Declaring War On Frappuccino And Diet Soda Is Not A Valid Government Dietary Guideline

You are not Frank-people because you eat Doritos, despite what people write in lifestyle/diet books and New York Times journalists who gush over them want you to believe.

Such claims mean pure food is kept by rich white people for rich white people. It’s not a science, but it’s not worth being wrong.

Many outside of science like to feel validated by evidence, but few can actually be. Historians want to believe that their hot on Xerxes at the Battle of Thermopylae is based on data but we all know that they are just writing the opposite of what someone else wrote and demanding new interpretations. In the post-COVID-19 world, epidemiologists writing diet books have taken to claiming that they are just as legitimate as infectious disease experts, while MDs claim to be epidemiologists and lawyers wrapped in the banner of reason and claiming that they should bring the CDC. regulatory power over rental housing.

Dinner is one of those times when the ‘follow the details’ fetish doesn’t serve us well, but some dietitians and nutritionists have become less concerned about it, claiming that ‘science’ is on their side, when that they do not use any science whatsoever. . They only use a correlation derived from food diaries. But to sound like they have empirical evidence, they will use chemicals and nutrients.

Dinner isn’t the chemicals you put into your body, but the government’s nutritional guidelines have made acting more important. I wrote about the National Institutes of Health’s 2025 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee and how it reached out to consumers. I noticed that you knew you were getting a government meeting when they spent an alarming amount of time congratulating and thanking each other for the fine work they had done preparing for the meeting. And then talking about diversity again and again, when their own proposals are as diverse as the Kentucky Derby. All in the name of “Health Equity”, ironically being ignored by everyone without a six figure income and a generous food budget.

Jamie Oliver said parents who packed school lunches with “processed” foods were abusing children. He can be on the government food panel because no one in the food industry would ever hire him. Photo by Andy Butterton/PA Archive via The Conversation

No one has noticed that you can’t legitimately make population level recommendations by estimating demographics, which is the opposite of diversity, because it ignores cultural diets and tries to force everyone must adhere to uniform chemical inputs chosen by the committee. People don’t live like that so 95 percent of the population just ignores them, and that’s what happens right now. I started laughing when one panelist noted that the Healthy Eating Index hasn’t been updated since 2015 and claimed that people want to know “When is the new one coming out?” No one knows that except the printer who has the GSA contract to produce things that will be ignored on the walls of public schools. Most people don’t know that the Healthy Eating Index exists. By the 1990s, when epidemiologists clearly established the food pyramid and had an agenda against affordable food, consumers stopped paying attention to government food panels, even though journalists do their best to promote them as scaremongers. food every time.

If you have been sharing these, you will notice that they are happy with the “continuity” of their members. That is part of the problem instead. They are really happy that anyone who has ever consulted for “industry” is excluded – in other words, they are happy that the best people are not allowed on the panels. Of course there will be continuity when you create standards that only insiders can meet, and the way to be an insider is to be second tier so no company considers you an expert and you pay for advice .

True experts would criticize breezy definitions of ultra-processed food. ​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​%) expert. Their “strong associations” – whatever that means, high or low risk – don’t really show up at all risk, they just correlate that a population of people ate sugary drinks and some of them got type 2 diabetes. Which means they just show danger and admit it all. In terms of dose, some epidemiological papers use even 5 orders of magnitude, so they consider 1 candy car the same as 10,000 to declare a hazard. A risk they cannot determine so panel experts should not claim they do.

They do it anyway. Because these panels are filled with self-selected people of common belief, they love to see “statistical significance” when critical thinkers point out that they are ignoring obesity in all causes of mortality, despite being literally the strongest link.

No, UPFs must be magic, calories are eliminated, when every single scientific study shows that calories matter.

They want to go after a frappuccino and aspartame and claim that’s a nutritional guideline. No, it’s just a way for the government to further alienate the people they claim to save from evil Corporations and themselves.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *