You can find an infinite number of research refuting each other. If we take into account only the conclusions, without going into the essence, it seems that life, in general, is harmful to health. The fact, it is impossible to conduct reliable research. The purity of the experiment is always broken, as guinea not tested under the same ideal conditions. As for the experiments with the food ingredients, for example, pizza often taking like bread.
It's too difficult to randomly assign different diets to different groups of people and have them stick with those diets for enough time to find clues about whether certain foods caused certain diseases.
"In an ideal world, I would take the next 1,000 children born in Oxford Hospital, randomize them into two different groups, and have half of them eat nothing but fresh fruit and vegetables for the rest of their lives, and half eat nothing but bacon and fried chicken. Then I'd measure who gets the most cancer, heart disease, who dies the soonest, who has the worst wrinkles, who's the most clever, and so on." Ben Goldacre - British physician and epidemiologist.
And so we get - the narrowness of notion. In life no like in theory: the world is permeated with an infinite number of interconnections. To conduct the experiment in such conditions is impossible, but when the selection is obtained in a closed system, it comes like in a joke: "Take the cockroach, put it on the table and shout: Run! And it runs! Tear off its feet and shout: Run! But it did not run. So we conclude: the cockroach without legs cannot hear! ".
There's one final problem with nutrition research that adds to the confusion. Right now, nutrition science is horribly underfunded by government — leaving lots of space for food companies and industry groups to sponsor research. This means, quite simply, that food and beverage makers pay for many nutrition studies — with sometimes dubious results. More troubling: The field of nutrition research hasn't quite caught up to medicine when it comes to building in safeguards to address potential conflicts of interest.
"So much research is sponsored by industry," wrote nutrition and food policy researcher Marion Nestle in a recent issue of JAMA, "that health professionals and the public may lose confidence in basic dietary advice,"
Industry-funded studies tend to have results that are more favorable to industry. Between March and October last year, Nestle identified 76 industry-funded studies. Of those, 70 reported results that were favorable to the industry sponsor. Science is commercialized, when something is commercialized, it already serves not to people, but to money.