4 ms·

This is simply untrue. The fault is not with the doctors, but the nutritional scientists. Doctors just repeat advice given by national boards. These organisati

This is simply untrue. The fault is not with the doctors, but the nutritional scientists. Doctors just repeat advice given by national boards. These organisations are a bit slow, but still update their advice every few years, and these are heavenly reliant on statistics & research. Just read Harvard's nutritional advice pages, they are exactly what a doctor will tell you. The problem is nutritional science is highly unreliable. And the main reason is, that it's incredibly difficult. Lots of the generic advice given is based on large scale studies over long years of population in the advice against red meat etc. But there are just too many variables. Which is why they keep changing their advice, however they thoroughly understand statistics. Also the main focus has been on risk factors instead of understand in the mechanisms behind certain things, partially because the mechanisms are just so darn complicated.

manfre 4y ago
The larger issue is from studies being intentionally misleading for corporate gain. The food pyramid is the most prominent example that comes to mind.
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  That's only possible because the science itself is difficult.
  - voisin 4y ago
    I think you are being generous. The science behind cigarettes isn’t difficult and yet the industry was able to obfuscate for too long. It happens all the time and there are many, many examples. Climate change is another recent one.
    - jiggywiggy 4y ago
      Climate change science is super complicated. Cigarettes was pretty clear pretty fast, they resorting to hiding the research, it was much more difficult to obfuscate it.
  - sedawk 4y ago
    > That's only possible because the science itself is difficult. So was (and still is) landing a man on the moon, but we still managed to do it. Difficult doesn't have to mean "impossible" and accepting wrong/bad results just because getting the right results is hard, is plain stupid, at best. The vested interests of multi-billion $$ corps who often directly and indirectly fund the said "researches" make it hard to take lot of research at their face values. There is good reason to question your doctor and nutritionist, out of genuine concern for your own health and well-being. And if a doctor is not open to questions or addressing our concerns sufficiently, we should be on the lookout for a better doctor.
    - jiggywiggy 4y ago
      It's difficult because it's hard to know what assumptions are correct. With practical matters putting a man on the moon it's easy to figure out who's wrong and right.
cies 4y ago
> The fault is not with the doctors, but the nutritional scientists Not all NutScis work for the national boards. But those that do are bombarded with lobby. > The problem is nutritional science is highly unreliable. And the main reason is, that it's incredibly difficult. Science is --if the proper protocol if followed-- never unreliable, at best the scientific conclusions change often. Science is ALWAYS difficult, or it would not be science but mere common sense. > national boards [...] are heavenly reliant on statistics & research. So how come there's soooo much difference between countries? Canada recently started to advice against milk, but the US still promotes it. To me this shows the power of lobby is very stronger in these boards.
- jiggywiggy 4y ago
  Regarding Canada you could also argue the opposite. The modern progressives are against dairy and meat, and Canada has quite a progressive wind blowing at the moment. But there are risks of deficiencies in a meat & dairy free diet. I've people close to me had b12 and iron deficiencies who cut out those because of modern diet ideas. Especially B12 is a big one, and if you don't supplement it's almost impossible to get on a diet without dairy or meat. It's also full of many other nutrients. So recommending milk doesn't sound so crazy to me, even though I agree the milk lobby is a known powerhouse in many countries.
  - cies 4y ago
    To me the science is clear on dairy: really unhealthy. Meat/eggs is another story wrt health (though I dont eat it). B12 is produced by bacteria in dark soil, and water soluble; so found in surface waters. Now we and most livestock drink treated water, so no more B12 in the water. Hence I supplement. The B12 that's in meat, eggs and dairy is typically also supplemented to them in their feed.
    - jiggywiggy 4y ago
      What substances in milk are unhealthy according to your research? There might be issues with contanimated milk, but milk in itself doesn't seem to have much negative substances in it. Lactose intolerancy is annoying for those who have it, but doesn't seem to have much consequences. Kale also has similar effects.
simonsarris 4y ago
Oh it's true. From Credit Suisse Foundation in 2015: 54% surveyed doctors falsely believed eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol. Concluded: "Clear example of the level of misinformation that exists among doctors." > Just read Harvard's nutritional advice pages Haha. The Economist: A researcher at the University of California uncovered documents from 1967 showing that sugar companies secretly funded studies at Harvard University designed to blame fat—not sugar—for the growing obesity epidemic from: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie
reducesuffering 4y ago
Ah, yes, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-... , the Harvard guide telling you to checks avoid potatoes, the most nutritionally diverse thing you could live off of solely for longest, and to eat 'healthy' vegetable oils like processed canola and soybean oil...

manfre 4y ago

The larger issue is from studies being intentionally misleading for corporate gain. The food pyramid is the most prominent example that comes to mind.

jiggywiggy 4y ago
That's only possible because the science itself is difficult.
- voisin 4y ago
  I think you are being generous. The science behind cigarettes isn’t difficult and yet the industry was able to obfuscate for too long. It happens all the time and there are many, many examples. Climate change is another recent one.
  - jiggywiggy 4y ago
    Climate change science is super complicated. Cigarettes was pretty clear pretty fast, they resorting to hiding the research, it was much more difficult to obfuscate it.
- sedawk 4y ago
  > That's only possible because the science itself is difficult. So was (and still is) landing a man on the moon, but we still managed to do it. Difficult doesn't have to mean "impossible" and accepting wrong/bad results just because getting the right results is hard, is plain stupid, at best. The vested interests of multi-billion $$ corps who often directly and indirectly fund the said "researches" make it hard to take lot of research at their face values. There is good reason to question your doctor and nutritionist, out of genuine concern for your own health and well-being. And if a doctor is not open to questions or addressing our concerns sufficiently, we should be on the lookout for a better doctor.
  - jiggywiggy 4y ago
    It's difficult because it's hard to know what assumptions are correct. With practical matters putting a man on the moon it's easy to figure out who's wrong and right.

cies 4y ago

> The fault is not with the doctors, but the nutritional scientists Not all NutScis work for the national boards. But those that do are bombarded with lobby. > The problem is nutritional science is highly unreliable. And the main reason is, that it's incredibly difficult. Science is --if the proper protocol if followed-- never unreliable, at best the scientific conclusions change often. Science is ALWAYS difficult, or it would not be science but mere common sense. > national boards [...] are heavenly reliant on statistics & research. So how come there's soooo much difference between countries? Canada recently started to advice against milk, but the US still promotes it. To me this shows the power of lobby is very stronger in these boards.

jiggywiggy 4y ago
Regarding Canada you could also argue the opposite. The modern progressives are against dairy and meat, and Canada has quite a progressive wind blowing at the moment. But there are risks of deficiencies in a meat & dairy free diet. I've people close to me had b12 and iron deficiencies who cut out those because of modern diet ideas. Especially B12 is a big one, and if you don't supplement it's almost impossible to get on a diet without dairy or meat. It's also full of many other nutrients. So recommending milk doesn't sound so crazy to me, even though I agree the milk lobby is a known powerhouse in many countries.
- cies 4y ago
  To me the science is clear on dairy: really unhealthy. Meat/eggs is another story wrt health (though I dont eat it). B12 is produced by bacteria in dark soil, and water soluble; so found in surface waters. Now we and most livestock drink treated water, so no more B12 in the water. Hence I supplement. The B12 that's in meat, eggs and dairy is typically also supplemented to them in their feed.
  - jiggywiggy 4y ago
    What substances in milk are unhealthy according to your research? There might be issues with contanimated milk, but milk in itself doesn't seem to have much negative substances in it. Lactose intolerancy is annoying for those who have it, but doesn't seem to have much consequences. Kale also has similar effects.

simonsarris 4y ago

Oh it's true. From Credit Suisse Foundation in 2015: 54% surveyed doctors falsely believed eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol. Concluded: "Clear example of the level of misinformation that exists among doctors." > Just read Harvard's nutritional advice pages Haha. The Economist: A researcher at the University of California uncovered documents from 1967 showing that sugar companies secretly funded studies at Harvard University designed to blame fat—not sugar—for the growing obesity epidemic from: https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie https://www.1843magazine.com/features/death-of-the-calorie

reducesuffering 4y ago

Ah, yes, https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-plate/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/healthy-eating-... , the Harvard guide telling you to checks avoid potatoes, the most nutritionally diverse thing you could live off of solely for longest, and to eat 'healthy' vegetable oils like processed canola and soybean oil...