frozenlynx33 said:Your theory is—to put it bluntly—standing on some incredibly shaky ground! Honestly, people have been working tirelessly in this field for ages, grinding away with serious dedication, but because of certain ingrained biases—our biases, I suppose—it takes an absolute eternity for any of that hard work to actually penetrate someone's consciousness. It’s like trying to explain quantum physics to a goldfish; it just takes so much more time for the information to finally reach those brain cells and, heaven help us, for people to actually grasp what's being said! 😉 😁
Well then, if you're going to be so incredibly polite—go ahead and show me some of that legendary courtesy! 🙄 Please, do send over the links to the scientific papers published on this subject—or, at the very least, provide some solid references for those studies! I mean, if I've truly managed to overlook such revolutionary breakthroughs within my own field, I certainly wouldn't want to remain in the dark—honestly, I'd feel quite silly if I missed something that monumental!
People have been obsessing over nutrition for literally millennia—and in more recent times, we’ve finally handed the reins over to actual doctors who, unlike some people I could mention, actually possess a shred of understanding regarding human physiology! It’s quite a leap, really. In the States, you see this issue all the time where nutritional science is taught at various food science or biotech institutes—places that focus heavily on the chemistry of the food itself—but they often lack even a basic grasp of clinical medicine. It's like trying to understand how an engine works by only studying the properties of gasoline; you might know the fuel, but you're completely in the dark about the machine!
If you’re asking me whether I’d pull the plug on that entire field of study—well, that’s a bit of a loaded question, isn't it? —but honestly, would I? I don't know! It feels like one of those "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenarios where you're weighing the pure, unadulterated value of discovery against the sheer, exhausting cost of keeping the lights on. Think about it like this: it’s similar to how some people look at NASA—sure, the budget is astronomical, and you could argue that money could go elsewhere, but then again, what exactly would we be doing without that constant push toward the unknown? If we scrapped the research, we'd basically be choosing to live in a much smaller, much duller world. It’s an uphill battle, really—balancing the practical needs of today against the theoretical breakthroughs of tomorrow—but cutting it off entirely? That seems like a rather drastic way to handle a complex problem!