Hacker News Reader

Sure but "my personal experiences match up with the expert consensus from the past decade" (and really longer, the 2005 food pyramid was for slightly more grains than veggies, not double) isn't a particularly strong argument for disagreeing with the expert consensus.

If what you're saying is "I disagree with expert consensus from the 80s", well then sure, but so does the expert consensus! That's how the scientific process works (slowly).

View on HN

My argument is that my prior experiences seem to work better for guiding my meal choice than all the formal knowledge presented to me.

Which is ironic considering what the discussion is about: you conducted your own scientific experiment on yourself, disproved the consensus-accepted rule, and came to new conclusions.

To achieve that, you needed to have enough confidence in yourself and your ability to measure and feel stuff (which some people think is bad, apparently) versus some consensus which purports to know better.

Courageous new science regularly blasts old knowledge and education to bits, and that's a good things.

And my point is that your failed to do even a trivial amount of research into what consensus is.

If "knowledge" was only what you were presented in primary school, the world would be a very different place.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com