When CONFRONTED With The FACTS That?!
Question: the low saturated fat diet is NOT supported by the evidence from clinical trials to date and COMPLETELY FAILS to lower myocardial infarction (heart attacks) CHD mortality OR total mortality, WHY do people rely on the "Appeal to Authority" or "ad hominem" logical FALLACIES?
Instead of dispute you in a rational scientific manner?
PLEASE TELL ME WHY?
The Oxford European Journal did a review of the clinical dietary intervention trials to date on saturated fat
.
See here :
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...
Answers: the low saturated fat diet is NOT supported by the evidence from clinical trials to date and COMPLETELY FAILS to lower myocardial infarction (heart attacks) CHD mortality OR total mortality, WHY do people rely on the "Appeal to Authority" or "ad hominem" logical FALLACIES?
Instead of dispute you in a rational scientific manner?
PLEASE TELL ME WHY?
The Oxford European Journal did a review of the clinical dietary intervention trials to date on saturated fat
.
See here :
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/...
The ad hominen attack AND "appeal to authority" (which are both what YUOU do ck1956) ANOTHER logical FALLACY
Example ("All or most of the cardiologists would disagree) THAT IS A LOGICAL FALLACY, a NON valid argument.
The "appeal to authority" does NOT further knowledge in any field
You can NOT refute me ck 1956 in a rational scientific manner.
.
Just becaue YOU ck1956 can't ACCEPT it does NOT mean I am incorrect.
The trials found what they found. And what they found was that low saturated fat diets do NOT, do NOT reduce myocardial infarctions CHD mortality OR total mortality
YOU must FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF with the clinical intervention trials to date.
I find your lack of kowledge comical.
Probably because your "facts" are wrong.