2 replies to this topic

[tom a]

This article describes something that might be called the fallacy of composition when it comes to nutrition, and its consequences.

http://www.nytimes.c...=1&ref=magazine

[health_nutty]

One of the best articles I've read on what to eat.

However I still believe that some (very few) supplements help based on research studies. I can see why people are so skepical about supplements in general because 99% have no basis for their claims

[niner]

This article makes some good points, but I found his anti science attitude kind of annoying. The problem isn't science so much as US Ag policy, corporate farms/food industry, and an incompetent or irresponsible media. Most of the knowledge that he uses to make his points, like the omega-3 story, came from the very "reductionist scientists" that he derides. Except that the scientists probably aren't as "reductionist" as he thinks they are. Paying three times as much for your food is great if you're a rich hippy, but there are some who can't afford it, and I would argue that you can eat healthily even if a lot of what you eat isn't technically "organic". A supplement-free 19th century diet is fine, if you want a 19th century health outcome. Some of us are looking for more than that.