The Disaster of Superstition in Nutrition

Re:The Disaster of Superstition in Nutrition by agumonkey on Friday September 23, 2022 @04:17AM (#32949276)

Doctors are a bit of a giant placebo at times, but they rely on enough material success to back it up.

Medicine is also very very large and very fuzzy when you step out of the time tested knowledge. Reading pudmed is surprising. Everything is statistical and there's always a paper contradicting a previous one.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Disaster of Superstition in Nutrition by austinjp on Friday September 23, 2022 @06:03AM (#32949906)

> pudmed

A more appropriate typo I haven't seen in a while. I'd definitely read pudmed.

(For those with English as a second language, "pud" is a folksy abbreviation for "pudding".)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Disaster of Superstition in Nutrition by petra on Friday September 23, 2022 @08:50AM (#32951205)

So let's say the aim is to optimize personal supplements use in the context of a medical condition.

You could follow the paper results as written.

But everything is statistical and youre and individual.

Isn't there a better way?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Disaster of Superstition in Nutrition by agumonkey on Friday September 23, 2022 @12:39PM (#32954166)

I'm not in a position to answer but finer non invasive tests about your own body state so you can adjust and reflect on your case rather than averages.

[ Parent | on HN ]