Thread by @ahhite

Of course the issue of ideology, commercialism & tribalism isn't limited to the "LCHF community." (And yes, there is such a thing, as I will explain.)

Yes, if textbooks and guidelines reflected available data, there might not be any need for a LCHF community.

But ...

https://twitter.com/janvyjidak/status/1176385616331907072

The textbook & guideline makers have been getting it wrong since around 1977, when the collective thinking in nutrition took a hard turn away from science, prompted (largely) by US nutrition policy. Because policy *can* & *does* warp science (see Hite & Carter, 2019 in RHM),

a community formed around protesting this shift when it happened. It has been fragmented in the past, but has never not existed, as can be seen by alliances & communication among those folks protesting.

Because: words do things. And one of the things words do is make things.

And one the things words make are alliances & communities (we get fancy in the social sciences & call them "discourse communities"). These communities share common perspectives, "language," shibboleths, leaders, reference texts, heroes, etc.

Social media has made it easy for these communities to form & be studied, but they existed earlier as conferences & special journal editions & informal get-togethers & many other forms.

Most recently, this discourse community has shaped itself around an approach to diet

that limits carbs. At the same time, this community. which (like most communities) is constantly shifting shape & which has poorly defined borders includes those who:
- protest lack of science behind dietary guidelines
- eat only meat

- restrict carbs while eating no animal products
- sell supplements & radiation spray

Some in the community try to steer folks in one direction (away from hyperbole & towards data) while others want to expand claims to include "cures" for things that seem (otherwise) incurable.

The reasons (imho) it is taking decades for authorities to incorporate available data into mainstream thinking is (in part) due to

--the history of fragmentation of the community,
--a massive dose of opportunism (who would be the "next" Bob Atkins?)
--& the logistical inability to "gather" forces.

Technology has been a powerful player here.

We are now seeing change in mainstream perceptions due (at least in part) to changes in those parameters.

While science will (in the end) trump hyperbole & "snake oil," the politics of nutrition policy/science have slowed that process down considerably.

This is why I think many of us are calling for cohesiveness & community. This is a process similar to when professional groups set up their own association. It means "policing" themselves, setting standards & letting some folks "in" & keeping some folks "out."

Basically, "fringe" (using that term ironically) communities like LCHF start acting like "mainstream" communities (like those that champion dietary guidelines) by creating boundaries.

When that happens they begin to get traction, build momentum & change things.

For a while, there is (what seems to me) to be an awkward phase when the "fringe" community actually has to manifest tighter control & higher standards in order to become "mainstream." After that happens though, the community reshapes itself or changes.

It may even become unrecognizable as a community, as there may be no more central purpose for its existence, as
@janvyjidak noted.

However, rest assured:
1) "Snake oil" salesmen will always find some "snake oil" to sell, and

2) Like "snake oil" salesmen, discourse communities will also always exist.

And like xckd said, they are nested fractally: imgs.xkcd.com/comics/crazy_s…