Because, naturally, humans can only be informed about a single topic: their career. Therefore, programmers are only capable of being knowledgeable about programming. And doctors are only capable of being knowledgable about medicine. And plumbers are only informed about plumbing topics. Really?

Thanks for this... It's kind of funny considering I've probably done as much reading on nutrition science the past 5-7 years as I have programming (almost 30 years into this career). Mostly in that there's been so much mis/disinformation regarding food and nutrition over the past couple centuries, and I have a lot of health issues as a result.

I bring the above up, because even a lot of doctors are ill informed. Not to mention nutritionists that are institutionally trained in dogma first, for licensure. Australia is over a decade ahead of the US at this point, and EU is about half that ahead. US nutrition is too entwined with industrial agriculture.

On TFA, I don't have too much opinion on the specifics. Other than gatekeepers gonna keep gates. It's as likely big pharma ran the numbers that they'd make more with this medication being OTC today, where a few years ago it was better gatekept. And they just, finally, pushed for OTC from the FDA. That mostly comes from my general opinions around the incestuous relationship of the FDA and private industry (similar to USDA).

See this is a great example, you've studied this topic extensively but don't seem to know the absolute basics of the industry.

"Not to mention nutritionists that are institutionally trained in dogma first, for licensure."

Nutritionist is not a protected title in the US or Australia, and actually requires no training whatsoever. It does require training and licensure to become a dietitian, because it's a clinically focused role. In many cases dietitians have prescribing privileges and are prescribing recipes for intravenous or tube fed nutrition.

That's why they're so heavily regulated my dude, I promise you clinically focused dietitians are not using the kind of industry research you're talking about. They are following protocols established over decades of clinical practice.

And if you're wondering why doctors are ill informed, it's because they're not typically trained in nutrition outside of the basics (outside of gastroentorology). Modern medical teams rely on a ton of support staff, one of those being clinical dietitians. Your doctor's job is to know who to consult.

So, because I displaced the term dietician with nutritionist conversationally you side step into a diatribe. You do realize that a lot of people have learning disabilities that make it difficult to remember specific terms in their place? It's kind of like a mental block in trying to remember. I have this when it comes to proper names all the time. It doesn't mean that I don't have an understanding of the conceptual base.

So, dieticians never suggested limiting cholesterol, and cutting out all saturated fat?

People mix up the title all the time, it's no big deal. I'm mostly focused on the fact that you were upset by the licensing requirement. I took that as evidence that you were not aware that dietitians are often a clinical facing role, with clinical responsibilities such as writing prescriptions.

Was I incorrect in that assumption? Or do you genuinely want to relax the licensure requirement for people who write IV prescriptions?

I'm not upset about the licensing requirement... I'm upset that said licensing is based more around establishment dogma (standard of care via USDA) than actual known nutritional science.

You're misunderstanding. It's not that they can't know things outside of programming (which is your strawman), it's that they usually don't make the real effort to learn, and think reading a few blog articles makes them knowledgeable about a subject.

At what point does one cross this arbitrary barrier to being proficiently knowledgable in a subject outside their profession?

I'm a self taught developer with nearly three decades of experience, still spending 10+ hours a week expanding my craft (reading/experimenting). But in the past 5-7 years have spent twice that time on food and nutrition science study. Part of that understanding research quality, not just quantity, and the value of different types of testing vs study.

So you believe all of that time you put in suggests that you know more about the subject of food and nutrition?

To put it another way: if you could have acquired all of that knowledge without spending so much time and effort, then why didn't you?

Yes, I believe all that time I put into learning means I do know more than most. And no, I didn't suggest that I'd have that knowledge without the time, effort and study, never did.

I'm not sure what you are asking exactly. The initial response above seems to indicate that a person shouldn't speak on something outside their primary career. So my question is, at what point is one able to pass the bar of being able to speak to a subject materially?

To be honest, it seems like we mostly agree, so I don't see what the issue is.

>The initial response above seems to indicate that a person shouldn't speak on something outside their primary career.

Already addressed this in the very comment above that you replied to. This is incorrect.

Regarding where the "bar" is exactly, that is of course subjective. But I reject any idea that its subjectivity implies that all opinions are valid or whatever it is you're suggesting, because they're not. Some opinions are uninformed, and I have no problem saying so.