Nutrition advice is full of contradictions:

• Studies have shown that eggs, especially yolks, are high in cholesterol and thus undesirable, but they are now back in favor, having ironically been found to help cholesterol levels.
• Margarine, once considered to be healthier for the heart than butter, is now known to be toxic due to trans fats…but wait…margarine has recently been reformulated to address that concern.
• Meat is necessary according to some people, while vegetarian is better according to others.
• Milk builds a better body according to advertising, but according to others milk is suitable only for calves, and is known to be highly allergenic.
• Raw food is considered better for nutrients and enzymes, but cooked food is easier to digest.
• Fruit is full of those nutrients and enzymes, but also feeds yeast and should be avoided.
• Juices concentrate the benefits of vegetables and fruits, but also concentrate the sugar.
• Fats and oils are all bad, are necessary, or can be good or bad depending on the kind of oil.

 

Books on nutrition are similarly confusing. Within the past few decades there have been nutrition books that hit the best-seller list because they worked. Some of the books said to combine proteins and carbohydrates in a specific ratio, others said to not eat protein and carbs together at the same meal, and still others said to avoid or limit carbs altogether. They can’t all be correct. It’s hard to know where to turn or who to listen to.

 

So why is nutrition such a confusing and contradictory subject?

 

The profit motive

When articles come out promoting margarine, sugar, canola oil, or eggs, an obvious question is: who is paying the writer? The food industry is one of the largest businesses in the country. There are a great many powerful people and companies who take a personal interest in what you’re eating, and their interest is about their profit, not your health. Once you understand this, the fact that there is so much confusion starts to make sense.

 

Studies, studies, studies

When it comes to nutrition research, the word “study” comes up a lot. But how accurate can studies be, when nearly every study disproves something proven by another study? Again, it all too often comes back to profit. Studies cost a lot of money to run, and a company or organization that funds a study usually has a strong interest in having the study come out a certain way.

 

Another issue with nutritional studies is this: They are based on the drug-testing model, in which the tested drug is isolated from all other factors that could influence health. But food and nutrients work synergistically, or together in the body, not in isolation, so such studies aren’t necessarily accurate. Examples of synergy in food include the facts that beneficial lycopene from tomatoes is better absorbed by the body when oil is present, and that whole grains and legumes work together to provide complete protein. Many if not most nutrients work better if certain cofactors are present: iron is absorbed better if there’s enough vitamin C, and probiotics (beneficial bacteria) do their job better if nutrients to support them are present.

 

For a number of reasons, then, even a well-intentioned food or nutrient study can be faulty in its execution or interpretation.

 

Nutritional fad-of-the-month

You can almost pinpoint a particular year by taking note of what new wonder food was being promoted, as well as what foods are on the bad-food list that year. Oat bran, wheat germ, soy products, brewer’s yeast, noni juice, polyunsaturated oils, and even wine have had their moment in the sun.

 

It’s interesting that many if not most of these wonder nutrients are those that are, or were, rare and expensive, and were unknown until relatively recently. Acai berries, goji berries, the grains quinoa and farro, pomegranate, hoodia…these make nutritional news. But when was the last time you heard about the benefits of cheap, common rice or apples? The reasons have more to do with marketing and profit than with health.

 

The latest fad can be identified by the prominent labels on many foodstuffs: no cholesterol, no trans fats, gluten free, contains omega-3s, has antioxidants…the list goes on. Overall this heightened awareness of nutrition is a good thing, but it’s the nutrient- fad -of-the-month approach combined with a focus on single components rather than food as it’s actually eaten that can pose a problem.

 

Okay, so what should you eat?

So now you’re starting to understand why there is so much nutrition confusion. But who can you believe, and what should you eat?

 

Let’s first look at what nearly all nutritionists can agree on as advice for everyone:

• Whole, natural, and organic foods should be eaten, rather than processed food.
• Additives such as all those unpronounceable words on many food packages should be avoided.
• Have sufficient variety: proteins, whole grains, vegetables, healthy fats; raw and cooked, vegetables and meat.
• Avoid white foods: those made with white flour and sugar. Keep in mind that sugar comes in many forms, including fruits and juices, which are too sweet for many people.
• Avoid fried foods and those made with hydrogenated oils or trans fats.

 

This is a good start. If you just follow these few recommendations, you’re well on your way to a healthy diet, and the rest is fine-tuning.

 

One size does not fit all

A major problem with much nutritional advice, and one of the reasons for conflicting advice, is that it attempts to apply to everyone at all times. One size does not fit all, as covered in another article.