Jeff:
>These studies seem to be saying our previous focus on
>fats, carbohydrates, fiber, etc. is somewhat misguided
>and instead we should look at what is unique about
>natural (unprocessed) food. They also hint that
>supplements, special diets, and miracle foods are not
>the source of good health.
I am skeptical of all studies until I know their funding. Many universities
are taking research monies under conditions that make the study results
problemmatical. The financing of studies by various industries for
self-serving reasons is rampant. If the study doesn't "discover" what they
want, they do not publish it. And researchers hungry for grants have been
known to fix studies to produce the result desired by the funder. Either
the Atlantic Monthly or Utne Reader ran a long article on the subject last
year.
Studies that focus on one particular nutrient are easily skewed, even if
the research parameters are sound. The human organism is complex and
adaptable. And a given food has different qualities depending on its
production factors. I have read that some oranges are devoid of vitamin C.
Certain generalizations may be made but I think we are a very long way from
understanding human nutrition and its effect on health. We should use our
common sense rather than knee-jerking our dietary choices based on
so-called studies.
Fat is a good example of how the whole lifestyle must be considered. I have
known people who lived long, vigorous lives while eating lots of fatty
meats. But those people also worked their bodies far more than the norm.
As for supplements, it is impossible to get enough of some nutrients with a
typical diet. As we age our bodies make less of or need more of certain
nutrients. And I can think of no good reason to not use antioxidant
supplements.
