Interesting article on nutrition

[Laura Corin]

And how hard it is to get scientifically-valid answers to questions.

 

http://www.vox.com/2016/1/14/10760622/nutrition-science-complicated

 

It seems to me that retrospective looks at times where food was controlled for one reason of another (the UK during WWII, China before it opened to the West, various populations eating traditional diets) are more valuable than the modern attempts at tracking behaviour change.

[Pawz4me]

Excellent article!  I'm going to spend some time today reading through the links.  Thanks for posting.

[DawnM]

This completely confirms what I have been saying for years.....although it is said in a much better way and more accurately than I could have said.

[Carrie12345]

Terrific article!

Fortunately, we at least have the ability to study nutrient content, digestion, and absorption.  We may not be able to accurately predict cancers and the like, but we have the information that tells us how to adequately fuel a typical body.  (Yes, I specified "adequate" and "typical"!)

[regentrude]

Good article - but really, that's all pretty much common sense and not surprising new information.

And the most important problem with these studies, and the reporting about them, is a lack of distinction between causality and correlation.

Edited January 18, 2016 by regentrude

[Liz CA]

Good info and by and large there is nothing earth shaking or new. I still believe that the source of our food (how it's grown) is a better way to judge than dismissing entire food groups. Those who know they feel better w/o gluten should of course listen to their bodies, those who don't feel that great when consuming red meat (like me) will likely substitute with fish and poultry. Overall, it's the quality of food I am more interested in. And I don't always need to know why, just knowing what feels better than something else is enough to make me gravitate toward the food that makes me feel better. Nothing new here either.  :)

Edited January 18, 2016 by Liz CA