8 ms·

Diet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics. On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out g

Diet science is the most pathetically politicized "science" next to economics. On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. On another side you've got the rich radical environmental and animal rights activists wanting everyone to go Vegan and giving out grants to scientists to get their results. It's just a clusterfk of politics going back and forth. Eggs are bad, no they're good. Meat is bad, no it's good. Carbs are bad, no it's good. Fat is bad, no it's good. Protein is bad, no it's good. Or in the words of Bugs and Daffy: Duck Season! Rabbit Season!, etc.

vonmoltke 7y ago
> On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. The worst part is, that's not really "one" side. Many of those groups are actively fighting each other, particularly now that organic foods, supplements, and superfood-of-the-week are big business.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
I think a large part of it is that regardless of the politics behind it or who is funding it, doing a proper scientific experiment is impossible with our current tools due to the complexity of the human body, food, and issues with control groups and accurate data. In this type of scenario, I would expect frequent changes in what is considered “true” and I would consider that a good sign assuming the proper procedures are resulting in iterative improvements to our field of knowledge.
zacherates 7y ago
While funding and conflicts of interest are an issue, a much bigger problem with nutrition research is that it is extremely difficult/expensive/unethical to study the outcomes people actually care about (living longer, losing weight, preventing disease), because that would require being able to control a large number of people's diet for decades (which in turn would require either paying/motivating them enough to comply, or doing so against their will). ... so instead, you end with a bunch of observational studies (which cannot show causation), or studies of placeholders assuming it maps to something people actually care about (eg. "cholesterol levels in the blood stream after X hours" for "Y years of life lost to heart disease per hundred thousand"), or bench studies (some chemical component in broccoli can kill cancer cells in a petri dish becomes "broccoli fights cancer" ignoring the fact that eg. fire kills cancer cells in a petri dish... that doesn't mean you should eat it). ... which are subject to all the usual difficulties for associated with subjects that are hard to study: small samples, inadequate surveys, bad statistics, HARKing, p-hacking. ... the resulting papers are then reported on uncritically, often generalizing the claims well beyond what the underlying science would support... because people read articles about things they actually do (eat meat) and outcomes they care about (live longer/avoid heart disease)... not about bench results.
- goldforever 7y ago
  Agreed, you've nailed it!
sparrc 7y ago
It's more like David vs. Goliath. The food industry has MUCH more money than any animal rights advocacy group.
- geggam 7y ago
  All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life.
  - sparrc 7y ago
    > All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Does it? What about vegetarian and vegans animals? (including some humans) > Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.
    - geggam 7y ago
      Are you saying plant life isnt life ? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 >It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds. My belief is I am healthier eating animals. Burden is on you to prove me wrong.
      - sparrc 7y ago
        There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.
VLM 7y ago
Its religious also. Both traditional religion (vegetarianism = good, cow = holy) and modern religion (Holier than thou because more ascetic, and grilled beef steak is delicious, therefore he who posts the most about lettuce on social media is better than everyone else)
noelsusman 7y ago
The science is mostly fine, it's just a really difficult problem to solve. The fact that "Meat is bad, no it's good" is what enters the public consciousness is more a failure of the media than science.

vonmoltke 7y ago

> On one side you've got the industry groups promoting their food and giving out grants to scientists to get the right results. The worst part is, that's not really "one" side. Many of those groups are actively fighting each other, particularly now that organic foods, supplements, and superfood-of-the-week are big business.

lotsofpulp 7y ago

I think a large part of it is that regardless of the politics behind it or who is funding it, doing a proper scientific experiment is impossible with our current tools due to the complexity of the human body, food, and issues with control groups and accurate data. In this type of scenario, I would expect frequent changes in what is considered “true” and I would consider that a good sign assuming the proper procedures are resulting in iterative improvements to our field of knowledge.

zacherates 7y ago

While funding and conflicts of interest are an issue, a much bigger problem with nutrition research is that it is extremely difficult/expensive/unethical to study the outcomes people actually care about (living longer, losing weight, preventing disease), because that would require being able to control a large number of people's diet for decades (which in turn would require either paying/motivating them enough to comply, or doing so against their will). ... so instead, you end with a bunch of observational studies (which cannot show causation), or studies of placeholders assuming it maps to something people actually care about (eg. "cholesterol levels in the blood stream after X hours" for "Y years of life lost to heart disease per hundred thousand"), or bench studies (some chemical component in broccoli can kill cancer cells in a petri dish becomes "broccoli fights cancer" ignoring the fact that eg. fire kills cancer cells in a petri dish... that doesn't mean you should eat it). ... which are subject to all the usual difficulties for associated with subjects that are hard to study: small samples, inadequate surveys, bad statistics, HARKing, p-hacking. ... the resulting papers are then reported on uncritically, often generalizing the claims well beyond what the underlying science would support... because people read articles about things they actually do (eat meat) and outcomes they care about (live longer/avoid heart disease)... not about bench results.

goldforever 7y ago
Agreed, you've nailed it!

sparrc 7y ago

It's more like David vs. Goliath. The food industry has MUCH more money than any animal rights advocacy group.

geggam 7y ago
All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. I find this to be a minimum facetious at maximum a threat to my life.
- sparrc 7y ago
  > All higher life on this planet survives by eating another life form. Does it? What about vegetarian and vegans animals? (including some humans) > Animal rights groups tend to elevate my food to having similar rights as humans. It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds.
  - geggam 7y ago
    Are you saying plant life isnt life ? https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 https://www.the-scientist.com/features/plant-talk-38209 >It's more accurate to say that animal rights groups believe that the lives of animals are more important than your taste buds. My belief is I am healthier eating animals. Burden is on you to prove me wrong.
    - sparrc 7y ago
      There are 3 orders of living things: plants, funghi, and animals. Animal rights is concerned with all animals, not with all living things. Every major dietician association says the same thing about veg diets, that they are healthy for all stages of life, including pregnancy, infancy (excepting breastmilk of course), and early childhood. There's no burden on me to change your behavior, you can do whatever you want.

VLM 7y ago

Its religious also. Both traditional religion (vegetarianism = good, cow = holy) and modern religion (Holier than thou because more ascetic, and grilled beef steak is delicious, therefore he who posts the most about lettuce on social media is better than everyone else)

noelsusman 7y ago

The science is mostly fine, it's just a really difficult problem to solve. The fact that "Meat is bad, no it's good" is what enters the public consciousness is more a failure of the media than science.