Weightloss and diet - Battling bad science.

Dogman wrote:

http://www.dietdoctor.com/battling-bad-science

I have mixed feelings about the term "bad science" that are only loosely
related to the content in that article.

Sometimes science makes spectacular errors. Some of those errors are
short lived like the philostigon theory of chemistry that lasted under a
century. Some of those errors work fairly well for a long while like
Euclidian astronomy that lasted millennia.

Other times science progresses through stages of maturity and the early
predictions aren't very good and they change rapidly. Then that science
matures and its predictions become stable. On the immature side we
currently has astrophysics and climatology. Both have predictions that
have changed wildly decade to decade. On the mature side we currently
have inorganic chemistry and evolution. We know have photograps of
atoms and the starting point of genetic engineering.

Parts of nutritional medicine are clearly an immature science. We had a
phase of low fat pressure that lasted far past the point it should have
fallen. We had a low carb fad that grew too fast and fell too soon.

So there's a perspective that can be hard to assimilate - When the
predictions of a science change that's a good sign because it means the
science is advancing. When the predictions of a science over the last
century have gotten into finer and finter details that might be a bad
sign (vacuum tube design that's ripe for replacement) or a good sign
(inorganic chemistry working on obscure crystal structures in attempts
at high termperature superconductors).