Gary Taube's (edit: sorry, Nina Teicholz's) new substact article about the NIH is unsettling

(Bob M) #1

(You may have to jump through some hoops to read the whole thing. I had to download an app on my phone for the phone version.)

About 5 million for actual diets on humans, and 169 million for “precision health” studies.

(Joey) #2

Many thanks for sharing (in an accessible manner). For me, this is the killer statement…

Color me skeptical, but when nutritionists have little consensus on a single dietary strategy to reverse obesity, diabetes, or most other chronic diseases, how will they slice and dice this zero amount of knowledge into dietary recommendations and medical treatments that can be applied to each and every American citizen? Will zero magically be multiplied by AI to be more than zero? To my mind, the premise is flawed.

(Peter - Don't Fear the Fat ) #3

Yes. But we do. And we have an amazing success rate with almost no profile!

(KM) #4

I just finished reading the same substack - it’s Nina Teicholz, I believe - and that was exactly the same sentence that caught my eye. I Love it when she nails things, just wish the paywall wasn’t there.

And she sure did nail it. Spending potentially billions of dollars fine tuning and individualizing dietary advice that isn’t working in the first place … :woman_facepalming: