3 ms·
The Nutritional Science field is such an unmitigated disaster of bad science, unethical science, sponsored "science", and contradictory science. The rot starts
by COGlory 4y ago
The Nutritional Science field is such an unmitigated disaster of bad science, unethical science, sponsored "science", and contradictory science. The rot starts at the top, with a gate-kept Academy of Nutritionists that is far more concerned about increasing Dietition wages and responsibility at hospitals (for instance, they want dietitians writing "food prescriptions" directly so they can bill insurance) than the quality and origin of the research they approve for their database.
It has been multiyear battles to get their "official scientific consensus) moved off things like "eggs are bad" and now finally "meat is bad". Glad to see there's progress being made. Also glad I got out of that field.
- Buttons840 4y agoI don't know. Name an area of research that is more complicated and expensive to study than nutrition science. Fusion? That's less complicated.
- thereddaikon 4y agoIs this a joke? Nuclear physics is definitely more complicated. What super computers are the FDA commissioning to study nutrition?
- Buttons840 4y agoI guess I mean an expanded view of nutrition science, where we fully understand the effects of what we eat. This would be beyond engineering. One thing about engineering is it can succeed or fail fairly quickly, and the results can mostly be replicated. We build a reactor and we soon know whether it works or not. And reactors are something we understand enough that we can design them, and create them. Meanwhile in nutrition we're making educated guesses and watching what happens over decades. What helps one person kills another. We're using statistics to tease out the truth, to get mere glimpses of the truth. We're on the outside making educated guesses about a system beyond our full comprehension. A final thought: Which will happen first: commercially viable fusion energy, or the obesity rate in the US falling below 25%? Which would you bet on? (I am considering the challenge of how to improve the diet and nutrition of an entire nation under the umbrella of "nutrition science" here.)
- thereddaikon 4y agoYou are conflating the state of the art with how difficult something is. As other have noted in the comments, research into nutrition is often poorly distributed and implemented. It often over emphasizes child nutrition and neglects adult nutrition. And it is fraught with bad science and agendas. This says nothing about how complex nutrition is compared to any other field of research.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- COGlory 4y agoThere are many, many, more complicated areas of research, including most other areas inside biology. We have millenia of trial-and-error as a starting point for nutrition. The fundamentals haven't changed, although the problems are new and inventive. Anyways, I'm not complaining about it being hard or complicated, I'm complaining about it being low quality and corrupt. For instance: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074/50-years-ago-sugar-industry-quietly-paid-scientists-to-point-blame-at-fat https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/09/13/493739074...
- simonsarris 4y agoIt is not about complexity of study but about epistemic humility. There is none. If they acknowledged the complexity, there wouldn't have been a "Food Pyramid".
- redanddead 4y agoGot any more examples? fascinating stuff
- gameshot911 4y ago>The rot starts at the top, with a gate-kept Academy of Nutritionists that is far more concerned about increasing Dietition wages My wife is in the process of transferring her international nutrition degree to the US, and we learned that starting in Jan 2024, nutritionists will now need a Masters degree to be eligible for accreditation. Talk about pulling up the drawbridge behind you...
- COGlory 4y agoA Master's degree, plus a $30,000-$60,000 1-2 year competitive unpaid internship.