They're nameless government entities. Depending if you feel knowledge always grows you may change your ideas. Waves of ignorance litter the medical field today, as hysteria was accepted as the only disease women could have: the wandering womb theory. Consensus of ignorance is still ignorance.
There's no real evidence that high red meat is bad. There's no evidence that eating more veggies is bad.
I can't believe I'm about to spend time responding to someone who opens with this, but here we go.
>It's not based on the best credentials, it's a job.
Where are you getting this information? Looking at the CCS guidelines, for example, one sees that the authors are MDs or PhDs at medical schools.
>They're nameless government entities.
Not a single one of the bodies I cited is a government entity. What are you even talking about?
That is not they key problem as you originally laid out. Your original position is that they key problem is they ARE wrong. Further, I don't know that I've ever read any sort of paper or written guidelines that explicitly says "we might be wrong here." Should those all be ignored for that reason? The papers you yourself cited in a comment above don't explicitly say they may be wrong, yet you have no problem taking them as 100% established fact. This seems like a bit of a double standard and sloppy logic.
>Coupled with the intense lobbying
Do you have evidence for corruption in these institutions?
[1] https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/wheres-the-beef-mea...
I'm not advocating for any kind of diet, though. I'm advocating for trusting the consensus opinion of multiple independent groups of scientists to determine what the data does and does not say about what's healthy.
Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
You've cited the debunking of a demographer to try to debunk the work of cardiologists. Okay?
>Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet?
Once again, I, and probably the vast majority of people on HN, aren't properly educated to have a comprehensive view of the medical literature on the matter and properly digest it all. I'm not going to participate in a debate on the merits of guidelines published and signed by thousands of medical and scientific experts from around the world, to even try and assume I could do so with a couple of hours here and there when they're looking into these issues for 8 hours a day for years on end would be arrogant on my part.
>It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?
If you want to challenge someone who might be able to give you an informed answer, your best bet is to talk to an actual expert on the matter. You can find some people in the articles below.
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/1/111/5556353 https://onlinecjc.ca/article/S0828-282X(21)00165-3/fulltext https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S073510971...
Ok…point taken
>..and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
Or more likely…probably will not come to the correct conclusion. Every past “accepted” or “settled” scientific consensus now known to be wrong once had its merits tested from the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it people?
In the last few years science has received a black eye because the populace was told we should blindly trust experts. We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money. I can weigh their opinion, but blindly trust? Not any more.
So what? You're quickly approaching "Science is a liar sometimes" territory. Has scientific consensus been wrong in the past? Yes. So what?
>We see now that experts are frequently wrong and affected by politics and money.
Define "frequently," because I sure as shit haven't seen them be wrong more often than not, and I REALLY haven't seen them be wrong more often than commentators on the internet.
As a practical matter most of us would probably do better by ignoring the science and instead mimicking the practices of successful masters athletes. While there is a certain amount of survivorship bias, people who are still achieving sub-elite results into their 60's must be doing something right.
There is no evidence that participating in sports wears out joints. Joints evolved to move. The majority of people who need joint surgery lead sedentary lifestyles. Building strong muscles helps to stabilize joints and reduces the risk of injury.
Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion.
>why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?
I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.