"How do lay-people decide on complex scientific issues when there are so many vested interested all pulling in opposite directions?"

Good question Steven - particularly in this day and age.

I think the answer lies in making a judgment about the risks involved in NOT following a certain course of action. If you have been diagnosed with terminal cancer, how many experts do you need to consult before you decide that yes, maybe it is time to get your house in order?

If the conundrum is what diet to choose or exercise regime to follow (lifestyle choices), well ... I think there are more important things to be more concerned about - unless of course the precursor to the choice is life threatening. Otherwise, whatever you feel comfortable with.

As a lay-person, there is nothing wrong in accepting the collective wisdom of the science academies or respective medical institutions. However, it only takes one bright spark of genius to overturn the scientific consensus - it's a matter of finding that genius.

Dear Steven,

You did point out the fact that even scientists
have a hidden agenda (including CSIRO - for whom
I've worked for several years, by the way).

The opinion I gave you was strictly
from my perspective. That's why in the
case of any health issues, (including dieting)
I would have to go to my GP because they have
my medical history. I'm still being monitored
for certain things.

Scientists often differ in their opinions,
you have to do what's right for you,
common sense or that 'gut feeling,' is also
a good way to go, as I stated in my previous
post.

Steven,

The Nature 'Editorial' was not in fact an editorial, but a news report on Stanton's criticisms of the CSIRO diet. The critics were in fact Stanton and Patrick Holford, a British pill pushing crank.

The diet is designed as a weight loss diet and so limits carbohydrate intake in favour of protein. Certainly, exercise needs to be part of the equation.

As to who to believe? Look at the statements made. Are they internally consistent? What are they based on? Do the people talking have a good knowledge of the research? These are questions the layperson should ask. What the layperson should not do is seek to affirm their own prejudices. Richard Feynman in his famous advice to young scientists says: "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself -- and you are the easiest person to fool". It is good advice for the layperson too.

In this particular discussion, I would immediately discount Holford's views. That leaves the CSIRO scientists and Stanton. The Scientists maintain that a high protein diet is what works best. They could have opted for plant proteins as well as or instead of meat protein. So Stanton is half right, but as you say her position is colored by her promotion of vegetarianism. Belief in a lifestyle choice is much more likely to influence your statements than someone paying you to do some work.

As for me? Fortunately I understand metabolism, so I know the original diet would work best with exercise and that you could, if desired, substitute plant protein for animal protein, so long as you didn’t increase the carbohydrate content.

persons with belief systems usualy are very easy to pigeonhole for out of the mouth the heart speaks . If you are not gaining knowledge and changing you are usually a biggot and a knowall . Knowledge is doubling every 5 years if you are not constantly up grading you are becoming obselite .

Agronomist,

I am inclined to agree with you with one quibble. Meat is more than just protein and I am not certain to what extent plants can be perfect substitutes for meat. For example, I would guess that vegetarians may have to add iron supplements to their diet.

To be honest I am suspicious of Dr. Stanton. Writing to the Prime Minister over a diet book strikes me as grandstanding. She has also not been forthright about her vegetarian agenda.

For example in the Age article she writes:

"The real challenge is to maintain a good body weight over the long term, by adopting a health-giving, tasty, affordable and ECOLOGICALLY SOUND diet." (Emphasis added)

Ecological soundness is an important issue. But it is a DIFFERENT issue to the one addressed by the CSIRO book. Conflating the two seems ingenuous.

At the same time I cannot help but be a little suspicious of research, partially funded from meat industry sources, that finds people should consume a kilo of meat a week. The CSIRO book would have had more credibility had more disinterested parties funded the research.

So far as the Nature editorial is concerned, I am not sure we are talking about the same thing. The editorial to which I refer was titled "A recipe for trouble" and appeared on page 1052 of the 21 December 2005 edition. It is savagely critical.

Quote.

"…The diet is also being promoted as being beneficial for everyone, whereas the published research indicates that it is superior to a high-carbohydrate diet only for a subpopulation of overweight women with symptoms of metabolic dysfunction."

It is definitely an editorial piece, not an article by or about Stanton and Holford.

Stanton and Crowe (not Holford) had an article in Nature of 12 April 2006. I have not read that piece. However the fact that Nature published Stanton's article does give her views some credibility

Steven, my apologies. I am working from the online version of Nature and there is not a December 21 issue in 2005. There is a December 22 issue, which carries the News report I mentioned on pages 1060-1061. It also carries a short editorial on Page 1052, which refers to and leans heavily on the news report. The 'critics' mentioned in the editorial would seem to be Stanton and Holford.

The quote you provide comes from the editorial. My reading of the editorial is that it is critical of the way the diet book is being hyped rather than the research. If you like, the criticism is that the hype exceeds what the research has established.

The article in the April 13 edition of Nature in 2006, page 868 is in fact a 3 paragraph letter (correspondence, rather than a research letter) by Stanton and Tim Crowe.

The first paragraph:

Correspondence
Nature 440, 868 (13 April 2006)

Risks of a high-protein diet outweigh the benefits
Rosemary Stanton1 and Tim Crowe2

School of Medical Sciences, University of New South Wales, Randwick, NSW 2031, Australia
School of Exercise and Nutrition Sciences, Deakin University, 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood, Victoria 3125, Australia

Sir:
Alastair Robertson of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) says that the CSIRO's high-protein Total Wellbeing diet is "based on peer-reviewed science within robust experimental frameworks" ("Diet's healthy blend of science and practicality" Nature 439, 912; 2006). These small studies reported no significant difference in weight loss between a high-protein meat-based diet and a control diet with lower protein content. The exception was a small sub-group of women with high triglyceride levels, who lost more weight over 12 weeks with a high-protein diet.