They clearly have enough background to understand the complexities of human nutrition, but most haven't studied it at all or kept up with the research. It's like asking an ophthalmologist about bladder cancer -- they just don't know.
Consider speaking to a registered dietitian, who actually are trained in this area.
I am this close before calling it pseudo-science but I think it's just the biological complexity that gets lost among nutritionists. We know so little that we shouldn't hand out advice at all apart from 'don't drink battery fluid'. It's hyper confusing:
Salt bad, salt good [1]. Coconut oil holy, coconut oil devil [2]. Fat is evil, fat is saviour from the grandmaster of hell 'sugar' so it's good again. Take your vitamins but actually don't because compound vitamins increase mortality [2] but it actually doesn't matter since uptake is shit anyway. Eat Goji berries because that's what George Washington did to become POTUS (according to that companies marketing). Just kidding, he merely ate bread which is bad for you and just like stopping oat from taking over we need to sell you actual milk for your bone health that also kills you because antibiotics and cholesterol which, newsflash, has no links to heart disease [4]. Etc etc etc............
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/aug/09/salt-not-as-...
[2] https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/coconut-oil
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23255568/
[4] https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/study-says-theres-no...
Not sure about the USA, but in Canada the requirements to become a registered dietician include a B. Sc. and writing a standard exam, whereas there are no requirements to call yourself a nutritionist.
If we as mankind don't know these super-complex effects that can take half a lifetime to manifest, no amount of titles will get you closer to truth.
I am of the opinion that most every educated person with enough interest in nutrition is best off doing their own research and forming their own opinions that are backed up by scientific research. This is a great place to start: https://examine.com/
Most pro athletes get fat and sick once they retire, because old food habits stay.
I had a friend who was in a soccer team for the uni. He was a really good and dedicated athlete. He ate a bucket of KFC and 1.5L of Coke (sugar version) almost every day. He was shredded with six pack abs. Because he had 2x training sessions per day.
Needless to say, now he’s 30-something with a belly. Your average couch potato looking person.
That's basically the embodiment of what is wrong with the field. Saying that nutrition science is at most in its infancy and we shouldn't derive any actions from the tiny amount of well understood information that there is ('eat something digestible with a little variety and don't drink sea water', everything else is also common sense or basically speculation).
This isn't because they don't care, it's just not where their daily attention is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_evidence
In terms of human nutrition we know how to prevent acute diseases caused by deficiencies like kwashiorkor, beriberi, scurvy, Rickets, etc. And we know that excess consumption causes weight gain. Beyond those basics we should treat most nutritional claims with skepticism, regardless of whether they come from a physician, dietician, or nutritionist.
If relevant policy-makers want to speak to me privately I'd be happy to but I had an instance of symptoms that 8+ well-recognized doctors at Stanford were unable to diagnose for a half a year, but a dietician that spoke to me was able to give me an answer to in about 10 minutes that seemed to solve my problem over a period of a few weeks after I started followed their advice.
This is bunk. Antibiotics, chemotherapy and gene therapy are three treatments, off the top of my head, that are proven to treat causes and not symptoms.
Functional Medicine, on the other hand, has a history of being fined for false marketing [1]. I would be shocked if an entire percent of medical practitioners would touch it.
C's get degrees, etc, etc.
It's dangerous, because it can come off as 'anti-science' but this is why I'm skeptical of many experts.
Just think about how many shitty engineers you know.
I know dozens of devs who I wouldn't let push to prod (not just because pushing to prod is bad), and they make 6-figures. There must be correspondingly bad doctors
None? Passing the PE exam is no joke. An engineering degree only counts as four years (half) of the experience required to take the test.
Maybe software devs should have something similar? Then when someone calls themself an engineer (or your own word, don't use ours) you know they meet a minimum level of competency and experience.
I once worked with a guy who had gotten his MD in a different country. Didn't have any luck getting work when he moved back to the US, and I can understand why - I wouldn't trust him to cut my toenail based on his competence in his new profession.
Yes and some of them graduated in the upper half of the class.
> There must be correspondingly bad doctors
Things that you don't get taught, wisdom, humility, engagement, and for want of a better word diagnostics.
Better a wise humble dummy who cares than a foolish smart person who doesn't.
I got straight A's in my IT and CS classes, but DGAF about English and History. My overall GPA wasn't impressive... but I still got into VA Tech. Am I a bad programmer?