Good quality, recent, independent information on nutrition

[Perris]

An authoritative, recent, and detailed guide on good nutrition, which explicitly condemns highly processed food as unhealthy, is freely available to all online. The assertions made in it are based on independent, published, academic research, and hard evidence, and references are provided, so that those who wish to check the accuracy of the statements, or read further on any given point, can.

https://www.fao.org/nutrition/food-composition/en/

It is up-to-date, and there are also links from that page to numerous detailed studies and summaries on different aspects of nutrition that anyone who wishes can pursue further.



This thread is a follow on to my ‘New research debunks trad views on nutrition’ thread here:

https://www.backyardchickens.com/th...trad-views-on-nutrition.1567953/post-26615525

As with that thread, the focus of this new FAO work is human nutrition, but professional poultry nutritionists are catching up fast.

 

[Perris]

And here is a summary of where we are now (May 5, 2023)
https://www.foodservicefootprint.com/the-big-processed-food-fight/

 

[Sequoia Raven Bird Farms]

Since the first director of the USDA (Max Rubner) was a pupil of the man who discovered protein (Carl Voit) there has always been a cultural bias on how much protein we, and our feathered children, should consume.
Carl Voit knew that humans only needed 48.5 g/day, but he recommended 118 g/day. That's why Max Rubner and the USDA recommended 125 g/day, when now it is 55 g/day.

This bias is not only for protein, it is for many things.
This is why I recommend that if you really want the truth, go to a peer-reviewed medical journal like pubmed.com and read the studies for yourself. Make sure to scroll to the very bottom if you do because they usually have to disclose if they work for a corporation (which may add a bias).

Opinions get in the way all too often, that's why I'm happy to see that this thread exists.
Edit: Lol just saw that there's a new thread oops.

 

[tlcmurphy]

Since the first director of the USDA (Max Rubner) was a pupil of the man who discovered protein (Carl Voit) there has always been a cultural bias on how much protein we, and our feathered children, should consume.
Carl Voit knew that humans only needed 48.5 g/day, but he recommended 118 g/day. That's why Max Rubner and the USDA recommended 125 g/day, when now it is 55 g/day.

This bias is not only for protein, it is for many things.
This is why I recommend that if you really want the truth, go to a peer-reviewed medical journal like pubmed.com and read the studies for yourself. Make sure to scroll to the very bottom if you do because they usually have to disclose if they work for a corporation (which may add a bias).

Opinions get in the way all too often, that's why I'm happy to see that this thread exists.
Edit: Lol just saw that there's a new thread oops.

PubMed is not a journal, it is a list of citations compiled by NIH from multiple peer reviewed journals.

 

[Perris]

Since the first director of the USDA (Max Rubner) was a pupil of the man who discovered protein (Carl Voit) there has always been a cultural bias on how much protein we, and our feathered children, should consume.
Carl Voit knew that humans only needed 48.5 g/day, but he recommended 118 g/day. That's why Max Rubner and the USDA recommended 125 g/day, when now it is 55 g/day.

This bias is not only for protein, it is for many things.
This is why I recommend that if you really want the truth, go to a peer-reviewed medical journal like pubmed.com and read the studies for yourself. Make sure to scroll to the very bottom if you do because they usually have to disclose if they work for a corporation (which may add a bias).

Opinions get in the way all too often, that's why I'm happy to see that this thread exists.
Edit: Lol just saw that there's a new thread oops.

You make a good point that the biases aren't just commercial, they're cultural. And oft times they are completely unconscious and overlooked.

For example, crash test dummy results for car safety are based on a dummy reflecting the average male size and shape, with the result that women suffer more and more serious injuries in RTAs.
https://www.consumerreports.org/car...-focused-testing-puts-female-drivers-at-risk/

When it comes to nutrition, I take a dim view of averages.

 

[Sequoia Raven Bird Farms]

PubMed is not a journal, it is a list of citations compiled by NIH from multiple peer reviewed journals.

Good to know. Thank you.