Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper “expiring.” You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they’re made, right? Here is from the page about it:
“This article has been removed at the request of the Academy Positions Committee (APC) of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. The APC became aware of inaccuracies and omissions in the position paper that could affect recommendations and conclusions within the paper. After further review, the APC decided it was appropriate to remove this paper for major revision.”
So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.
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
the previous position expired. that is no longer the position of the academy. you can see all the current positions of the academy at https://www.jandonline.org/content/positionPapers
Dude, the first article I quoted is literally from the exact link you sent, and the second article I quoted comes from this link that you just sent now, which is where I found it in the first place. Also, you keep talking about the old paper “expiring.” You know they have to explicitly state when removals are made, and why they’re made, right? Here is from the page about it:
So as you say, unless removed, everything on that page is still considered valid - including everything I quoted. Seriously, just stop. This is getting ridiculous.
it’s written on the paper itself: it expired in december of 2021, and is no longer the position of teh academy.
Ffs, the page you linked: “This Position was approved in January 2025 and will remain in effect until December 31, 2032”
And the page about childhood nutrition: “This position is in effect until December 31, 2025.”
Everything that I’ve cited is still in effect. Seriously, are you delusional?
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.