Why is Nutritional Science So Bad?

Why is nutritional science so bad? In nutritional science the main focus is on healthy foods preventing disease rather than on bad nutrients causing disease. There is also way too much emphasis on the fast food industry being ok and using cancerous chemicals in their food they create, there advertising is much like tobacco companies in that way. Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

Nutrition Science was a major theme in Chapter 9 “Bad Science” of Michael Pollan’s book, In Defence of Food. Pollan discusses whether or not the nutritional science we use today has any influence on gaining knowledge of nutrients and how the lack of certain foods might trigger disease. There were also many questions that arose as to the correct methods that the scientists should use to determine what is good and not good for your body. Pollan took many examples of “bad science” to illustrate that our nutritional understanding of foods is very weak and the methods that scientists use are for all of the wrong reasons. He suggests that scientists should avert their focus on how “bad nutrients might cause disease rather than on how the absence of food, like plant foods or fish, might figure in the aetiology of the disease.”

http://instructors.dwrl.utexas.edu/smith/node/787

These results indicate there's a great deal of similarity between the food companies that market unhealthy foods and Big Tobacco. Both industries rely in misinformation, burying negative data, and confusing the public with conflicting evidence. And just as Big Tobacco has long insisted that nicotine is not addictive and there is nothing unhealthy about smoking cigarettes, the food industry and soft drink companies continue to insist there is no such thing as an unhealthy food. They say that any food, no matter what ingredients are in it, can be part of a healthy diet. They also tend to blame lack of exercise, rather than their foods, for causing obesity. The position of the U.S. food industry is, of course, nothing short of outlandish. To suggest that there's no such thing as an unhealthy food strains the credibility of logic and common sense. Clearly, there are some foods that promote obesity, diabetes, cancer, and other chronic diseases. At the same time, there are other foods that even prevent those diseases.

http://www.naturalnews.com/001693_good_science_food_politics.html

In study after study, that nutrient-based nutrition is bad science. It relies on medical oversimplifications and faulty longitudinal studies. It has helped to create a food industry that is making us fatter, sicker and less satisfied with dinner. So what's the alternative? Pollan argues for the de-medicalization of food. He begins the essay with the secret of healthy eating: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

http://scienceblogs.com/cortex/2007/01/why_is_nutritional_science_so.php

In conclusion nutritional science is bad science. It has helped to create a food industry that is making us fatter, sicker and less satisfied with our food. We need to start eating real food and not too much of it. If we were to cut out the bad crap completely from society we would have a much more nutritious, healthier, happy nation. Remember this: Eat Food. Not too much. Mostly plants.