Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Mon, 2 Jul 2012 11:40:36 -0500 |
Content-Type: | text/plain |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Jul 2, 2012, at 11:23 AM, Diane Heath wrote:
> ...
> I think there are still problems basing predictions on blood work alone, or from anecdotal results, or very small N's, as I try to make my decisions. …
Ultimately, the only "N" that matters is 1 -- you. A diet that works great for 90% of the population can be deadly to you if you're allergic to something that the other 90% consume without problems.
> There is no doubt that the current Western diet is devastating to health for many reasons. I want to listen carefully and respect and weigh any evidence that comes up on dietary recommendations and I tend to shy away from emotional commitments without sufficient body of evidence to back them up."
I suppose it all boils down to what is a sufficient body of evidence. For me personally, when I move from standard dietary fare to paleo, I see an almost immediate drop in blood pressure and blood sugar, improved blood work (cholesterol, triglycerides), and a corresponding improvement in energy level and general well being. My sample size is 1. Is that a sufficient body of evidence? Why not? If I touched a hot stove and burnt my hand, my sample size is still 1, yet I am fully convinced that I am correct to believe I should not do that again -- whether or not a study has been done to back up that conclusion.
--
Robert Kesterson
[log in to unmask]
|
|
|