I wish the article was framed in terms of what the author really wants instead of burying it. The author is framing the issue as something mostly non-political, simply acknowledging the existing body of research, but actually wants something very political which is changing the USDA guidelines (which have far reaching effects) to recommend low-carb as essentially the go to default diet. So while the aim is noble the author doesn’t really care about the science except as a useful tool to drive a particular political outcome. And same with the accusation of ignoring science except as a way to make the board look bad because the author would clearly not be satisfied with “we each read in full literally every paper on the subject of low-carb diets but as a group remain unconvinced in its merits for a general recommendation.”
tl;dr the author is probably right about low-carb diets but made sure to frame it in such a way that makes enemies out of the people with actual power who now can’t actually do what she wants without making themselves look uneducated. Shame has never made people dig their heels in /j
> but actually wants something very political which is changing the USDA guidelines (which have far reaching effects) to recommend low-carb as essentially the go to default diet.
That seems like an uncharitable and inaccurate assumption on your part and goes against what the author explicitly stated. The author summarizes their argument at the end of the article: "But the only way to create change is if the Dietary Guidelines considers low-carb as an option. Not a prescription, just an option."
> the accusation of ignoring science except as a way to make the board look bad because the author would clearly not be satisfied with “we each read in full literally every paper on the subject of low-carb diets but as a group remain unconvinced in its merits for a general recommendation.”
The author laid out a pretty clear case for the claim. Instead of engaging with that case, you instead choose to speculate that the author has unreachable standards.
That is not how you engage in good faith discussion.
tl;dr the author is probably right about low-carb diets but made sure to frame it in such a way that makes enemies out of the people with actual power who now can’t actually do what she wants without making themselves look uneducated. Shame has never made people dig their heels in /j