Note that the post you replied to recommended a registered dietician, and yet your post seems directed at nutritionists. The distinction is important because the former group is generally much better educated than the latter.

Not sure about the USA, but in Canada the requirements to become a registered dietician include a B. Sc. and writing a standard exam, whereas there are no requirements to call yourself a nutritionist.

You are correct but OP is pointing to generally recommended controversies, backed by FDA and other agencies by 'research', running for decades. I wouldn't bet much on somebody holding a title being automatically correct.

If we as mankind don't know these super-complex effects that can take half a lifetime to manifest, no amount of titles will get you closer to truth.

I said nutritionists but should have said 'nutrition science'. Thanks for pointing it out.

That varies heavily from state to state. It's anywhere from no regulations (e.g., New Jersey) all the way to only licensed dieticians may provide individualized nutritional counseling at all (e.g., Georgia). In general, states lean towards the latter.

I think calling nutrition is a pseudoscience is a huge disservice. It’s a rapidly growing science in its nascency. Older research suffers greatly from “correlation is not causation”. That’s the reason that ideas like “saturated fat is bad” are getting debunked now.

I am of the opinion that most every educated person with enough interest in nutrition is best off doing their own research and forming their own opinions that are backed up by scientific research. This is a great place to start: https://examine.com/

That's why I said "I am this close to actually calling it pseudo-science". You make a good point and I agree. But I think it's way way way too early in nutrition to treat it with the confidence that we do. We just don't know much of anything yet, really. It's VERY complex.

There is certainly an element of legitimate scientific inquiry. That is drowned out by the volume of people using medical credentials to enrich themselves with half truths.

I am of the opinion that most every educated person with an interest in nutrition should ignore the questionable scientific research and focus on what empirically produces good results. Look at masters athletes who are still healthy and competing at a high level into their 60s. What do they eat? You can't go too far wrong by copying their diets.

This is just so wrong. Pro athletes can get away with so much, because they exercise. An average sedentary person will not have the same allowances.

Most pro athletes get fat and sick once they retire, because old food habits stay.

I had a friend who was in a soccer team for the uni. He was a really good and dedicated athlete. He ate a bucket of KFC and 1.5L of Coke (sugar version) almost every day. He was shredded with six pack abs. Because he had 2x training sessions per day.

Needless to say, now he’s 30-something with a belly. Your average couch potato looking person.

nradov suggested to look at athletes who were still fit at 60, not your friend with a belly at 35.

Somebody said that retired pro linemen tend to be slim, because they got really tired of having to carry 300+ pounds, and that retired pro wide receivers are the ones that run to fat, now that they don't have to stay fit for speed and agility.

There are university nutrition courses, but I hear you. I worked in the bodybuilding supplement industry for 3 years and I'm not even sure what's right or wrong anymore, there was so much psuedoscience going on mixed in with the real science. It is so easy to fake "real looking" science that it is no wonder your average Joe falls for it.

use examine.com or search for scientific literature yourself to sort through the mess.

Also to be honest most doctors deal with what is wrong with you or really wrong with you.

This isn't because they don't care, it's just not where their daily attention is.

this post deserves a large, large, helping of down votes. there is easily available evidence based approaches to necessary micronutrients/supplements needed to maintain a variety of different health standards and keep illnesses at bay. denying that in a huff is pure ignorance. Check out Dr. Rhonda on youtube or Dr. Peter Attia's podcast the drive (not nutrition specific, but covered in depth at times).

> Check out Dr. Rhonda on youtube

That's basically the embodiment of what is wrong with the field. Saying that nutrition science is at most in its infancy and we shouldn't derive any actions from the tiny amount of well understood information that there is ('eat something digestible with a little variety and don't drink sea water', everything else is also common sense or basically speculation).