3 ms·

> (Also even if we take the best studies at face value the relative risk differences are ridiculously low between diets. [At least as far as I know.]) See, thi

> (Also even if we take the best studies at face value the relative risk differences are ridiculously low between diets. [At least as far as I know.]) See, this is exactly what I'm talking about. I'm willing to bet that just like me, you're not an expert in that field. And there are people who are experts in the field, reviewing the literature, and have come up with a pretty good consensus.

pas 6y ago
I never claimed I was. I'm basically regurgitating the Bad Food Bible book (written by Aaron Carroll, the guy who hosts HealthCareTriage).
- npsimons 6y ago
  Well, I'm regurgitating a Dr. Greger of https://nutritionfacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org, who is constantly reading studies and papers to get to the bottom of dietary science. You're welcome to spool through his hours of video on YouTube on the subject (where he quotes excerpts from studies he's read), or maybe just start with this one on gut flora and obesity: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gut-flora-obesity/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gut-flora-obesity/ Sources are under the video.
  - breakfastduck 6y ago
    Dude there is far from a 'consensus' in this field. Recommending reading one guys opinion on it sorta proves the point.
  - pas 6y ago
    Yes, so. The linked video is about a n=30 observational study. "Diet science" is full of this. (At least this study explicitly noted that no inference regarding health outcomes were made.) The guy is fighting the good fight (against USDA and so on), but this is still the HN is hilariously bad at diet and related issues.
bdauvergne 6y ago
What if there is no field to talk about ? Most people cannot believe that some part of science are not as advanced as others. But there are good reasons, nobody care enough to throw enough money at tit. Look at obesity in the US, if someone cared about it, if would be fixed. Much more money was thrown at advancing internal combustion motors than improving diet of the average citizen of the USA.
tryonenow 6y ago
I think it's reasonable for laymen to be skeptical of expert consensus in soft, non-experimental fields, especially when the consensus frequently changes significantly and is strongly influenced by industry, e.g. the views on dietary sugar/fat, cause of alzheimer's, lobotomies... Particularly when consensus is not unanimous.
throwaway09223 6y ago
Here's the thing: It's pretty easy to chat with a bunch of experts and test your hypothesis. In fact, I've recently done so owing to some recent health issues. As best I can tell there's almost no consensus among experts aside from "everything in moderation" and "eat a balanced diet" which isn't directed advice as much as hedging. I have asked the various experts I've talked to why advice is so varied and their answer is that there is no consensus on many of these issues. Some had their own opinions about which parts might be right, others were clearly in the "it's a mess, just don't eat too much and wait and see" camp. This is not a well developed field.

pas 6y ago

I never claimed I was. I'm basically regurgitating the Bad Food Bible book (written by Aaron Carroll, the guy who hosts HealthCareTriage).

npsimons 6y ago
Well, I'm regurgitating a Dr. Greger of https://nutritionfacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org, who is constantly reading studies and papers to get to the bottom of dietary science. You're welcome to spool through his hours of video on YouTube on the subject (where he quotes excerpts from studies he's read), or maybe just start with this one on gut flora and obesity: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gut-flora-obesity/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/gut-flora-obesity/ Sources are under the video.
- breakfastduck 6y ago
  Dude there is far from a 'consensus' in this field. Recommending reading one guys opinion on it sorta proves the point.
- pas 6y ago
  Yes, so. The linked video is about a n=30 observational study. "Diet science" is full of this. (At least this study explicitly noted that no inference regarding health outcomes were made.) The guy is fighting the good fight (against USDA and so on), but this is still the HN is hilariously bad at diet and related issues.

bdauvergne 6y ago

What if there is no field to talk about ? Most people cannot believe that some part of science are not as advanced as others. But there are good reasons, nobody care enough to throw enough money at tit. Look at obesity in the US, if someone cared about it, if would be fixed. Much more money was thrown at advancing internal combustion motors than improving diet of the average citizen of the USA.

tryonenow 6y ago

I think it's reasonable for laymen to be skeptical of expert consensus in soft, non-experimental fields, especially when the consensus frequently changes significantly and is strongly influenced by industry, e.g. the views on dietary sugar/fat, cause of alzheimer's, lobotomies... Particularly when consensus is not unanimous.

throwaway09223 6y ago

Here's the thing: It's pretty easy to chat with a bunch of experts and test your hypothesis. In fact, I've recently done so owing to some recent health issues. As best I can tell there's almost no consensus among experts aside from "everything in moderation" and "eat a balanced diet" which isn't directed advice as much as hedging. I have asked the various experts I've talked to why advice is so varied and their answer is that there is no consensus on many of these issues. Some had their own opinions about which parts might be right, others were clearly in the "it's a mess, just don't eat too much and wait and see" camp. This is not a well developed field.