Disagreements in science

*Sighs*
There is probably no field in science that better describes the ongoing battle between scientists than the field of health and nutrition science, especially with a focus on diets.

I have a book right next to me on my desk from good ol' 2003, written by Dr. Ulrich Strunz, perhaps the most popular media personality in Germany when it comes to a healthy lifestyle.
This book is very well-written and motivating, but has one problem: It gives you the usual advice that turns you off. That jogging is healthy, that you need to eat every fruit and vegetable on the planet to JUST get enough vitamins, and that there are many different things to consider in a diet.

This is the part where you read with keen interest, smile, agree - and still put the book away without further actions afterwards.

But now, it appears, "new shit has come to light", as some might say. I decided to check up on this guy whose book is already 8 years old and see what videos of him might be on youtube. And I must say: Things are different now and much more simple.

He propagated in an interview that there is a switch in our bodies that determines whether fat burning process are "on" or "off". And that switch is flipped either by consuming or not consuming carbohydrates. He says you should stop eating "carbs", as they are called.

Now we get to the point: This doctor knows what he is talking about, he knows how to support his views, and his words make sense. Especially considering that our ancestors many years ago didn't have regular carbs - bread, noodles, etc. - but meat and berries.

The problem is: Half the world (at least) goes a different way. The authorities, as well as a lot of scientists, still go by the "facts" that were established in the 50s, 60s and 70s. And those facts were that carbs are the foundation of the "food pyramid". In other words, that you should base your daily food on bread, noodles, rice, potatoes and so on. "Energy" is the keyword.

We have lived and been indoctrinated by this food pyramid for years in Europe. It is absolutely normal that a meal consists of those carbs, together with some fat and protein sources (the other two major players in the food game).

Some say: Carbs are elemental.
Others say: Carbs are poison, even the reason for cancer, coronary diseases, diabetes and ALL bad things that happen to humans (not including the stuff that Hitler is to blame for).

It gets really confusing to think about it. I'm actually finding myself in the position where I feel obliged to follow the revolutionary, yet minority path. The majority of people are taught stuff that might be outdated. And even worse, opponents of the low-carb diet call it dangerous.

So we have conflicts, just conflicts. All based on studies, surveys, whatever. Another thing Dr. Strunz mentioned, on his website. The fact that science depends very much on capitalism. Making new discoveries is profitable, because that's where funds and prizes come from. But checking up on an old piece of science, checking the validity of something that was already stated a while ago, is not very desirable. Scientists can claim a lot of things, and it would take hard work to prove them wrong, apart from not being profitable. Who wants to pay for a piece of news that just says "oh, that thing that scientist X said, it's only half way true or not true at all". No, the big news papers, the big nobel prizes, the big pharmaceutical companies, they go for the big news. Cure for cancer, cure for AIDS, etc.

It's strange that we (humanity) developed machines that were unthinkable to conceive, like computers. Just because we knew we wanted something that does this and that for us. But at the same time, we have not been able to figure out how food processes work. Anyway, there are so many diets out there that it doesn't get boring trying a new one every week.

Quote of the day:
"Have you ever seen an obese squirrel? Or a deer with asthma?" - Dr. Strunz