And there are flat out ignorant ways to dismiss advances in QA/QC in modern brewing.
Look, there is a difference (and plenty of peer reviewed science to support it). Whether or not it would be worth the efforts for you is a call only you can make. But failing to acknowledge the theory as a whole just makes you look ignorant.
I'll probably regret this, but I've been following this discussion for quite a while now and might as well throw in my 2 cents. What could go wrong?
While I don't believe that a triangle test is the end-all-be-all factor in deciding whether or not a given brewing process is worth implementing or not, I also do not think it's unreasonable to want to see empirical evidence that something is firmly backed by science before accepting it as truth. And I know that there is science/studies available that contribute to the theory that LODO techniques are beneficial in some way. I have perused the German brewing forum and supporting white papers, etc.
Without definitive evidence that the Malt flavors and flavor stability of all beer styles is benefited by these processes translated to homebrewing scale, I'm left to my existing knowledge and opinions and what I do know about the science which is, admittedly, limited. I have no doubts at all about the perils of oxidation on the cold side, especially as the beer ages. Myself, my beer is not around long enough for too much flavor instability to take hold with the small amounts of oxygen I allow through in my process. That's based on hundreds of batches using pretty decent oxygen avoidance practices on the cold side. And as long as I'm producing beer 5-10 gallons at a time and drinking it pretty quickly, it's just not something I worry about. And I'm very confident in the quality of the beer I brew and take a lot of pride in it.
I do not claim to know whether or not there is significant confirmation bias at play here with the proponents of LoDo or not. I don't presume to know what someone is experiencing. But I do think you can't rule it out. I've seen it time and time again in the professional audio industry. Someone claims that the difference between two different Audio-to-Digital converters is "night and day". Meanwhile, the science states that the differences in the resulting audio quality is so far down is the audible range that no human being should be able to detect it. And you put that person in a double-blind test and they can't reliably identify one vs the other. Confirmation bias is STRONG.
And I also don't think the fact that multiple large breweries invest gigantic amounts of money isn't evidence either way. You determine what you believe will make your product better and that's where you invest your time and money. That doesn't necessarily make them right. And some of the most respected, revered beers in the world, including some of the styles purported to require this attention to hot side oxygen prevention, are brewed without dedicating significant attention to it.
But all of that is just my opinion and my observations based on my limited experience. But I'm as anal as they come about making the best beer I can and I also never shy away from tedious or time consuming processes if I think they will help me make better beer, and on this topic I'm not convinced yet enough to implement it.
Should anyone particularly care that I'm not convinced? Nah, not at all. If someone believes they're doing something that benefits their beers they should keep doing it.
Peace, everybody. Hopefully that was stated as neutrally/respectfully as possible.
Dan