Oooooooh laaaa laaaaa…
The main problem with nutritional science is that any causal evidence requires very long follow-ups, very large samples and that confounding variables are very hard to adequately control for.
So, generally, the quality of studies are very poor. And the problem with scientists “changing their minds” all the time is that poor quality studies can be pretty convincing. But they can never be good evidence for causation. Even when there are many of them and they have large samples.
It’s the same problem we have with the effects of drug use or of other lifestyle factors on health.
Some nutritionists have pointed this out. E.g. regarding the hypothesized dangers of a high salt intake.
Expert consensus. Not mainstream wisdom. Mainstream wisdom is not what science is about. And yes, a lot of the things mentioned in the article goes against current public diet recommendations in many countries. Including recommendations about lowering your salt intake, consuming large amounts of (fine) starchy grains, avoiding red meats, etc. Which highlights the unstable foundations of nutritional science in general, more than it disproves decades of previous research. And diverging results like these are very common in nutritional science, even regarding the issues where the consensus is strongest.
What they wrote about 5 portions of fruit and veg is very true. No body actually does that so why say it. I like fruit and veg but we only have 3 meals a day. You’d have to have fruit and veg in all 3 meals and two snacks to do that.
And eggs being demonised by people from the 50a is very obvious. My friend lost loads of weight by eating mostly eggs and oats. Theres nothing wrong with eating them regularly.
Ive also seen it argued that you’re more likely to have a heart attack if you overweight. And you are more likely to be overweight from eating carbs.
LS! I do read The Guardian every day. And I do not think The Guardian is an authoratative voice on the subject of Health.
Everything in moderation. meaning Everything.
Including moderation!
Words large they are my padawan learner.
Jk!
You make more sense than the article.
I don’t think we disagree, but just to dispel any possible ambiguity by “mainstream scientific wisdom” I don’t mean “mainstream wisdom”. Obviously.
Good, because I just had a steak today. I am happy to hear that it may be good for me 
.
Man I would kill for some food now. My fridge is empty and the closest store is along way from home.
@anon9798425 I don’t think we disagree, but just to dispel any possible ambiguity by “mainstream scientific wisdom” I don’t mean “mainstream wisdom”. Obviously. Therefore, the alleged opposition between “expert consensus” and “(scientific) mainstream wisdom” is bogus and probably not altogether innocent.
I’m torn between asking you to try harder and not to try so hard.
I’m arguing against your very bad wording as well as the bad points you made. But you deleted your post, so you can pretend you meant anything now.
Stop trying to be such a snob. And in return, I’ll try harder and less hard. If that makes you feel more coherent.
@anon9798425 I haven’t read your last comment but from previous experiences I can guess the gist of it. There is a reason why I muted you, yet you insist on pestering me, trying to get my attention, with malicious comments which try to be cutting and exacting but that only succeed in coming across as snotty and half-baked, a real eyesore for any attentive reader. One of your problems is that you seriously overestimate your semantic acumen, your sensibility for a text. Little wonder you have such a rigid and normative approach to language as if to overcompensate for those failings.
I’m going to try to be stronger and ignore your replies - muting doesn’t unfortunately stop me from seeing when you reply. But you could also do the decent thing and leave me alone.
@Treebeard In the end I opened your comment by accident. And a good thing too because you had the guile to suggest that I deleted my comment after seeing yours. This is incorrect, I only saw your reply after I had already deleted my comment. You can check with the mods if you’re feeling paranoid about it.
About the rest I already replied I think in my previous comment. Time after time you fail to understand even very basic things, and this is not down to your English, which is excellent, but your shoddy use of language. If you can’t understand the difference between “mainstream” and “scientific mainstream” I feel sorry for you. You’re such a control freak you can’t stand the word “mainstream” being used to describe the majority view in the scientific community. Good gracious. Somehow you think the word “consensus” is more grown-up and sophisticated (speaking of snobbery) than mainstream, despite the fact that the word consensus is actually more problematic in this context where clearly, as this study makes abundantly clear there is no real consensus. Im done explaining such obvious stuff to such an irascible and haughty little Jante. Little wonder your frequent moralising forays usually devolve into a sad caricature of political correctness gone wrong.
Hilsen
And there’s the meltdown.
@anon9798425 I can see you keep replying. Fine, it’s down to me to try to be stronger.