Establishing credibility, constructing understanding: The epistemic struggle over healthy eating in the Finnish dietetic blogosphere

Abstract

What constitutes healthy eating is experiencing ongoing public debate, and this debate is increasingly taking place on the Internet. In this article, using a dialectical approach to analyse rhetorical discourse, we investigated how six highly popular Finnish nutrition counselling bloggers construct dietetic credibility and understanding. Their argumentation is compared to that of two academic experts contributing to the blog of the National Institute for Health and Welfare. Theoretically, we draw on Michael Billig's notions on how thinking and understanding are pervasively argumentative and reflect wider socio-cultural contexts, and on the dilemmatic nature of common sense. We demonstrate how the popular Finnish nutrition counselling bloggers rhetorically constructed a more particularistic and individualistic understanding of healthy eating in their argumentation in critical opposition to the universalistic and population-based understanding. In the popular Finnish nutrition counselling bloggers argumentation, practical, subjective and moral knowledge was valued, alongside abstract, scientific knowledge. In contrast, the National Institute for Health and Welfare bloggers typically utilised population-based averages and causalities in their argumentation. We argue that arguing over healthy eating in the public domain is fundamentally an epistemic struggle, in which different forms of knowledge and ways of knowing are valued, and dilemmas related to healthy eating are deliberated.

Liberalists and data-solutionists: redefining expertise in Twitter debates on coronavirus in Finland

“…Field experts, including various nutrition therapists, sports instructors, public health nurses and personal fitness trainers, are "grassroots" experts on healthy living. Drawing both from scientific knowledge and experience-based expertise, field experts have acquired an important role in public debates on food and health [Setälä and Väliverronen, 2014;Väliverronen, 2016;Jallinoja, Jauho and Mäkelä, 2016;Huovila and Saikkonen, 2016]. Field experts are often active and skilled communicators using various tools and platforms.…”

Wicked Nutrition: The Controversial Greening of Official Dietary Guidance

“…Steven Shapin, among others, contrasts the scientific field's interest in population-scale evidence with popular diet writers' attention to particular individuals, usually including themselves (Shapin 2007;Penders 2014;Jauho 2014). While hardly a new way to sell diet books, authors' interweaving of personal redemption stories with scientific explanation has in recent years encouraged readers both to try alternative diets, many of them a variation on the LCHF theme, and to take seriously their own experience of those diets-regardless of what the official guidance says (Gunnarsson 2012;Huovila 2015). This emphasis on "dietetic individualism," Huovila and Saikkone (2015) contend, is not merely a rhetorical strategy but an epistemic stance, one that does not reject scientific evidence but (unlike the stance that mainstream nutrition has traditionally defended) also does not see it as the final authority (Maki et al 2014;Moore and Hoffmann 2014).…”

If You can't beat It–Use It: why and how clinicians need to consider social media in the treatment of adolescents with obesity

“…It is also vital that clinicians elucidate how online diet promoters frame their arguments and what evidence base they are using in doing so. It is common that diet promoters in social media use anecdotal evidence (for example, weight-loss success stories) and powerful personal narratives 20 that can be appealing and tempting for adolescents struggling with obesity. But clinicians need to clarify why and how anecdotal evidence is not scientifically credible.…”