The section on nutrition essentially is a “mainstream-advice data dump,” because I am not a professional nutritionist, so my judgments would likely be less accurate than mainstream advice. Analyzing each review or meta-analysis on diet individually would take far too long, and I didn’t want to simply link to the Harvard School of Public Health, because they give too much irrelevant (though interesting) information, and their articles seem somewhat poorly organized.
Could you explain what’s wrong with place-holders? When I do happen to find articles explain topics accurately, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.
As for the eye-rolling parts, I kept them just in case somehow someone missed the obvious, which can happen. For those who didn’t miss the obvious, they can easily skim those parts.
The section on nutrition essentially is a “mainstream-advice data dump,” because I am not a professional nutritionist, so my judgments would likely be less accurate than mainstream advice.
The problem is, the mainstream advice is bad. Figuring out what’s true is hard, but it’s better to admit ignorance than say something actively harmful. I would specifically flag the recommendations concerning sodium and omega-6.
When I do happen to find articles explain topics accurately, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.
You did with nutrition.
But then, how do you see your role here? As someone who assembled a bunch of information from the ’net? What you published looks basically like a set of personal notes. I am sure they are useful for you, but why do you think there’s more value for other people, say, in your notes rather than on the Harvard School of Public Health website?
I value (high quality) personal notes, which I see as a informal “literature review”.
As with a normal literature review: If I’m already familiar with the topic, I’ll skim for aspects I’ve overlooked, for any new developments, and for any conclusions that differ from my own. If I’m not familiar with the topic, I use the overview to estimate the value of doing my own research, or just to glean the easiest information and call it good. These are valuable because I don’t want to spend time monitoring new updates to a field, I want to double check that I haven’t reached any weird conclusion without knowing that it’s weird, and I don’t want to bother making a gazillion queries and screening out all the crap if I trust someone else to do so. And a well constructed bibliography alone can be very valuable.
For this post, I thought most of the sections were good. Yes, the section on needing money wasn’t informative, but I treated it as a signpost saying “hey you, if you’ve never thought about it, maybe you should run some numbers on what that third liver is going to cost you”, in the same way that the sentence on sleep apnea was just there to point out that snoring might be taken seriously (which many people don’t know).
To be honest, I skipped the nutrition section because I was already know that the field is a mess outside of some relatively clear conclusions, (on things like trans fat, vegetables > candy). I like a good set of notes should communicate “this consensus is absolutely solid” vs “this is the mainstream consensus, but here are some credible detractors and everyone admits that we don’t understand it as well as we’d like” vs “there is no real consensus”.
a good set of notes should communicate “this consensus is absolutely solid” vs “this is the mainstream consensus, but here are some credible detractors and everyone admits that we don’t understand it as well as we’d like” vs “there is no real consensus”.
Yes, indications of (un)certainty around the offered advice would certainly be helpful.
Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said, “When I find articles that explain articles accurately and without irrelevant and repeated information, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.” The Nutrition Source seems to have a lot of information that is either repeated information, or irrelevant. Though one who is looking for “easier” reading and more detail on why different dietary interventions work would best look at the Nutrition Source, others would probably be best looking at my article.
The section on nutrition essentially is a “mainstream-advice data dump,” because I am not a professional nutritionist, so my judgments would likely be less accurate than mainstream advice. Analyzing each review or meta-analysis on diet individually would take far too long, and I didn’t want to simply link to the Harvard School of Public Health, because they give too much irrelevant (though interesting) information, and their articles seem somewhat poorly organized.
Could you explain what’s wrong with place-holders? When I do happen to find articles explain topics accurately, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.
As for the eye-rolling parts, I kept them just in case somehow someone missed the obvious, which can happen. For those who didn’t miss the obvious, they can easily skim those parts.
The problem is, the mainstream advice is bad. Figuring out what’s true is hard, but it’s better to admit ignorance than say something actively harmful. I would specifically flag the recommendations concerning sodium and omega-6.
What makes you think the mainstream advice is bad?
You did with nutrition.
But then, how do you see your role here? As someone who assembled a bunch of information from the ’net? What you published looks basically like a set of personal notes. I am sure they are useful for you, but why do you think there’s more value for other people, say, in your notes rather than on the Harvard School of Public Health website?
I value (high quality) personal notes, which I see as a informal “literature review”.
As with a normal literature review: If I’m already familiar with the topic, I’ll skim for aspects I’ve overlooked, for any new developments, and for any conclusions that differ from my own. If I’m not familiar with the topic, I use the overview to estimate the value of doing my own research, or just to glean the easiest information and call it good. These are valuable because I don’t want to spend time monitoring new updates to a field, I want to double check that I haven’t reached any weird conclusion without knowing that it’s weird, and I don’t want to bother making a gazillion queries and screening out all the crap if I trust someone else to do so. And a well constructed bibliography alone can be very valuable.
For this post, I thought most of the sections were good. Yes, the section on needing money wasn’t informative, but I treated it as a signpost saying “hey you, if you’ve never thought about it, maybe you should run some numbers on what that third liver is going to cost you”, in the same way that the sentence on sleep apnea was just there to point out that snoring might be taken seriously (which many people don’t know).
To be honest, I skipped the nutrition section because I was already know that the field is a mess outside of some relatively clear conclusions, (on things like trans fat, vegetables > candy). I like a good set of notes should communicate “this consensus is absolutely solid” vs “this is the mainstream consensus, but here are some credible detractors and everyone admits that we don’t understand it as well as we’d like” vs “there is no real consensus”.
Yes, indications of (un)certainty around the offered advice would certainly be helpful.
Sorry, I misspoke. I should have said, “When I find articles that explain articles accurately and without irrelevant and repeated information, I see no reason to repeat what they have already said.” The Nutrition Source seems to have a lot of information that is either repeated information, or irrelevant. Though one who is looking for “easier” reading and more detail on why different dietary interventions work would best look at the Nutrition Source, others would probably be best looking at my article.