5 ms·

It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac

It never was. There were afaik no studies ; basically the advice was given on the chain “dietary cholesterol -> serum cholesterol -> blocked arteries -> cardiac problems” of which the last was convincing, the middle mostly convincing at the time, though much less so now - and the first was just assumed but is now known to be essentially wrong.

rossdavidh 8y ago
Which would make it wrong, but at the time, a non-expert who was looking for advice from people like doctors or their government would hear that they should be cutting back on eating eggs. Which would count as legitimately "convincing", if you're not a researcher in the field. Just wrong.
oh_sigh 8y ago
So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?
- toasterlovin 8y ago
  Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.
  - oh_sigh 8y ago
    It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
    - firmgently 8y ago
      "disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field" It doesn't necessarily follow that people will gamble grant money on the off-chance that you might turn out to be that superstar.
    - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
      Disproving stuff is a good way to "fan the flames" of your career but you have to have some reputation in the first place. Otherwise you're a quack amateur which doesn't work well with others, just like you'd be in any other field if you picked fights with the wrong people too soon. It also turns out that validating people's preconceptions and getting grants is a great way to build credibility via "social proof". The truly skilled PIs can develop a popular idea, make it accepted in the field, then dramatically disprove it once the "bad" researchers start piling on! These masters can usually be identified by massive grants, sending students places(careers) to build relationships/incur debt of favors over years, writing bestseller books (ghostwritten) etc. And these are the people whose ideas everyone repeats.
- COGlory 8y ago
  Some did. I worked in a lab for the woman whose papers were instrumental in getting the anti-egg recommendation reversed. There was a lot more money on the other side, unfortunately.
- jdietrich 8y ago
  To a first approximation, nobody actually cares what scientists say. Scientists can publish press releases and hound journalists until they're blue in the face, but they're not getting on the news unless what they're saying fits into a pre-determined media narrative. They're little more than a useful prop, like the flashy "scientific" graphics in moisturizer commercials. Fox News will wheel out anyone with a PhD who is willing to cast doubt on climate change, Vox will dredge up someone who'll say that NASCAR gives you cancer and we all end up less informed than grade-schoolers. Scientists are largely powerless to "push back" against anything, because they don't control the institutions that disseminate information.
circlefavshape 8y ago
I used to be convinced that I knew more about nutrition science than doctors do. Then I found that my total cholesterol was v high (7.5 mmol/L). I got scared and followed my doctor's dietary advice (less saturated fat, basically), and it dropped significantly (to 5.7, still higher than recommended levels) That's when I realised that the likelihood that I can come up with some health strategy for myself that is better "following the advice of professionals" is extremely low
- beagle3 8y ago
  I followed doctors’ advice for my asthma blindly for years (since age 0, practically, without question) and basically felt horrible most of the time - was basically unable to finish a 2km run until age 20. Then I woke up one day with the feeling that this can’t be right; started experimenting, and within a couple of months got to 5k, and within less than a year to 15k, feeling much better all the time and with every objective measurement improved. That’s when I realized I should look into things and not just trust “advice of professionals” most of whom follow others quite blindly, and whose incentives are very different than mine (in my case, their incentive that guided me for 20 years is to minimize their legal risk - it was not to improve my health). I agree it is important to know the bounds of knowledge - both yours and the professionals - and also to realize the incentives. Also, google “John ioannadis”, an MD, on nutrition science and research in general. His seminal work about not trusting published research is unrefined 13 years later.

rossdavidh 8y ago

Which would make it wrong, but at the time, a non-expert who was looking for advice from people like doctors or their government would hear that they should be cutting back on eating eggs. Which would count as legitimately "convincing", if you're not a researcher in the field. Just wrong.

oh_sigh 8y ago

So why didn't scientists come out in droves and push back on the anti-egg movement?

toasterlovin 8y ago
Because there's no research grants to be had by going against the prevailing fashionable beliefs in the field.
- oh_sigh 8y ago
  It's my understanding that disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field. Also, you don't need research grants to show that there is no research that shows a causal link between two things, which is what the poster above claimed was the problem with the anti-egg movement
  - firmgently 8y ago
    "disproving commonly accepted things is a way to become a superstar in the scientific field" It doesn't necessarily follow that people will gamble grant money on the off-chance that you might turn out to be that superstar.
  - xkcd-sucks 8y ago
    Disproving stuff is a good way to "fan the flames" of your career but you have to have some reputation in the first place. Otherwise you're a quack amateur which doesn't work well with others, just like you'd be in any other field if you picked fights with the wrong people too soon. It also turns out that validating people's preconceptions and getting grants is a great way to build credibility via "social proof". The truly skilled PIs can develop a popular idea, make it accepted in the field, then dramatically disprove it once the "bad" researchers start piling on! These masters can usually be identified by massive grants, sending students places(careers) to build relationships/incur debt of favors over years, writing bestseller books (ghostwritten) etc. And these are the people whose ideas everyone repeats.
COGlory 8y ago
Some did. I worked in a lab for the woman whose papers were instrumental in getting the anti-egg recommendation reversed. There was a lot more money on the other side, unfortunately.
jdietrich 8y ago
To a first approximation, nobody actually cares what scientists say. Scientists can publish press releases and hound journalists until they're blue in the face, but they're not getting on the news unless what they're saying fits into a pre-determined media narrative. They're little more than a useful prop, like the flashy "scientific" graphics in moisturizer commercials. Fox News will wheel out anyone with a PhD who is willing to cast doubt on climate change, Vox will dredge up someone who'll say that NASCAR gives you cancer and we all end up less informed than grade-schoolers. Scientists are largely powerless to "push back" against anything, because they don't control the institutions that disseminate information.

circlefavshape 8y ago

I used to be convinced that I knew more about nutrition science than doctors do. Then I found that my total cholesterol was v high (7.5 mmol/L). I got scared and followed my doctor's dietary advice (less saturated fat, basically), and it dropped significantly (to 5.7, still higher than recommended levels) That's when I realised that the likelihood that I can come up with some health strategy for myself that is better "following the advice of professionals" is extremely low

beagle3 8y ago
I followed doctors’ advice for my asthma blindly for years (since age 0, practically, without question) and basically felt horrible most of the time - was basically unable to finish a 2km run until age 20. Then I woke up one day with the feeling that this can’t be right; started experimenting, and within a couple of months got to 5k, and within less than a year to 15k, feeling much better all the time and with every objective measurement improved. That’s when I realized I should look into things and not just trust “advice of professionals” most of whom follow others quite blindly, and whose incentives are very different than mine (in my case, their incentive that guided me for 20 years is to minimize their legal risk - it was not to improve my health). I agree it is important to know the bounds of knowledge - both yours and the professionals - and also to realize the incentives. Also, google “John ioannadis”, an MD, on nutrition science and research in general. His seminal work about not trusting published research is unrefined 13 years later.