Provide counterarguments

[Carl-Richard]

"I just follow the dietary recommendations from the national institute of public health; they have 1000s of scientists that have done more research and better research than I could ever do".

[Basman]

People are different with unique needs, lifestyles, metabolisms, allergies, etc. It's impossible to generalize the best diet for everyone. It doesn't hurt to experiment with your diet to find what works for you. Just be honest about your results. I know that my mom calms her stomach by eating salty licorice. Don't ask me how that works.

Dietary guidelines are good frameworks for the average person though. The average person is so haphazard with their diet that following any health oriented guideline is an upgrade, as that usually just means more veggies and less junk.

Edited 23 hours ago by Basman

[zurew]

Dude wants to win an argument against his stepfather so bad that he is fishing for arguments .

One easy argument is just to point to history and to the fact that the standards and the recommendations have changed a lot over the years(just in the 21st century) . Also list him examples, where some of these health institutions were really wrong and also list him all the non-knowledge related things that can have a significant effect on what is being recommended by these institutions.

The other thing is what @Basman mentioned - try to point out why sometimes its reasonable to do an @integral move, where you do your own experiments and where you figure out your own thing. For instance, if after taking a vitamin pill you immediately feel dizzy (and after you repeat this process multiple times, the exact same bad event/effect happens over and over again), then it doesnt matter how much the experts tell you how you ought to feel by and after taking the pill (if your experience tells you a completely different story).

Or maybe try to find a close family example, where someone got fucked over by a doctor or by some health expert (maybe that would be more emotionally moving)

But be careful dude, dont turn your stepfather or (whoever else who you are arguing against) into a conspiracy theorist. 

Edited 23 hours ago by zurew

[Basman]

Are you about to win an argument or losing a friend?

[UnbornTao]

"When was the last time the recommendations were changed? Has it always been like this? Is it the same in other countries? Why (or why not)?"

Just spitballing here.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Dude wants to win an argument against his stepfather so bad that he is fishing for arguments .

L0l. I mean I have 40 arguments already. I just want to hear more. And I already gave him my main position (on diet) which is about how I feel when doing x thing and then taking things from there (and invoking science as an explanatory framework is natural there).

I'm more existentially threatened by the entire thing and what he said before that. "Instead of learning about health, [...]". That shot me right in the skull. There is such a thing as people with low openness, people who are so pragmatic they are willing to drop entire fields of inquiry just if it's practical and "safe enough". Meanwhile here I am, wishing to find more arguments about one thing this person said. I'm just different.

And it's kinda sad because my mom (who is married to my stepdad) is a doctor and constantly talks about health. That's like the main topic at the dinner table. Meanwhile he seemingly has a principled position that he doesn't talk about health (he literally answered when queried on his silence during those discussions "I don't talk about those things"). He likes to talk about (the culinary aspects) of food, wine, and maybe some engineering and physics but that rarely enters the discussion. He's like the complete opposite of my father 😂

Edited 21 hours ago by Carl-Richard

[Osaid]

I tried to follow the RDA and I'm pretty sure it's actually impossible to meet the whole amount through whole foods without overconsumption or eating like 3 meals in one day. It's physically a struggle. Idk if I'm autistic for actually trying to follow the guidelines, but it don't work. The best is meeting about half of what they recommend daily, I think.

That being said, you'll know if it works by how you feel when doing it.

[Osaid]

Also the OP is an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy that they're trusting. There's nothing to really argue against other than "I'm putting my faith and trust in something other than me" as like a philosophical position, which isn't really diet-related.

[zurew]

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I mean I have 40 arguments already.

Oh then I dont think that you will see anything new here.

The real move that will actually work is to use your stepfather's phone or laptop and then html edit the national institute's website and write a paragraph saying "I recommend you to do your own research".

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

And it's kinda sad because my mom (who is married to my stepdad) is a doctor and constantly talks about health. That's like the main topic at the dinner table. Meanwhile he seemingly has a principled position that he doesn't talk about health (he literally answered when queried on his silence during those discussions "I don't talk about those things"). If we're not talking about wine, food (the culinary aspects), or something absolutely milquetoast like that, no discussion. He's like the complete opposite of my father 😂

I dont debate stuff like this with family members, because I know based on past experience that it wont work.

43 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm more existentially threatened by the entire thing and what he said before that. "Instead of learning about health, [...]". That shot me right in the skull. There is such a thing as people with low openness, people who are so pragmatic they are willing to drop entire fields of inquiry just if it's practical and "safe enough". Meanwhile here I am, wishing to find more arguments about one thing this person said. I'm just different.

Interesting , but also expected to see the "trust the experts" heruistic in action by a very pragmatic person.

But given what you said there , now this sounds a lot less like about you wanting to win an argument and sounds much  more  like you trying to justify for yourself and trying persuade yourself  using the collective intelligence of actualized.org, why it was worth spending the time (the time that you spent researching health and diet related stuff) instead of just doing the pragmatic move and using the "trust the experts" heruistic. (im doing a lot of reading into things here; im doing the retarded mr girl empath "I see behind the curtain" move here )

Btw jokes aside this is a very interesting and very complex problem (given your avalaible resources and goals, which option is better - using a quick heruistic or studying the topic deeply yourself and figuring everything out on your own - kind of a false dichotomy, but you get the main point)

Edited 21 hours ago by zurew

[integral]

LOL THIS THREAD.

Hes scientifically conformist, he wants science to tell him what is true not you. Logic is not important.

Show him a large Institution that says to eat a specific diet and that's it.

But what's the real problem, Does he still believe the low fat diet is bad?

Edited 21 hours ago by integral

[Osaid]

6 minutes ago, integral said:

Hes scientifically conformist, he wants science to tell him what is true not you. Logic is not important.

Show him a large Institution that says to eat a specific diet and that's it.

Yeah I think it's a matter of philosophy, not even science or diet. Materialism is often conflated with science when it isn't. Trying to argue science or diet naturally ends up in circles.

Edited 21 hours ago by Osaid

[Leo Gura]

Metabolism is unique per person. No statistical average is good enough to tell you what is right for your metabolism and body. You have to figure out what works specifically for you through trial and error. Science gives you statistical averages, which can work quite poorly if you are on the far end of the bell curve.

It is not safe to assume that your metabolism is just the average.

It is less about doing research and more about listening to what your body is telling you. Your body can tell you things that no scientist can.

Edited 20 hours ago by Leo Gura

[Hojo]

The best argument is that they change it all the time. That means they are grifting what they know. Science always makes absolute claims about something they know absolutely nothing about.

The food pyramid will change again and again and again. Its changed like 4 times since I've been alive.

Its just a guess and it's always a wrong guess that they are always right about.

 

Point to the head of health of America hes a retard.

Tell him to follow the pyramid and see how fat he gets.

Edited 19 hours ago by Hojo

[Carl-Richard]

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Oh then I dont think that you will see anything new here.

40 was probably hyperbolic. But I've thought a bit about it.

 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

The real move that will actually work is to use your stepfather's phone or laptop and then html edit the national institute's website and write a paragraph saying "I recommend you to do your own research".

😃🔫

 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

I dont debate stuff like this with family members, because I know based on past experience that it wont work.

I didn't bring it up. He sort of confronted me about it. I was just explaining why I don't really eat fish (they asked me). And he was like "but what about this: ...".

 

7 hours ago, zurew said:

Interesting , but also expected to see the "trust the experts" heruistic in action by a very pragmatic person.

But given what you said there , now this sounds a lot less like about you wanting to win an argument and sounds much  more  like you trying to justify for yourself and trying persuade yourself  using the collective intelligence of actualized.org, why it was worth spending the time (the time that you spent researching health and diet related stuff) instead of just doing the pragmatic move and using the "trust the experts" heruistic. (im doing a lot of reading into things here; im doing the retarded mr girl empath "I see behind the curtain" move here )

Btw jokes aside this is a very interesting and very complex problem (given your avalaible resources and goals, which option is better - using a quick heruistic or studying the topic deeply yourself and figuring everything out on your own - kind of a false dichotomy, but you get the main point)

Yeah, in a weird way, even though I know what I want, the argument really dug itself into my mind. It's like a really alluring prospect that "what if you can just read a few sentences and that's it?", even when you know about the limitations or downsides of that. So I wanted more reasons to not entertain it as a good argument, even though again I have assessed it essentially for what it is (e.g., I don't have a problem with using institutions as a baseline, but it's the exclusive position of "only that" which is so - disturbing). I think I really just wanted to reground myself in the position that being open and interested in information about all kinds of things is ok. All my life I've been surrounded by relatively open people. It's a first where I've ran into someone this principally not-open.

[Basman]

people can get butthurt over you chosing to not eat certain things. they can feel like your being inconvenient and difficult for stupid reasons or like you think your better than them (especially with vegans). 

[Jannes]

Its actually an argument I use, I find it ridiculous that people dont take big health organizations serious and think they know better after watching a few youtube videos even though big health organizations arent perfect of course. 

Critiques that come to mind are that even large health organizations are paradigm locked. They look at biomarker, things like how a food makes you feel energetically are unscientific. There is much woo woo out there but probably not everything is. 

Giant health organizations can also be corrupted. Either by giant companies will lots of money or to archieve a national goal. In germany for example food recommendations arent solely based on health, environemental impact is also taken into consideration, so less meat is recommended. 

And of course you gotta listen to your body, everyone reacts different to different foods, what is good for most people might not be good for you. 

Edited 3 hours ago by Jannes

[Jannes]

17 hours ago, UnbornTao said:

"When was the last time the recommendations were changed? Has it always been like this? Is it the same in other countries? Why (or why not)?"

Just spitballing here.

Yes.

Big changes in recommendation dont seem to happen that often.

 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Basman said:

people can get butthurt over you chosing to not eat certain things. they can feel like your being inconvenient and difficult for stupid reasons or like you think your better than them (especially with vegans). 

His daughter is a vegetarian, sometimes pescatarian, not sure how he thinks about that yet 😀

Maybe he is projecting some frustration with her onto me. He is very like "rational", "I take every vaccine that comes out", he says like it's a point of pride, like he is scolding those who have a different opinion (not that I'm principally anti-vax). He seems to have placed me in a certain "wacko" alternative box (which I have actually done myself over time through a realization about how alternative people work, but I'm of course of the belief that I'm coming from a more principled and nuanced position and not some sheep-like trendhopper):

I one time on a holiday with them refused taking antihistamines (offered by my doctor mother) to reduce symptoms of mosquito bites, and he was like to my mom "is he antivaxx also?". Then he said the most ridiculous thing: "I knew a guy once who got cancer who refused to take modern medical treatments and only took alternative treatments. He died". That actually blew my mind how ridiculously presumptive and also just brute way to respond to someone who refuses to take some pills for symptom relief for mosquito bites.

Edited 3 hours ago by Carl-Richard