6 ms·

I think its necessary to point out that one of the authors is Mary Weiler and Steve Hertzler who work for Abbott - who makes Ensure products and Pediasure produ

I think its necessary to point out that one of the authors is Mary Weiler and Steve Hertzler who work for Abbott - who makes Ensure products and Pediasure products which supplement protein for the old and the young.

steego 3y ago
Thank you. I knew it read like a PR piece.
justrealist 3y ago
I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable? This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.
- kuhewa 3y ago
  [flagged]
- elteto 3y ago
  I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure. So, no. Not the same at all.
  - dr-detroit 3y ago
    [dead]
- c54 3y ago
  You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
  - justrealist 3y ago
    > The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem. I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
    - ahelwer 3y ago
      You're talking about the difference between a scientist making like $50-150k/year salary and entities making millions or billions of dollars a year in profit. These are in no way comparable.
      - briandear 3y ago
        When their grants depend on an “emergency,” I’d say they are exactly comparable.
    - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
      I think the point is valid. There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product. I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
      - justrealist 3y ago
        > I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
        FrustratedMonky 3y ago
- chaostheory 3y ago
  I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved
lolinder 3y ago
They're also behind Similac, and have a history of funding research that makes infant formula look better than it actually is. As others note, this doesn't make the study automatically invalid, but it does make it highly suspect. I'm personally growing rather tired of industry-funded nutritional research that inevitably makes the product being pushed by the funder look good, often in contradiction to other research funded by opposite industries. Fat vs sugar, carbs vs protein, dairy, red meat, alcohol. At this point you can find a study supporting pretty much any dietary decision you want to make.
hammock 3y ago
So who funded the original US dietary recommendations? Edit: and the studies that the USDA cited to support its recommendation
- EatingWithForks 3y ago
  Originally, and currently, the USDA does.
  - GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
    And the USDA is run by an executive from the Dairy Export Council, which supports dairy farmers and promotes milk and other dairy product consumption.
  - throwaway-blaze 3y ago
    The mission of the USDA is not the health of the populace, it's to promote the products of the agriculture and food industries.
cheschire 3y ago
I've seen multiple ultra-processed foods (with which meal replacement shakes are often grouped) topics in unrelated places. Was there some big study or government guidance that was changed recently?
- jassyr 3y ago
  Probably spamming their media contacts and trying to spend down their Q3/Q4 PR budgets
  - cheschire 3y ago
    Maybe. But I did see the UK recently published something related so I'm wondering if there was some recent guidance push in the US as well. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-processed-foods-and-health https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on...
friend_and_foe 3y ago
Well if you haven't figured it out already, all nutritional advice in the US and most other countries is not about nutrition. In the US particularly, it's about special interest and national security by way of food security. All of these studies, changes to the food pyramid (and the food pyramid itself) and the like are designed to entrench existing food production industries at the expense of foreign dominated industries to ensure food security, particularly in the event of conflict or other fast changing global circumstance. It's viewed as a win-win by the policy setters: our buddies make money, they break us off a little, and nobody starves, even if they're not ideally healthy. A little corruption goes a long way! All it takes is a little herding of the sheep so to speak and everyone is better off than yesterday. There's conflicts of interest, there's perverse incentive, but until very recently it worked alright, developed countries virtually eliminated foodbourne illness and life threatening vitamin deficiency. Only recently has there been an issue involving pharma, healthcare in general and food production that created this very profitable obesity quagmire we find ourselves in today. But not so long ago, the approach worked out pretty well. You're never going to get good nutritional advice from the government, or from industry insiders. You might get better than the status quo, and you might get facts, but at best you're getting carefully selected honesty and lying by omission. And unfortunately the "other side" of this is so chock full of crystal healing quacks that you're basically on your own. My current model on this is: carbohydrates from fruits and starches, focus more on fat, then protein, in that order, and particularly animal fat and animal protein. This should cover trace minerals and fat soluble vitamins so that I don't have to think much about them and focus on macros.

steego 3y ago

Thank you. I knew it read like a PR piece.

justrealist 3y ago

I mean. Is it unreasonable that researchers work at a company that they think is doing something valuable? This is a datapoint but it's not really a black mark. It's like PROFESSIONAL CLIMATE SCIENTIST WARNS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. Well, yes.

kuhewa 3y ago
[flagged]
elteto 3y ago
I can’t buy a box of climate change but I can buy one of Ensure. So, no. Not the same at all.
- dr-detroit 3y ago
  [dead]
c54 3y ago
You’re right, the scientist example is benign as you say The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. If the example was “professional climate scientist selling cloud seeding chemicals suggests we should do more cloud seeding to fight climate change” then there would be cause for skepticism.
- justrealist 3y ago
  > The difference is when there’s a profit motive for the person to inflate the actual numbers or distort their recommendation. Grant money is distributed based on the perception of a problem. Nobody would be funding climate change research if the scientific consensus is that it wasn't a problem. I am 100% a believer in anthropogenic climate change, but it's ridiculous to claim that there's no financial incentive for researchers to find positive results.
  - ahelwer 3y ago
    You're talking about the difference between a scientist making like $50-150k/year salary and entities making millions or billions of dollars a year in profit. These are in no way comparable.
    - briandear 3y ago
      When their grants depend on an “emergency,” I’d say they are exactly comparable.
  - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
    I think the point is valid. There is "A-LOT" more money in selling Protein based products than there is in any pro-climate change product. I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Whereas, with food products, there is a clear and long history of the 'science' being warped by the financial incentives.
    - justrealist 3y ago
      > I'd like to hear what the positive financial incentive is for promoting climate change? How are they making money? Grant money, this is not a mystery. That's what all research labs are on the hunt for, at all times.
      - FrustratedMonky 3y ago
chaostheory 3y ago
I feel that it’s fair to point out biases, especially when there is financial self interest involved

lolinder 3y ago

They're also behind Similac, and have a history of funding research that makes infant formula look better than it actually is. As others note, this doesn't make the study automatically invalid, but it does make it highly suspect. I'm personally growing rather tired of industry-funded nutritional research that inevitably makes the product being pushed by the funder look good, often in contradiction to other research funded by opposite industries. Fat vs sugar, carbs vs protein, dairy, red meat, alcohol. At this point you can find a study supporting pretty much any dietary decision you want to make.

hammock 3y ago

So who funded the original US dietary recommendations? Edit: and the studies that the USDA cited to support its recommendation

EatingWithForks 3y ago
Originally, and currently, the USDA does.
- GartzenDeHaes 3y ago
  And the USDA is run by an executive from the Dairy Export Council, which supports dairy farmers and promotes milk and other dairy product consumption.
- throwaway-blaze 3y ago
  The mission of the USDA is not the health of the populace, it's to promote the products of the agriculture and food industries.

cheschire 3y ago

I've seen multiple ultra-processed foods (with which meal replacement shakes are often grouped) topics in unrelated places. Was there some big study or government guidance that was changed recently?

jassyr 3y ago
Probably spamming their media contacts and trying to spend down their Q3/Q4 PR budgets
- cheschire 3y ago
  Maybe. But I did see the UK recently published something related so I'm wondering if there was some recent guidance push in the US as well. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on-processed-foods-and-health https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/sacn-statement-on...

friend_and_foe 3y ago

Well if you haven't figured it out already, all nutritional advice in the US and most other countries is not about nutrition. In the US particularly, it's about special interest and national security by way of food security. All of these studies, changes to the food pyramid (and the food pyramid itself) and the like are designed to entrench existing food production industries at the expense of foreign dominated industries to ensure food security, particularly in the event of conflict or other fast changing global circumstance. It's viewed as a win-win by the policy setters: our buddies make money, they break us off a little, and nobody starves, even if they're not ideally healthy. A little corruption goes a long way! All it takes is a little herding of the sheep so to speak and everyone is better off than yesterday. There's conflicts of interest, there's perverse incentive, but until very recently it worked alright, developed countries virtually eliminated foodbourne illness and life threatening vitamin deficiency. Only recently has there been an issue involving pharma, healthcare in general and food production that created this very profitable obesity quagmire we find ourselves in today. But not so long ago, the approach worked out pretty well. You're never going to get good nutritional advice from the government, or from industry insiders. You might get better than the status quo, and you might get facts, but at best you're getting carefully selected honesty and lying by omission. And unfortunately the "other side" of this is so chock full of crystal healing quacks that you're basically on your own. My current model on this is: carbohydrates from fruits and starches, focus more on fat, then protein, in that order, and particularly animal fat and animal protein. This should cover trace minerals and fat soluble vitamins so that I don't have to think much about them and focus on macros.