"Children's breakfast cereals loaded with sugar, study finds - http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/childrens-breakfast-cereals-loaded-with-sugar-review-finds/story-fni0fiyv-1227332304276"....
As a recent cultural heroine once said, "Does the word DUH mean anything to you?"
Here is yet one more reason why non-clinical research scientists don't really contribute much to the world's accumulation of knowledge. Their entitled decision of what constitutes "data" short-circuits information which is actually useful to actual human beings. (<-redundancy intentional)
The "paleo" community is inclined to be influenced by what time-honored cultural wisdom has gleaned through the centuries. What our ancestors have observed and treasured from time immemorial is respected by individuals who have become disillusioned by the hubris-inspired "scientific" reasoners like Ancel Keys. Cherry-picking "serious researchers" find ideas they like, which agree with their personal paradigms, and consider themselves misunderstood but vindicated geniuses, as a result of finding (sometimes pathetic) studies which theoretically confirm their personal biases.
"The plural of anecdote is not DATA," says one of these sky-pilots (recently on twitter, NOT addressing ME who challenged him ... but obliquely).
Sorry, asshole -- yes it is.
The accumulated wisdom of millennia is EXACTLY THIS: the observation of n-1 experiences of thousands of individuals. THIS is cultural wisdom. THIS is the collective experience of mankind.
That which our foremothers decided was important to hand down to posterity is exactly what is reflected by the common-sensical observations of intelligent individuals. Is the "study" quoted above really better evidence than the multitudinous n=1 observations of our ancestors? "Study finds cereal full of sugar" ... what shit-for-brains "moran" didn't know this already?
Or is such a "study" just academic BULLSHIT dressed up in the robes of scholastic graduates, putting on the semblance of respectability where it isn't actually earned?