For those of us who read faster than we listen, @BiggestComeback nailed all the high points of why #SMPH offers #hope to those seeking #MetabolicHealth, for themselves or their patients.
Probably it's a good bet that in January, I'll still be hyperventilating about how #SMHP's #OneVoiceMetHealth will allow us to educate the public & clinicians in ways that we couldn't do until now. You'll find me here: lowcarbusa.org/low-carb-event…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 2010, Americans had met all of the macronutrient goals specified by the DGA except for the sodium & sat fat ones (& sat fat was very close, 1% away from goal). Of course, this meant the next edition of the DGA shifted the goalposts. Why?
Because we must make SURE that poor health in the US is the fault of the consumer ONLY & has nothing to do with how the DGA have warped our food system, our nutrition education, our health interventions, & our very concept of what a "healthy diet" is.
As long as public health nutrition folks can blame consumers for "not following" a 1-size-fits-all, top-down nutrition policy that NOBODY asked for, they can wring their hands over the poor stupid people -"If they only knew" (as @heymayahey would say) - & never change a thing.
What? I'm not sure where you are getting your information from or what Americans you hang out with when you visit, but I don't know anyone who fits this description. Thread.
I've been trying to avoid going here, but here I go.
The desire to tell other people how to eat, because you are convinced - for some reason - that people do not "care" about their health & therefore "WE" (whoever "we" is) must tell them how to eat 1/n
is EXACTLY how we got into this mess in the 1st place.
It's not my job, your job, or anyone's job to "fix" the lives of people who live in a way that we disapprove of or dislike when they have not asked us for help.
That's how we got dietary guidelines in the first place. 2/n
It's presumptuous (& wrong) to say evidence is "clear" in fields as young as these. This is exactly why we *should* be speaking on this topic: to counter people like you making vastly premature pronouncements about what is clearly *not* "clear." Thread. 1/n @NanciGuestRDPhD
Nutrition as it relates to chronic disease and agricultural management of the food supply as it relates to climate change are (relatively) young scientific fields.
ALL science is tentative & likely to be refuted. This is especially true in young fields of science. 2/n
As for "consensus," at one time, there was "consensus" among 1000s of scientists that: spontaneous generation was a thing; men were smarter than women; white people were smarter than dark skinned people; eugenics (look it up) would make the world a better place; etc. etc. 3/n
To me, this comment & some that follow indicate that there are some misconceptions about how we got where we are now (& thus, I think, some mistaken ideas about how to change the situation). Thread.
1st, lower fat, higher carb national dietary guidelines *began* as a clinical intervention for high risk patients. Then (as now) docs who were trying to the right thing for patients in their care, read research & advised their (high risk) patients accordingly. 2/
Food manufacturers picked up on this. They thought, "Hey, fear & uncertainty MOVES PRODUCT. Let's use this to advertise products that say to housewives 'Hey, your son or husband *might* be high-risk. Protect them by buying our product." 3/