Poorly researched articles are a waste of time.
The problem is, how do you tell if an article is poorly researched?
I was in my pharmacy the other day. They have this large screen TV that displays advertising and health recommendation.
One article caught my eye. The article said that 'UK study shows that sitting for long period of time is not bad for your health.'
The problem is having an unhealthy lifestyle to begin with. Sitting for long periods of time may be a sign that you have an unhealthy lifestyle. Once your health is compromised sitting for long periods of time is bad for you as any activity is better than none. Cardiovascular problems may also be exacerbated by prolonged sitting.
Without digging into the studies to find out exactly what they were studying, I am left with some writer summarizing a subject that they may or may not know well.
The few articles were I have had inside knowledge of a subject and read a new article on said topic, have left me wondering what the heck was going on.
Interesting vs accurate.
How much influence does a one line news title have?
If we agree with a subject and don't read the article it's reinforcing a point of view without reason.
If we read the article and learn nothing new, its a waste of time. If we read the article and learn some new fact we may be faced with agreeing or disagreeing and having to change our view or perhaps add a new piece of data to our knowledge of a subject.
Looked for it online and found a Torygraph article
The results showed that using olive oil for frying vegetables increased their fat content and reduced moisture, something not seen in other methods.
Wow! You don't say, so blasting them with an oxy-acetylene torch might also produce, "...something not see in other methods." Where's me welding set...
[bolding added by me.]
The major point that the article misses directly is the type of oil used. The link in bold leads to an article on frying using other types of oil and the problems they might cause.
It also misses the point that there are different methods of boiling. Microwave, steaming etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... shows.html
This was linked to the above
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... perts.html
Well, thanks to Dave I have updated my understanding of an important aspect of cooking that everyone should have some knowledge about.
The conclusions that I came to for myself.
If you are going to fry something for a long period of time don't use certain types of oils.
Some forms of frying preserve certain properties of food better then certain types of boiling.
Fry food with high heat but for short periods of time. Unless the oil has some added some health benefits then adjust cooking method.
Cooking with animal fats can reduce the amount of aldehydes produced in the cooking process. If you cook in vegetable oil for long periods of time vs animal fats or in this case olive oil.
To say that lard is healthier for you than vegetable oil is not a lie, Not using lard is even healthier which seems to be a point that gets missed or is assumed to be common knowledge.
If it's important to you, research the subject.
It's called food-science for a reason after all. Like all science the knowledge base grows. Like all sciences, we sometimes get things wrong.
All we can do is trust the popular media will inform us enough to know that there may be something new that might be useful to know and research.
A good learner is forever walking the narrow path between blindness and hallucination. ― Pedro Domingos, The Master Algorithm