Top Nutritionists Attempt To Reach A Consensus

…and end up in a food fight. This would be funnier if it didn’t have such profound implications for health. I don’t know why anyone pays attention to that quack Dean Ornish. It was low-fat recommendations like his that almost surely killed my father thirty-five years ago. I enjoyed this, too:

In the spirit of the conference, he did make a concession: Red meat, a staple of a Paleolithic diet, “is a real problem” due to its carbon footprint, said Eaton, and he proposed a more sustainable Paleo diet that instead derives its protein from plant sources, poultry, and seafood.

Because nothing is more important when it comes to nutrition than carbon footprint. And this:

Those who follow a low-glycemic diet might eat, for instance, pasta but not bagels, parsnips but not potatoes, grapes but not raisins.

Bagels are worse than pasta? Who knew?

3 thoughts on “Top Nutritionists Attempt To Reach A Consensus”

  1. They didn’t give details on their ultimate “consensus”. Did Boyd Eaton agree with it? Or did they just vote and he was outvoted? They loved the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee report. All of them?

  2. My impression is that an otherwise healthy individual can do well on a range of diets, so long as certain minimal nutritional requirements are met.

  3. After years of exhaustive research, I’ve determined that most people should eat foods that start with vowels (apples, apricots, avocados, antelope, eggs, icecream, omelets) and avoid foods that start with consonants.

    UK Express article about actual research that found they had no idea how a particular food would effect a particular person.

    It looks like my vowel/consonant dietary theory is about as good as most “scientific” advice.

Comments are closed.