Quote:
Originally Posted by ladyjane  The way I look at it, any testing is better than none. |
I do agree. I've just always wished, in both humans and animals, that nutrition studies were so much richer and relevant. But, I just don't know if they ever will be bc of individual differences that make nutritional studies so difficult. In other words, how can we really study the actual results of nutrition in a really accurate way?? The fact is that right now, we really can't. Unless we could really do true metabolic I/O studies or whatnot, we're still just making best guesses in terms of utilizing what we really get out of current study results. You know what I mean?
I feel like the current way we're forced to "study" nutrition is more like appeasement or placating...rather than super scientific or metabolic in nature. To me, nutrition is still very much both an art and a science...and that really bugs me at times. At the same time though, I guess it reminds me of just how important it is that we should all be open minded about nutrition...bc it's really not a black and white science that provides us w/ concrete results. Reminds me of a quote someone sent me regarding "science" recently: "Not everything that counts can be counted"--
. So true.