It wasn't just a ludicrous paragraph in a paper which has been touted recently as "proof" that "Victorians ate a paleo diet" -- i was reading along in another paper someone linked on twitter when i came across a phrase talking about the alkaline balance of a certain diet....
There's nothing more credibility-destroying than slamming up against ARRANT BULLSHIT in what should be a seriously scientific treatise.
...Then there was another journal-published, peer-reviewed paper which read like somebody's high-school science report. Some of the stuff that gets printed is jaw-droppingly bad! If i were affiliated with some of these publications, i'd be nothing short of embarrassed. All such papers provide excellent support for the concept of Grain Brain if not CARB Syndrome. There are a lot of neurons that aren't firing correctly in the academic world ... and yet these are supposed to be our best and brightest!
I've never been a study-quoter -- I've been an adherent of some people who read studies ALL THE WAY THROUGH, and take a close look at the methods section, and even contact the authors for details that didn't make it into print (Petro, of course, is #1). ...Because it is blatant that conclusions are reached by authors which are far from supported by the actual data. Because underpowered studies, whether by design or by negligence, are rife in the system. Because some people are just avid to publish ANYTHING, so long as they publish.
But if i WERE a study-quoter, i'd change my style at this point. Just because "a study was performed" and "an outcome was reported" doesn't mean that a competent person approached a question in a logical fashion and reached a reasonable conclusion. It has been said that the devil can quote scripture to his own benefit, and i believe it -- one can quote published, peer-reviewed studies to "prove" any point you want to -- a lot of it is STILL nonsense.