@Elina said in Your Opportunity to Strengthen RawPrimal Evidence:
@admin Why not using studies ?
Because studies are not science.
Definition of science:
Science is the practice of forming claims about the natural world that are empirically grounded, rigorously testable, reproducible, and falsifiable.
Empirical: grounded in careful, objective observation of the real world, with clear measurement methods.
Rigorously testable: the claim can be examined through well-defined, repeatable procedures that control for bias and confounding factors.
Reproducible: independent researchers, using the same methods, can replicate the study and arrive at consistent results.
Falsifiable: there exists a conceivable observation or experiment that could definitively show the claim is false.
If any of those fail, it’s not science.
Where most studies break is that they are not rigorously testable. Observational studies can’t fully isolate variables. Lifestyle, genetics, socioeconomic factors, all confound results.
On the other hand when we use biochemistry especially in human physiology. We can generate information that is highly scientific.
Biochemistry is excellent as it stays on the highly objective chemistry and then derives only the as closely as possible objective theories from biology that are closely linked to chemistry and filters the more fringe biological theories that are not derived using chemistry. Biochemistry is truly as close we can get to real science which is empirical, rigorously testable, reproducible and falsifiable.
Example how a study fails (Fruit and vegetable consumption reduce risk of death):
Empirical: YES
The researchers collected real data from large groups of people over many years and measured what they ate and who died.
Rigorously testable: NO
They didn’t control people’s diets. Other factors like exercise, genetics, and lifestyle also affect health, so the effect of fruits and vegetables alone can’t be fully tested in isolation.
Falsifiable: NO
The study can’t definitively prove or disprove that eating more fruits and vegetables causes longer life.
Exactly reproducible: NO
People self-report what they eat, which can be inaccurate, and small changes in how the study is done can change the results.
Conclusion: one the most popular studies about vegetables linked to health gets proven as unscientific.
Correlation doesn't mean causation.
Truly scientific study is impossible for human behavioral nutrition
Every human would need to be identical (genetically, epigenetically, microbiomally, objectively etc.) from the start -> Impossible. Even identical twins diverge over time due to tiny environmental differences.
Exact same behaviors/lifestyle in every way (exercise, stress, sleep, pollution exposure, social life, etc.) → Impossible. Humans live very unique lives.
Perfect compliance with the exact diet (same veggies, same amounts, same preparation, no cheating, no substitutions) for decades → Pretty much impossible long-term. People get bored, get sick, change preferences, or just forget.
Start from birth and follow to natural death → Basically impossible. The only way to capture full lifetime effects.
These tiny and big natural human differences amplify over decades, influencing how each person responds to the same diet or lifestyle. No matter how controlled a study is, participants are biologically and lifestyle wise unique in ways we can’t fully account for.