Evelyn and I have some things in common: our gender, our ages (I’m a little older), our struggles with eating disorders and weight. But her graduate degree and work experience is in science, mine is in communication and technology.
So I suppose it’s not that big of a surprise that we’d look at the MWMUF so differently. I agree that it’s important to get the science right and so the academic discussions are important. That said, I was a bit dismayed to see the MWMUF program dismissed in the comments on Evelyn’s as “another useless shit video that will help no one.”
I look at a study or a video and see what I like, someone else looks at a study and see all the flaws. To-MAY-to, to-MAH-to? Or maybe glass half full or half empty?
I suppose the tendency to do one or the other is in part due to capability, but perhaps there’s a bit of personality at play too. My own confirmation bias re the food industry certainly is involved … I like seeing them being called out the way they are in MWMUF.
After seeing the juxtaposition of our two posts today, I think we’re both right: the glass is half full AND the glass is half empty.
By all means, let’s get the science right. But maybe it’s just me, but I think we can and should make inferences based on what we currently understand and do the best we can to communicate that.
Especially if it makes some bastards squirm ;).