I wasn’t reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn’t change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.
Dude, the expired paper doesn’t matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You’re going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you’ve won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.
they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren’t updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on
I wasn’t reading carefully. I missed this. it doesn’t change whether the other paper expired, is the current position of the academy, or whether papers that relied on it should be considered reliable unless they update.
Dude, the expired paper doesn’t matter. It has no relevance. And what do you think dietary authorities around the world are doing, just blindly parroting this one organization? No, they follow their own processes, use their own research, and come to their own conclusions based on what they consider to be the best available evidence.
Like, what are you even trying to accomplish here? You’re going so far out of your way just to miss the point, to what, feel like you’ve won even some tiny crumb of an argument? Get your priorities straight.
some of that evidence was a paper which has since expired. if those organizations aren’t updating their positions at least as frequently as the AND is, then we cannot believe that their positions are any more valid than the expired AND paper that they relied on
it’s the exact paper linked in the initial comment to which I replied.