Thread by @ck_eternity_

This trend of treating anything that sounds remotely new age as "anti-science" is really ridiculous

EMF an easy example, people who've never read a single piece of the literature on its health effects assume they know better than researchers who spent years actually studying it

It's one thing to disagree on the interpretation of a set of scientific data, but people will dismiss entire subjects they've never researched at all, just because they read an article "debunking" it written by someone who didn't really bother researching it either

That said, I also think many fringe nutrition/health communities fall into the opposite trap of thinking a small portion of the research is representative of the whole field, reinforced by the echo chamber effect of social media

I've been very wary of this myself lately, I see many people make claims like "cholesterol has no effect on heart disease" without reading any of the research that may support such a connection

When it comes down to it, those on both sides of each debate oversimplify things

I've been trying to expose myself with as many opposing viewpoints as possible, and I hope others do the same

Part of the reason the nutrition field is so confusing is because we're all extremely complex individuals, what's right for me may not always apply the same to others

When it comes down to it all we can do is make our own educated decisions and not get locked into any particular viewpoint, nutrition dogma is where issues like orthorexia stem from

Do your own research, take everything you read with a grain of salt, and listen to your body