There's nothing wrong with that. Love you, gang.
That's genuinely one of the most backwards criticisms I've ever received. What does that even mean, lmfao? Being thorough and citing actual studies is somehow making the research
worse?
If your argument is that I'm providing too much evidence and being too specific about mechanisms and outcomes, then yeah, I would be guilty of that. But I'd honestly rather overcite than make vague retarded claims I can't defend. I wouldn't call that rambling.
Right, because
Mandy posted public dietary advice on a forum telling people to avoid entire food categories based on weak evidence. That's is quite literally a public claim that's open to public scrutiny. If you don't want your nutritional advice challenged, for the love of God himself, don't post it publicly where everyone can view it.
Yes, individual variation exists. That doesn't make population-level evidence irrelevant. That's exactly why we USE population studies, which is to understand what works for most people most of the time, acknowledging that outliers exist.
If your defense of
Mandy's position is "but individual variation," then, no offense to
Mandy, but he shouldn't be making blanket recommendations. Those are universal claims that ignore individual variation. You can't simultaneously argue that individual biology matters AND defend someone making one-size-fits-all dietary rules.