5 ms·

Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source, and random blogs on the internet as a trash source of informa

Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source, and random blogs on the internet as a trash source of information. And I still believe one must be very sceptical of random blogs on the internet. Yet, most randos on the internet will at least cite their sources and explain their reasoning for all their decisions. But in the 150 pages long form document, I do not see sources cited or reasoning explained -- https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-12/Dietary_Guidelines_for_Americans_2020-2025.pdf https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1... Is there some other source that explains their decision making process? In particular, I would be really curious to know what the basis is for the guideline that saturated fats should be replaced by "vegetable" oils, and that "saturated fat should be less than 10% of calories." I've looked at a lot of studies myself over the years, and find the evidence against seed oils to be much stronger than the evidence against saturated fat.

sharadov 6y ago
Have a heart for the Pharmaceutical Industry, how will it survive without sugar-laden foods forced down the pipeline? Who will take all the drugs for so-called "lifestyle diseases"?
- Scoundreller 6y ago
  The great thing about longevity is that lots of stuff creeps up on you anyway.
  - sharadov 6y ago
    But you have pharmaceuticals to help with that, the trick is to keep you just enough alive pumping those drugs in your body. Death is a serious monetary loss.
rconti 6y ago
Counterpoint: The food pyramid. (or, as I heard on a podcast the other day, "a nutritious kid's breakfast was a bowl of sugary cereal, a glass of orange juice, and a piece of toast")
- chlodwig 6y ago
  Yes, the food pyramid was also garbage. To clarify my statement that "Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source" -- it's not that the government information was actually better then, it was that I was more naive.
- gruez 6y ago
  Just copy the one that canada uses[1] and call it a day. Interestingly their old food guide[2] was similar to the food pyramid (emphasis on carbs, along with dairy as a "food group"). [1] https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/food-nutrition/educational-poster/26-18-2158-Poster-ENG-web-final.pdf https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/p... [2] https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/calgaryherald/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/food-guide.jpg https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/calgaryherald/wp-con...
  - chlodwig 6y ago
    Can I get a count on the total amount of fiber in that diet? Seems a bit excessive ...
    - selimthegrim 6y ago
      Weetabix got to them
      - chlodwig 6y ago
        Are we sure these dietary guidelines aren't being pushed by the toilet paper conglomerates?
        triceratops 6y ago
        If you eat lots of fiber you don't need to wipe as much. More fiber is the last thing Big TP wants.
phkahler 6y ago
Same. From what I've read, it seems saturated fat is fine. Unsaturated fat is fine. Partially hydrogenated oil causes way more problems than either of those ever could.
simplicio 6y ago
The guidelines are just meant as, well, guidelines. They aren't meant to be putting forward an argument to convince anyone. They're the results of the "Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee", which does contain references, methods, etc and can be found here: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-report https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-re...
- chlodwig 6y ago
  Ah, this is the kind of info I come to Hacker News for. Thanks for the link!
PragmaticPulp 6y ago
A major problem in dietary studies is the extreme polarization. It seems many participants feel they need to pick a side and argue it to death to make their voice heard. The initial demonization of saturated fats is a good example of something that was taken too far to the extremes. However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, or even that saturated fat is actually actually good for you. Likewise, the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science. Unfortunately, contrarian takes reign supreme when it comes to getting clicks and likes, so that's what we see the most of. There are small communities that discuss dietary studies from a neutral, scientific point of view. However, it's relatively boring to do so and tends to leave more questions than answers, which doesn't make for great headlines or debate fodder. It's also difficult to introduce new people to dietary studies because there are so many inconclusive and conflicting studies performed over the past several decades. Someone arguing in bad faith can easily cherry-pick a handful of studies to support nearly any position, while choosing to ignore studies that don't reach the conclusions they want to see. From real-world experience, nit-picking minor details like which types of fats are better than others is missing the big picture. In the real world, the difference between healthy and unhealthy diets is usually plainly obvious to anyone paying attention. Excessive portion sizes, excess sugar, constant snacking, alcohol, few or zero vegetables and other such obvious flaws tend to dominate the problems in people's diet. Making minor changes like swapping one type of fat for another is futile if someone is over-eating at every meal.
- chlodwig 6y ago
  However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, Because of the limitations of nutrition science and the incentives of academia, weak evidence is basically equivalent to no evidence. If "X causes Y" is the dominant paradigm, and a review of the studies shows: - 20 studies showing "no statistically significant results" - 10 studies showing "low effect size, but statistically significant" correlations that "X causes Y" - 0 studies show "X reduces Y" Does that mean that "X" weakly causes "Y"? No. Because what probably happened is that any time a study got an "X reduces Y" result the academic said, "This looks wrong, let me play with the control variables a bit" until the result became "no significant association." Or possibly they just through the study in the rubbish. The proper conclusion from the above studies is: "We have not established any link between X and Y. If any link does exist, it is below the threshold of our ability to measure it using our limited tool-set in nutrition science." Or in other words: any study result that cannot be distinguished from p-hacking should not be admissible as evidence. AFAICT, this is the case with saturated fat -- there is no set of studies with a sound, convincing methodology that shows a clear and undeniable causal link with heart disease. If you disagree, I'd like to see what studies you find convincing. the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science What is the best evidence that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease? What is the best evidence that reducing LDL through either reducing saturated fat or cholesterol intake, or through pharmaceutical intervention reduces all cause mortality?
disown 6y ago
> Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source It would be an authoritative source, but just because it's authoritative doesn't mean it is credible or correct. All the authoritative nutritional sources are backed by corporations. Corporations fight over the nutrition standards and then have the government/NGOs/etc peddle it.

sharadov 6y ago

Have a heart for the Pharmaceutical Industry, how will it survive without sugar-laden foods forced down the pipeline? Who will take all the drugs for so-called "lifestyle diseases"?

Scoundreller 6y ago
The great thing about longevity is that lots of stuff creeps up on you anyway.
- sharadov 6y ago
  But you have pharmaceuticals to help with that, the trick is to keep you just enough alive pumping those drugs in your body. Death is a serious monetary loss.

rconti 6y ago

Counterpoint: The food pyramid. (or, as I heard on a podcast the other day, "a nutritious kid's breakfast was a bowl of sugary cereal, a glass of orange juice, and a piece of toast")

chlodwig 6y ago
Yes, the food pyramid was also garbage. To clarify my statement that "Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source" -- it's not that the government information was actually better then, it was that I was more naive.
gruez 6y ago
Just copy the one that canada uses[1] and call it a day. Interestingly their old food guide[2] was similar to the food pyramid (emphasis on carbs, along with dairy as a "food group"). [1] https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/publications/food-nutrition/educational-poster/26-18-2158-Poster-ENG-web-final.pdf https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/hc-sc/documents/services/p... [2] https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/calgaryherald/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/food-guide.jpg https://smartcdn.prod.postmedia.digital/calgaryherald/wp-con...
- chlodwig 6y ago
  Can I get a count on the total amount of fiber in that diet? Seems a bit excessive ...
  - selimthegrim 6y ago
    Weetabix got to them
    - chlodwig 6y ago
      Are we sure these dietary guidelines aren't being pushed by the toilet paper conglomerates?
      - triceratops 6y ago
        If you eat lots of fiber you don't need to wipe as much. More fiber is the last thing Big TP wants.

phkahler 6y ago

Same. From what I've read, it seems saturated fat is fine. Unsaturated fat is fine. Partially hydrogenated oil causes way more problems than either of those ever could.

simplicio 6y ago

The guidelines are just meant as, well, guidelines. They aren't meant to be putting forward an argument to convince anyone. They're the results of the "Scientific Report of the 2020 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee", which does contain references, methods, etc and can be found here: https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-report https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/2020-advisory-committee-re...

chlodwig 6y ago
Ah, this is the kind of info I come to Hacker News for. Thanks for the link!

PragmaticPulp 6y ago

A major problem in dietary studies is the extreme polarization. It seems many participants feel they need to pick a side and argue it to death to make their voice heard. The initial demonization of saturated fats is a good example of something that was taken too far to the extremes. However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, or even that saturated fat is actually actually good for you. Likewise, the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science. Unfortunately, contrarian takes reign supreme when it comes to getting clicks and likes, so that's what we see the most of. There are small communities that discuss dietary studies from a neutral, scientific point of view. However, it's relatively boring to do so and tends to leave more questions than answers, which doesn't make for great headlines or debate fodder. It's also difficult to introduce new people to dietary studies because there are so many inconclusive and conflicting studies performed over the past several decades. Someone arguing in bad faith can easily cherry-pick a handful of studies to support nearly any position, while choosing to ignore studies that don't reach the conclusions they want to see. From real-world experience, nit-picking minor details like which types of fats are better than others is missing the big picture. In the real world, the difference between healthy and unhealthy diets is usually plainly obvious to anyone paying attention. Excessive portion sizes, excess sugar, constant snacking, alcohol, few or zero vegetables and other such obvious flaws tend to dominate the problems in people's diet. Making minor changes like swapping one type of fat for another is futile if someone is over-eating at every meal.

chlodwig 6y ago
However, when the evidence linking saturated fat to heart disease was later found to be weak, many people made the mistake of arguing that saturated fat had no links to heart disease, Because of the limitations of nutrition science and the incentives of academia, weak evidence is basically equivalent to no evidence. If "X causes Y" is the dominant paradigm, and a review of the studies shows: - 20 studies showing "no statistically significant results" - 10 studies showing "low effect size, but statistically significant" correlations that "X causes Y" - 0 studies show "X reduces Y" Does that mean that "X" weakly causes "Y"? No. Because what probably happened is that any time a study got an "X reduces Y" result the academic said, "This looks wrong, let me play with the control variables a bit" until the result became "no significant association." Or possibly they just through the study in the rubbish. The proper conclusion from the above studies is: "We have not established any link between X and Y. If any link does exist, it is below the threshold of our ability to measure it using our limited tool-set in nutrition science." Or in other words: any study result that cannot be distinguished from p-hacking should not be admissible as evidence. AFAICT, this is the case with saturated fat -- there is no set of studies with a sound, convincing methodology that shows a clear and undeniable causal link with heart disease. If you disagree, I'd like to see what studies you find convincing. the initial exaggeration of the role of LDL cholesterol has led to a small but vocal minority of people who claim that LDL has no connection to heart disease, which doesn't agree with the science What is the best evidence that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease? What is the best evidence that reducing LDL through either reducing saturated fat or cholesterol intake, or through pharmaceutical intervention reduces all cause mortality?

disown 6y ago

> Many years ago I would have viewed an official government nutrition document as a credible source It would be an authoritative source, but just because it's authoritative doesn't mean it is credible or correct. All the authoritative nutritional sources are backed by corporations. Corporations fight over the nutrition standards and then have the government/NGOs/etc peddle it.