5 ms·

>Animal protein is highly inflammatory What is the basis for this belief? >Load up on fresh vegetables and fruits instead. Many fresh vegetables are inflamma

>Animal protein is highly inflammatory What is the basis for this belief? >Load up on fresh vegetables and fruits instead. Many fresh vegetables are inflammatory. Plants evolved chemicals to hinder herbation. Roots/tubers and fruit are generally fine, but leaves/stems/flowers are generally full of inflammatory anti-nutrients and should be cooked.

cageface 7y ago
Not true. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fight-inflammation https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fi...
- moltar 7y ago
  That’s just a blog post on Harvard.edu domain. Has no cred on its own. Not backed up by scientific references. Please post sources. Thank you.
  - techstrategist 7y ago
    >just a blog post on Harvard.edu Which is more authoritative than a comment on HN. I believe it’s on you to find a more authoritative source that contradicts the above.
    - ShlomoS 7y ago
      Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority. Authority does not matter though, facts do. You can look up the levels of oxalates, phytates, PUFAs, etc from whatever source you like and confirm reality. You don't need an "authority" to tell you what to think.
      - techstrategist 7y ago
        >Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority. I agree that ultimately facts are what matter, but I disagree on this point. In the real world where it's not possible to author or reference a peer-reviewed research study for every statement or decision you'd like to make, this authority has value. TThe administrators of Harvard Medical School, a well respected university, were willing to publish this content on a domain they controlled. This implies that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored, reviewed, and published this content. This means that they don't believe that this content is so inaccurate as to expose the institution to a reputation loss, as opposed to say www.fake-health-expert.example.com. In fact, this may have more authority than a peer-reviewed study that doesn't properly disclose its funding by e.g. the dairy or sugar industry. This skin in the game of reputational risk is orders of magnitude different than your or my reputational risk by posting a comment to HN.
        ShlomoS 7y ago
        >This implies that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored, reviewed, and published this content. No it does not. It is a blog post. Tons of people have blogs on that domain. There is absolutely no standard of authority or correctness involved. You are falsely inferring that there are trusted experts involved. There is no factual basis for that belief.

cageface 7y ago

Not true. https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fight-inflammation https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/foods-that-fi...

moltar 7y ago
That’s just a blog post on Harvard.edu domain. Has no cred on its own. Not backed up by scientific references. Please post sources. Thank you.
- techstrategist 7y ago
  >just a blog post on Harvard.edu Which is more authoritative than a comment on HN. I believe it’s on you to find a more authoritative source that contradicts the above.
  - ShlomoS 7y ago
    Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority. Authority does not matter though, facts do. You can look up the levels of oxalates, phytates, PUFAs, etc from whatever source you like and confirm reality. You don't need an "authority" to tell you what to think.
    - techstrategist 7y ago
      >Blog posts and HN posts have an equal lack of authority. I agree that ultimately facts are what matter, but I disagree on this point. In the real world where it's not possible to author or reference a peer-reviewed research study for every statement or decision you'd like to make, this authority has value. TThe administrators of Harvard Medical School, a well respected university, were willing to publish this content on a domain they controlled. This implies that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored, reviewed, and published this content. This means that they don't believe that this content is so inaccurate as to expose the institution to a reputation loss, as opposed to say www.fake-health-expert.example.com. In fact, this may have more authority than a peer-reviewed study that doesn't properly disclose its funding by e.g. the dairy or sugar industry. This skin in the game of reputational risk is orders of magnitude different than your or my reputational risk by posting a comment to HN.
      - ShlomoS 7y ago
        >This implies that some trusted expert at this trusted institution authored, reviewed, and published this content. No it does not. It is a blog post. Tons of people have blogs on that domain. There is absolutely no standard of authority or correctness involved. You are falsely inferring that there are trusted experts involved. There is no factual basis for that belief.