/becoming fat. This is what i was saying was (and is) incorrect, and recognized that fact through research on the subject without replacing it with something new.
This is the nature of critical evaluation. The vast majority of the times you critically evaluate something to be incorrect, it does not lead to (and never provides, in and of the critical evaluation itself) the correct answer to replace it (that would sure be nice though!)
Not the same. This isn't an "if" statement.
You didn't "magically" get the correct answer by not believing in what ended up being incorrect. You learned the correct answer.
"But it can contribute to obesity." ... IF you eat huge volumes of it.
Because eating huge volumes of ANYTHING digestible can contribute to obesity (obviously) AND we weren't talking about extreme volumes of consumption... It is all irrelevant nonsequitur.
No, i didn't. I merely removed/discounted/discarded/refuted/invalidated a wrong answer by determining it incorrect through study/research.
I unlearned the incorrect answer! There's a big difference!
When you identify something is not correct, that - obviously - doesn't automatically give you the correct answer to replace it with.