And here is another one of my responses:
The fact that you do not understand that a formal hypothesis is required in order to make a scientific claim speaks volumes. Even those who make general statements about how "bad" "trans fat" is realize that trace amounts of trans fatty acids are not harmful, as it is basic biochemistry. However, it is obvious to even those very little scientific understanding on this issue realize that since trace amounts will do no harm, there is a need to put forth a claim about the threshold amount that will do harm. This would be included in a formal hypothesis.
Now on to something more important, in my view, which also demonstrates your inability to comprehend the scientifric method:
MattLB stated: QUOTE: How is exposure to sun and oxygen a control for a trans double bond? You're speaking nonsense. UNQUOTE.
Readers of course must judge for themselves, but I will try to "break this down" to the simplest elements, though because the claimants refuse to state a formal hypothesis, I can only assume that what the "nutritional experts" say (most of the time, at least) is what they are in fact asserting:
1. They do not believe that a diet rich in something like canola oil is dangerous in any way (in a common dietary context).
2. They do believe that if canola oil is partially hydrogenated that is then becomes very dangerous (again, in a typical dietary context for nations like the USA).
3. There is a lack of clarity on total hydrogenation (meaning different "experts" are making different claims), though my experimental idea would clear this up, but we will leave this aside here and address your criticism only.
Thus, one group of animals can be fed the partially hydrogenated oil - that is clear. Many researchers would then simply compare this group of animals with one fed canola oil straight from the bottle, but this is an improper control, if it is the only other group. The partially hydrogenated oil will be stripped of natural antioxidants, while the other may still contain much of them (one would have to test the oil first to know). In my design, the oil that is spread thin and allowed to lose its antioxdiants without producing trans fatty acids would act as an excellent control for the notion that the trans fatty acids are to blame for its supposed "ill health effects." If the animals live to about the same ages, then it's clear that the only reasonable explanation is that free radical activity is to blame, not the trans fatty acids. Of course, I would prefer to have several groups of animals: one on a fat free diet, one on a fresh coconut oil diet, one on a canola oil diet (fed straight from the bottle), etc.
In any case, MattLB does not address the obvious question: what if the experiment was conducted according to my design and what if the results were as I expect them to be? Would he then acknowledge that free radical activity is the issue and nothing else? At the very least, it would be interesting to know the answer to this, in terms of how much grasp he possesses on reality.
|
Free Forum Hosting
Important Announcement
Prev Message
