It appears there's an effort underway to 'cancel' non-establishment views on nutrition. Seems impossible, yet it's happening. Non-orthodox opinions are being suppressed in many fields-why not nutrition? Hence, a thread for @twitter @facebook @Wikipedia @youtube @instagram etc
https://twitter.com/wokeyondalowkey/status/1405927128676409346
On saturated fats, the vast majority of now ~20 review papers on this subject do NOT support continued caps on sat fats. Official guidelines lag behind (as they always have), but the science clearly no longer supports caps on these fats. List of papers: nutritioncoalition.us/saturated-fats… 2/
Most important was a paper on sat fats in the J. of Am. College of Cardiology. Authors included 4 members of previous USDA-HHS Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committees, saying, basically, we got it wrong on sat fats: Data do not support continued caps 3/ sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
This paper was chosen by Editor in Chief of @JACCJournals as one of the 2020's top 100 papers. 👍Also the @bmj_latest wrote up how these authors tried to reach USDA authorities, but gov't decided to disregard all 'outside' science 4/ bmj.com/content/371/bm…
On red meat, the most rigorous-ever reviews on red meat + health were published in top journal, Annals of Internal Med, and these concluded that the data on red meat was of "low quality" and insufficient quantity to say that red meat caused heart disease, diabetes, or cancer. 5/
These papers are summarized in this guideline: acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/m1…
They refer to 5 other papers that reviewed all the clinical trial (RCT) and observational data using the respected GRADE rating system (used by 150+ public health institutions globally, including the WHO). 6/
They refer to 5 other papers that reviewed all the clinical trial (RCT) and observational data using the respected GRADE rating system (used by 150+ public health institutions globally, including the WHO). 6/
These papers stirred controversy bc they disrupted widely accepted narrative that red meat is bad for health, but is it? The data against red meat are all epidemiology-do not show cause-and-effect. Limits of this kind of science (MANY articles on this) 7/ diagnosisdiet.com/full-article/e…
Fact checkers at @facebook, @twitter, @youtube, @instagram are unlikely to delve into the science. Understandably. But it's v. important to know that are legitimate, top scientists with differing views. "Consensus" science is being manufactured. Eg.:
tamus.edu/wp-content/upl…
8/
tamus.edu/wp-content/upl…
8/
Or, fact checkers at @facebook, @twitter, @youtube, @instagram, see this, just published, on how Harvard scientists used all possible tactics to stifle science contradicted their own. Helps to understand the brutal politics of this field 9/ sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
Field of nutrition is full of Big Food, pharma $$. Sophisticated tactics to stifle 'contradictory' science, manufacture consent are the norm. Please take time to understand this @facebook, @twitter, @youtube, @instagram, and recognize that debate is the life blood of science. 10/
p.s. Recognize that current establishment nutrition is *not* working. That is the super-important, larger context. Rates of obesity, diabetes etc all still rising--all proof that status-quo ideas haven't prevented disease. In this context, we should all be welcoming new ideas
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
