4 ms·
Can someone point to the problem? It’s not like chips and soda are the primary recommendations. Unless PepsiCo is getting into veggies?
by demondemidi 3y ago
Can someone point to the problem? It’s not like chips and soda are the primary recommendations. Unless PepsiCo is getting into veggies?
- JohnFen 3y agoThe problem is that in the past versions of these, the influence of food companies has resulted in guidance that was not entirely nutritionally sound. There is every reason to think the same influence will have the same result in the future.
- voisin 3y agoDo you understand why Research studies have to disclose similar links? Bias is a real thing.
- demondemidi 3y agoYes I’m not fucking stupid. I’m curious where the bias is in the current dietary “plate” recommendations. There’s nothing at all like the fat is bad sugar is good crime of the 60’s-90’s So if bias is a real thing show it to me or do you just make vapid comments and run?
- voisin 3y ago> There’s nothing at all like the fat is bad sugar is good crime of the 60’s-90’s It wasn’t “sugar is good”, it was “carbs are good” and this is still a primary component of the recommendations. You’ve given an excellent example of why potential avenues of bias need to be disclosed. Even if it isn’t obvious today that something isn’t scientifically valid, it is harder to identify where errors might be if we don’t know the potential sources of bias. It is worth pausing and asking why these food giant ties were hidden rather if there was no bias arising from the relationships. But to answer your specific question, I would guess there’s bias in today’s “plate” recommendation with respect to animal products, but this is only a guess as I’m no expert - simply a fan of unbiased experts designing these things.