duceditor

That is certainly correct. But often the public perception and the actual numbers do no match up very well.

I did medical imaging research in the the Harvard Medical Community for many years. When the anti-fat crusade was at its peak (I think the catalyst for me was an article in the Boston Globe encouraging people to boil chopped meat to remove all the fat before using it in recipes) I decided to use the resources available to me to see what actual statistical advantage there would be for me if I chose to follow the then current advice.

What I learned in general terms was this: The then current studies suggested that removing all animal fat from my diet would make a real statistical difference in my life span. The difference was measured in weeks. Was that worth the costs in what to me was a serious quality of life change? I decided, based on the then understood facts, that the answer to me was no.

Now, about 20 or so years later, the Harvard School of Public Health is saying something rather different. (see overview here: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/dec...carbs-20101220 )

The scientific method to me has great appeal. I try to use it in as much of my personal decision making as possible. But what passes for "science" today is often closer to religion. Does that make it bad? Not necessarily. A lot of people say their lives are enriched by religion. But it does make it distinctly unappealing to me.

-don