Nutrition
is a highly debated topic and part of this reason is due to the
misrepresentation of scientific research. In the end, if we tried to eliminate
every food we’ve been told is bad for us there wouldn’t be much left to eat.
The key is to focus on eating high-quality food.
Nutrition
Science
Ideally,
our nutrition information should come from randomized controlled studies (RCTs)
from reputable scientific journals. These journals have a peer-review process
that helps to prevent bad science from being published. An RCT administers an
eating protocol to one group (the experimental group), while another group
continues to eat normally (the control group) and the results are compared. Other
groups of researchers then try to verify these results on different populations
and under different circumstances. After a number of papers have been
published, someone will compile the results of these studies into a
meta-analysis or write a review paper on the subject. This helps eliminate some
of the bad science that has slipped through the cracks and increases the odds
that the original findings weren’t due to chance.
Instead,
we tend to get our nutrition information from articles written by those who don’t
understand the science or by those who aren’t interested in research that
contradicts their beliefs. These articles tend to be based on research using observational
data. In observational research an experiment hasn’t been conducted. Data is
compiled based on the results of questionnaires. This research is dependent on
your ability to remember how you’ve been eating for the last year or so. It
turns out that people tend to think they eat much less and exercise much more
than they think they do. However, the goal of observational research isn’t to
make policies but to generate hypotheses that can then be tested through RCTs.
If
we combine all of the ideas from the various nutrition camps into one list it
means we should try to limit our intake of carbs, fats (especially saturated fats),
meat (especially red meat), dairy, grains, legumes, soy, and foods high in
cholesterol. What’s left?
What
these groups tend to forget is that food quality is important. Even in the
scientific literature this often isn’t controlled. Thus we fall into the trap
of believing statements such as “red meat is worse for your health than
smoking.” Grass-fed beef and fast-food hamburger come from the same creature,
but should they really be lumped together into the same category? If you dig a
little deeper you’ll find that every cell in your body requires cholesterol,
saturated fat is required for building certain key hormones, and carbs are a
high-energy fuel source that suppress cortisol and also play a role in thyroid
function. This is not to say that there aren’t individual differences; some
people have celiac disease or are lactose intolerant or process carbs better
than others. However, we need to start by shifting our focus from highly processed
foods to natural foods before we should start to worry about minor issues such
as macronutrient ratios or whether or not we should be drinking cows’ milk.
The healthiest foods usually don't have labels proclaiming their health benefits.
What’s
the Difference?
Processed
foods differ from natural whole foods in that they are made to taste better and
last longer. While this sounds great it comes at a cost. In the act of
processing food much of the vitamin and mineral content is lowered while the
fibre and omega-3 fatty acids are removed. Sugar is then added for flavour as
well as other ingredients which may be potentially unhealthy. Eating foods with
a lot of sugar will increase your risk for developing diabetes and obesity. As
well, foods with a poor omega-3 to omega-6 ratio or with a high sugar content
increase inflammation in the body increasing the risk of heart disease.
In
order to lower your risk of diabetes, obesity, and heart disease you should
focus on eating nutritionally dense whole foods instead of highly processed ‘foods’.
Stay fit,
Jonathan Pratt
No comments:
Post a Comment