1. Current confusion over ‘what to eat’ and controversies on the putative health effects of dietary sugar, fat, salt, and cholesterol are not driven by legitimates differences in scientific inference from valid data, but were engendered by five-decades of deeply flawed, demonstrably misleading, and largely pseudoscientific epidemiologic reports based on memory-based (self-reported) dietary assessment methods (M-BMs).
2. The use of M-BMs is founded upon two logical fallacies: a ‘category error’ and reification (i.e., the fallacy of misplaced concreteness).
3. M-BMs do not measure dietary intake; these methods collect reported memories of perceptions of dietary intake. These data are irrelevant to the physiologic effects of consumed foods and beverages and diet-disease relations.
4. Statistical analyses of impermissibly transformed (i.e., reified) perceptions of dietary intake led to a fictional dietary discourse with significant public health consequences.
5. M-BMs are pseudo-scientific and should not be used to inform public policy or establish the Dietary Guidelines for Americans.