[buzzcut]

> "there aren't doctors out there recommending cutting out fats and subsisting on sugar"

That's true as far as it goes, but the internal fight inside the medical research community was whether it was fat or sugar that was the culprit in a host of physical problems. Fat won in a slam dunk, even though it turns out to be wrong. Doctors are largely not researchers, and they are taught what was the conventional wisdom. There is no suggestion of malice, just bad (or at least overturned, but it was actually bad in this case) research that has been promulgated in the medical community. A lot of doctors think fat is bad and pay less attention to sugar.

The Guardian recently wrote about this: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-con...

So, it's not bullshit to say a lot of doctors don't understand the nutrition.

OK, later! :)

[wdewind]

> That's true as far as it goes, but the internal fight inside the medical research community was whether it was fat or sugar that was the culprit in a host of physical problems. Fat won in a slam dunk, even though it turns out to be wrong.

The idea that you can isolate it down to fat vs. carbs is "not even wrong." It doesn't ask the right questions, and ignores many other confounding factors. I don't really want to keep restating this point.

There are healthy high fat diets. There are healthy low fat diets.

[DanBC]

You don't think you risk making a similar mistake by simplifying a complex bunch of interconnected stuff into "fat = okay, but sugar = really evil"?