People who write lifestyle and diet books or eat Doritos are not Franks. new york times The journalists who make a fuss about them want you to believe them.
Such claims are pure food populism by rich white people for rich white people. It’s not science, and it’s not as right as it is wrong.
Many people outside of science want to feel validated by evidence, but few can actually do that. Historians would like to believe that their glowing take on Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae is based on data, but they are simply writing the opposite of what someone else wrote and insisting on some new interpretation. Everyone knows that. In a post-COVID-19 world, epidemiologists writing diet books are claiming they are as legitimate as infectious disease experts, while doctors Claiming to be an epidemiologist, the lawyer is flying the flag of reason in arguing that the CDC should be given permission. Regulatory authority over rental housing.
Dinner is one of the times when the fetish of “chasing data” doesn’t serve us well, but many dietitians and nutritionists have “science” on their side, even though they don’t use any science at all. I have become reductionist about this. . They only use correlations obtained from food diaries. But they’ll bring up chemicals and nutrients because it sounds like there’s experimental evidence.
Even though dinner isn’t a chemical you put into your body, government nutritional guidelines are increasingly acting as if it is. I wrote about his 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee at the National Institutes of Health and how it is out of touch with consumers. You pointed out that you knew the government meeting was going to be held when they spent an amazing amount of time congratulating and thanking each other for the great job they had done in preparing for the meeting. And we talk about diversity over and over again, even though the actual recommendations are as diverse as the Kentucky Derby. All in the name of “health equity” while ironically ignoring those who don’t have six-figure incomes and plenty of food to eat.
Jamie Oliver said parents who packed “processed” food in school lunchboxes were committing child abuse. He can become a member of the government’s food commission because no one in the actual food industry would hire him. Photo Andy Batterton/PA Archive (via The Conversation)
No one pointed out that you can’t legitimately make population-level recommendations by averaging demographics. This is the opposite of diversity because it ignores cultural diets and attempts to force everyone to conform to a uniform set of chemical inputs selected by committee. Humans don’t live like that, so 95 percent of the population will just ignore them, and that’s what’s happening now. I laughed when one panelist pointed out that the Healthy Eating Index hasn’t been updated since he said 2015 and claimed that people wanted to know “when will the new index be published?” started. No one wants to know about it except the printers who have GSA contracts to produce things that will be ignored on the walls of public schools. Most people don’t even know the Healthy Eating Index exists. By the 1990s, once the food pyramid had been explicitly revised by epidemiologists to oppose affordable food, journalists were working hard on government food panels to promote food extortion at every turn. Yet consumers no longer pay attention to government food panels.
If you’ve been to some of these, you’ll notice that they’re happy with the “continuity” of their members. In fact, that’s part of the problem. In fact, they are happy to exclude anyone who has been consulted by the “industry” – in other words, they know that people at the top are not allowed to be on these panels. I’m satisfied. Of course, creating standards that only insiders can meet creates continuity. The way to become an insider is to be in the second tier, where no company will consider you an expert and pay for your advice.
Actual experts would criticize the fancy definition of ultra-processed foods. Actual experts would warn that there are no papers that claim to scientifically demonstrate a “risk” between drinks and type 2 diabetes. Their “strong association” – whatever that means, high or low risk – is not really shown. Any Even though there is a risk, they only correlate that a group of people consume sugary drinks and some of them develop type 2 diabetes. I mean, they just present a danger, and everyone acknowledges it. Regarding dose, some epidemiological papers use as many as five digits, so he considers one American car to be the same as 10,000 cars in order to declare it dangerous. Expert panelists should not claim to be able to determine risk, as risk cannot be determined by them.
They do it anyway. These panels are packed with self-selected people who share common beliefs, allowing critical thinkers to understand that obesity is literally the strongest link to mortality They have no problem recognizing “statistical significance” when you point out that they are ignoring the cause of the problem.
No, since every scientific study shows that calories are the only thing that matters, UPF must be magic and calories should be wiped out.
They’re after Frappuccino and Aspartame and claim that’s the dietary guideline. It’s not, it’s just a way for governments to further alienate themselves from the evil corporations and people they say they need to save from themselves.
