3 ms·

Nutritionfacts is ideologically driven operation. They only present one side of the argument. Plant based diet first, facts second. Being a nonprofit doesn't ma

by ooyy 5y ago

Nutritionfacts is ideologically driven operation. They only present one side of the argument. Plant based diet first, facts second. Being a nonprofit doesn't make you immune from bias. It's not just money perverting the field, but also ideology. The whole field of nutrition is divided into camps, when they conduct meta-analyses of all the literature, they pick inclusion/exclusion criteria so that the side that they are championing wins.

mping 5y ago
Where should one get the other side? Genuinely interested
systemvoltage 5y ago
Politics in everything, the world feels broken. What happened?
- beagle3 5y ago
  Politics was always in everything. The internet happened, and now you can discuss things and get facts and opinions from sides you previously couldn’t, with not much more than a click.
Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
Your comment is valuable, but at least Nutrionfacts seems to present one side of the argument factually. There are operations like 'Brand Power'[1] which masquerades like consumer fact checking service but in fact they just 3rd party advertisers for brands. When I first saw their Ads in India, I thought it's disingenuous and then I learnt that they do the same even in developed countries. https://www.brandpower.com/us/en/ https://www.brandpower.com/us/en/
- kobayashi 5y ago
  While you accurately describe Brand Power, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand —- the biases surrounding nutritional research.
  - Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
    You're correct, I shared Brand Power because of their representation of what they claim as 'Nutritional Facts'[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-ABnVPZk&t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-ABnVPZk&t=13s (Tamil)
derekperkins 5y ago
It's even more hypocritical than just cherry picking studies. Points in his books are refuted by the same studies he cites! He ignores similar / better outcomes that don't match his bias.

by ooyy 5y ago

mping 5y ago

Where should one get the other side? Genuinely interested

systemvoltage 5y ago

Politics in everything, the world feels broken. What happened?

beagle3 5y ago
Politics was always in everything. The internet happened, and now you can discuss things and get facts and opinions from sides you previously couldn’t, with not much more than a click.

Abishek_Muthian 5y ago

Your comment is valuable, but at least Nutrionfacts seems to present one side of the argument factually. There are operations like 'Brand Power'[1] which masquerades like consumer fact checking service but in fact they just 3rd party advertisers for brands. When I first saw their Ads in India, I thought it's disingenuous and then I learnt that they do the same even in developed countries. https://www.brandpower.com/us/en/ https://www.brandpower.com/us/en/

kobayashi 5y ago
While you accurately describe Brand Power, it really has nothing to do with the topic at hand —- the biases surrounding nutritional research.
- Abishek_Muthian 5y ago
  You're correct, I shared Brand Power because of their representation of what they claim as 'Nutritional Facts'[1]. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-ABnVPZk&t=13s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7N-ABnVPZk&t=13s (Tamil)

derekperkins 5y ago

It's even more hypocritical than just cherry picking studies. Points in his books are refuted by the same studies he cites! He ignores similar / better outcomes that don't match his bias.