Why do people resist the idea that carbs are worse than fat?

It is interesting to see comments on this forum that involve the strategy of reasoning with the public to get them to accept their idea.

Next time you see somebody drinking a soda explain to them what fructose does metabolically to their bodies. Your message is a lot less effective than seeing a polar bear mommy drinking a coke on a wintery day or seeing kobe bryant dunk a basketball and popping open a bottle of sprite.

Consider what's happened: First, health authorities made observations about diets and various diseases, creating hypotheses along the way. Next, they gathered some data and analyzed it. They drew conclusions from that data and made recommendations based on those conclusions.

Over time, more observations were made. More hypotheses were developed, more data was collected and analyzed, and the conclusions changed. This is the nature of science. We make decisions based on what we know at the time. If new evidence is found, we revise our theories and make different recommendations.

I think there is a problem, but it doesn't lie with the health authorities themselves. (Not that there aren't problems in the health field, but that's for another discussion.) Instead, the problem lies in how various other authorities use the information provided by the health professionals.

As the information and recommendations make their way through government, the issue becomes politicized, and politics frequently wins out over science. As the information is reported by the mainstream press, it is also sensationalized and frequently blown out of proportion. Going by the headlines in many publications, everything that is bad for you becomes good for you and vice versa every few years.

Rarely, if ever, do you see an attempt at understanding nutrition, the nature of the scientific process behind the recommendations, or a call for simple moderation. Yet that's what we need. We need government officials who are willing to listen carefully to the health professionals without allowing lobbyists to influence their decisions. (Corn sugar? Really?) We also need a press that is willing to educate the public rather than simply splash attention-getting headlines and content-free articles everywhere.

I doubt we'll see either of these things happen in our lifetimes, so it's up to us to educate ourselves, our families, and each other. Then, maybe, we'll start eating right and enjoy a healthy life.

This is actually not very good PR for science. The wonderful illustration here is that after billions of dollars and millions of lives we realized we were wrong? What system couldn't do that?

To me, what this actually illustrates is the mistaken way we use science today:

Today: "Ok, it looks like it's probably fat that's bad. Ok, everyone! No more fat"

And everyone laughs and points at all the stupid uneducated fundies still eating fat.

Tomorrow: "Oh, we were totally wrong about everything we said. Ok, everyone! Stop what ever you're doing!"

And now we get to laugh at all the stupid people who don't eat fat anymore.

Scientific method never proves anything, it's only good for disproving things. If a (valid, i.e. falsifiable) theory doesn't get proven wrong we develop more and more confidence. That still doesn't mean it's right though.