[donmatesz.blogspot.com]

"In the paleo- and low-carbo- spheres, confirmation bias looks like this:

Only focusing attention on or considering as important those physiological features that make humans different from other primates, and ignoring the many nutrition-related physiological features that humans share with other primates.

Only seeing/accepting evidence that meat-eating has benefits, while ignoring, refusing to accept, or denying good evidence that meat-eating can in some quantities and contexts be harmful.

Only seeing/accepting evidence that saturated fats are neutral or beneficial, refusing to accept good evidence that excess dietary SFs have harmful effects in certain quantities and contexts.

Only seeing/accepting evidence that unsaturated fats are harmful, while ignoring contrary evidence.

Only seeing/accepting evidence for the positive effects of cholesterol, while ignoring a mountain of contrary evidence showing adverse effects of excess dietary and serum cholesterol.

Only seeeing/accepting evidence that grains and legumes are harmful, refusing to acknowledge evidence that they can be neutral or beneficial.

Only seeing/accepting evidence that 'vegetables are useless or unnecessary,' while refusing to acknowledge evidence that they have benefits.

Only seeing/accepting evidence of potential harm from eating nuts (e.g. so-called antinutrients), while ignoring or belittling evidence that they provide benefits."

Sounds like the same kind of narrow bias that raw foodists and vegans are guilty of. Different parameters, but same behavior.

Sharrhan:


[www.facebook.com]

I totally agree with this comment.


kwan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sounds like the same kind of narrow bias that raw
> foodists and vegans are guilty of. Different
> parameters, but same behavior.