I'd be interested in knowing how asdff arrived at the idea that a sizable portion of lactose intolerance comes from people neglecting to fertilize their microbes with sauerkraut, pickled cabbage, or yogurt.
Can you point exactly which part was "over-the-top" or "aggressive"? Or is calling out that factually incorrect things are, well, factually incorrect somehow unacceptable nowadays? The world needs less pseudoscience misinfo, not more.
I re-read your post and while it's not overly aggressive it's the difference in tone and approach that get you. The original poster was like the hippie encouraging home-made yogurt and you were like the school principal saying 'this is bull, store yogurt has scientifically the same benefits'.
PS: I also learned while writing this I can't spell yogurt. Thanks spellchecker!
Sadly the topic of lactose intolerance is rife with misinfo, biases, and dogwhistles, hence my rapid-fire questions in the previous comment. Most commercial yogurt products sold in grocery stores today are heavily laden with sugar and so mildly fermented that their probiotic quanlities are nearly nullified. Commercial unflavoured kefir is slightly better, but the overall probiotic effect is still questionable since we don't have affirmative answers on how much of the microbes can survive through our stomach acid, or how much of them can establish in our guts vs. heading straight for the exit like passengers on a roller coaster.
The majority of nutritional science seems full of bullshit to be honest. I remember how we laughed at the Atkins diet when it first appeared as well all knew so well that the science told us fat was bad. Now Keto diet seems to be gaining a lot of acceptance, and refined sugar is the real enemy. Refined sugar being bad for you seems to be one of the few things that is agreed on. Will that change in another 20 years?
> The world needs less pseudoscience misinfo, not more.
Fully agreed. I appreciate the stern yet information-laden correction. It's certainly much better than hearing specious claims based on conjecture/misinformation that only seems plausible to the uninformed.
Also, IMO it did not sound "over-the-top" or "aggressive" at all. Some people are just so absurdly oversensitive that a simply direct method of speaking (or in this case, writing) is taken as hostile.
the "It's not some weird conspiracy aimed at making modern humans "weak"." bit seemed a bit much (and out of nowhere unless there was an edit in the original)
The insinuation in the very original comment that modern humans are abandoning fermented foods en masse and "even becoming" lactose intolerant (as if adulthood lactose intolerance is somehow a new condition rather than the default for pretty much all mammals in existence) was clearly in-line with the pseudoscientific conspiracist misinformation wave that modern lifestyle supported by technological advances is making humans regress somehow, rather than elevating overall levels of health and turning previous morbidity factors into manageable nuisances.
