Sunday, February 17, 2013

Lies and Misconceptions about Nutrition

The mainstream media lies about so many things that I would not be surprised to discover that it often lies about nutrition.

It feels perfectly plausible that the conventional wisdom about nutrition is false or misleading. Just because something makes for a good or persuasive story does not mean that it true.

I cannot pretend to any expertise on these matters but the Authority Nutrition blog’s list of 11 lies, myths and misconceptions about nutrition rings true.

I will leave to others the task of evaluating the accuracy of its claims.


Kath said...

Obamacare will give a reason for politicians to try and control our diet. There is already the food pyramid which is unhealthy, based on false science and promoted by the government for years.
It is possible that we will not even be allowed to decide what diet is best for us and will be forced to eat what is best for the "collective good".
There is already much talk about denying health care to smokers and obese people. That is just the beginning. In the future the health board might decide egg and butter eaters should be punished.
Michele Obama has said she wants to make food distribution one of her causes. No bacon for you!

Sam L. said...

How many times have we heard that something is bad for us, and later that no, it is good for us? And then the other way round?

Unlike "climate science", the "science" is not settled.

Leo G said...

Nice article. Seems well researched. To bad about the comments regarding GMO foods though, as they help to place the blog in Nutter Land.

Anonymous said...

I enjoyed the article, Stuart. Thanks for referencing it.

Seems the message is that the old diet (meat-potato-vegetable) is still a good path. The thing that strikes me is that the "authorities" parrot each other and don't seem clear. Each study is countered with another that says the exact opposite.

Could it be that we're all a bit different ffrom one another? Why does one person have celiac disease while another doesn't? Why are some able to tolerate lots of carbs, and others aren't? Could it be that we're all a tad different than each other? Why does all government policy have to fit into one tidy standard? There's nothing tidy about human differences. we dont each fit into one box in shape, size, etc.

I mean, does someone like Michelle Obama know anything she's talking about, or is this just another "cause" where she can tell others how to live their lives according to one government standard for all? Why is government in the food recommendation business in the first place? I expect them to check/gauge the safety of our food supply, but not to mandate what should, must, ought be eaten! Is this about protecting us from another's malfeasance, or saving us from ourselves??? Says who? Laura Bush focused her efforts as First Lady on literacy, a standard which we can all agree on the standard od success (ability to read) and the value (an informed, prosperous citizenry). Food is a personal matter. Why is everything a crisis or epidemic with one solution (that must be vigorously enforced, lest people be responsible for themselves).

The other thing I saw in this guy's post is that the cheapest, most immediately gratifying foods (grains, soda pop: which contains high fructose corn syrup, which is cheaper than regular sugar) are the most damaging/dangerous. This man seems sensible. What are the other doctors, bureaucrats ad dieticians thinking??? Sam is right, it does remind me of "climate science."


Stuart Schneiderman said...

Thanks Tip, as always. If Michelle Obama is bad for trying to control what children eat, then how about our mayor in NYC... He has now moved from food to packaging... he wants to ban styrofoam cups....

He seems to have forgotten the efforts to ban plastic shopping bags and the number of people who have died because of the bacteria that proliferate unmolested in the more environmentally friendly versions.

Webutante said...

Thanks for this great link, Stuart. There's not one thing here I would disagree with. No not one.

Anonymous said...

Stuart, thanks for the reply. I find Michael Bloomberg to be a remarkably dangerous man. He is a megalomaniac. I had a bad feeling when they lifted te term limits rule for him. Term limits are a good thing. Once the political class centralizes power (which can happen at any level of government), people seeking to influence the political lass become resistant to change, whether good or bad. The powers that be become reliant on the status quo because the evil you know is better than the one you don't. Bloomberg is a demagogue, intoxicated with all forms of power. Kind of like Eliot Spitzer was. What's up with you New Yorkers anyway?

I still hold the "For the first time in my life, I was proud of my country" remark against Michelle Obama. Perhaps I am being boorish with such a grudge, but I really think it was a faux pas that provided extraordinary insight into her thought process. It's not something you say without a foundational belief being in play. It clearly implies she's never been proud of your country until she gets something. That's why I look at this whole food thing and wonder if it's just about food.