A New Paradigm

The quick answer:  The overwhelming complexity of nutrition can be best managed by the combined use of three oracles:  Scripture, Food Tradition, and Science.  This is the new paradigm.

_______________________________________________________________________

Two Best Food Authors

The two best food writers, in my view, are Gary Taubes and Mike Pollan.  Neither is a scientist.  Pollan, a U.C. Berkeley journalism professor, sells the most books.  His In Defense of Food is an excellent summary of how nutrition went wrong and harmonizes with the Word of Wisdom prescription.  His seven-word summary of what to do has become a classic:  “Eat food.  Mostly plants.  Not too much.” 

A diet prescription summarized from the W of W might say:  Eat whole grains, vegetables and fruits in their seasons, with a little Nature-fed meat.  That’s double the words, but maybe more helpful.

Gary Taubes was a little known science writer until he started to write about food.  You can see his evolution by looking at his degrees (all from the best schools):  A Harvard B.S. in physics, a Stanford MS in engineering, finished with a Columbia MA in journalism.  Taubes wrote Good Calories, Bad Calories (titled Diet Delusion in the UK) a careful, if tedious, examination of how sugar and refined grains make us fat and unhealthy.

The Three Oracles

Word of Wisdom Living, as you well know, is based on three oracles:  Science, Scripture, and Food Tradition.  This has the rugged stability of a three-legged stool.  In the beginning I thought Science would be the main voice.  But after three years of writing this blog, I find myself more and more relying on Scripture and Tradition.

There was a fascination with Science in the last century that caused society to throw away olden ways.  This was a big mistake though it made a good business for Food Inc.  Perhaps the worst misuse of Science was the anti-fat craze—the idea that fat, not sugar and refined grains, caused heart disease.  Many are still confused by this.

A century later, Science is found guilty of over-selling and under-delivering.  Science knows a lot, but not enough to speak with authority.  Worse, their tentative findings—though always interesting—have been misappropriated by Food Inc and Big Pharma for uses that make money but harm society.

There is a rising group attempting to remedy this great harm.  The practitioners call it Lifestyle Medicine.  This simply means that rather than just getting a doctor’s prescription for the newest heavily advertised drug, you’re likely to also get evidence-based coaching on nutrition, exercise, stress management, or even the importance of love.  We’ll be hearing more about this.

The Limits of Science

So last week Gary Taubes wrote a great article in the N. Y. Times titled Why Nutrition Is So Confusing.  Basically he called our institutions of science a “dysfunctional establishment.”  The tools of science, powerful as they may be, are overwhelmed by the complexity of nutrition and we have been harmed by their misuse.  A new paradigm is needed, as well as a little humility. 

So here’s an idea:  Because of the complexity of nutrition, mankind should approach it using the combined oracles of Scripture, Tradition, and Science.  Can you see the power of this?

Comments

[David Kunz]

Thanks for mentioning Taubes, I'm a big fan of what he and Peter Attia are doing. Having some science background, I fully buy what they hypothesize regarding low-carb, but definitely wonder about how to remedy the seemingly unavoidable high-meat-consumption (of low-carb) with the guidance in the word of wisdom (lots of grain). I'll be interested to see what science unfolds in the next decade.

[Noelle]

I totally agree! My dad is a scientist and had been inactive in church for a good portion of my life. We often had arguments about the arrogance of science (me being the one to call them out). My dad didn't like it and is still having a hard time reconciling some of his knowledge with the gospel. I think it's the same way with "diets" today. They claim to know what works but that's only until the next best thing comes along. God is the one who knows what's best for us and we've seen that through the centuries, those that eat a plant centered, seasonal, low meat diet, they are blessed with health. Certainly those like Noah knew how to eat cause they lived for hundreds of years.

[Tim baumann]

There is a growing new field within nutrition called Health Coaches. We are trained in most of the "diets" out there. The science behind most of them sound very compelling, but conflicting. The Word of Wisdom seems to be down the middle of the extremes. I love the school I am going to because they teach two important things. First Primary Foods (relationships, Spirituality, careers and exercise/activity) is just as important, if not more important, than the diet. If these areas are way out of balance we generally don't eat right, gain weight and get sick. Second - One mans food can be another mans poison. In other words, no one diet is perfect for everyone. Many people have food allergies or sensitivities and don't know it. Find out what those are and take them out of their diet and problems go away. Love your posts and insights. It is a lifestyle that makes us healthy along with the foods we eat. It is a holistic approach. Keep up the good work. I am using the W.O.W. Lifestyle as the basis to my part time health coaching practice.

[Sheela]

I think it's a bit disingenuous of Taubes to slam nutrition research in his article considering that he has made a living by using nutrition research as evidence to tell people what they should (or, more often, shouldn't) eat. After all, he does seem pretty convinced that sugar is toxic, so he must believe that research, right? Also, I find it shocking that he doesn't mention anything about the business and political forces that play such a big role in the obesity epidemic. He seems to be saying that obesity is a problem because nutrition science hasn't been rigorous enough to provide good guidance on what we should eat. Certainly observational studies have their issues, but we know enough to be able to prevent obesity. The obesity epidemic encompasses the issues of marketing, urbanization, changing lifestyles, and the political system that produces the Farm Bill. For him to leave those issues out of a discussion on nutrition and obesity is just irresponsible. Finally -- last complaint! -- he is just wrong about nutrition researchers being satisfied with less-than-rigorous methodology. Yes, there is some bad science out there, but I hear the phrase "hypothesis-generating" all the time. Maybe he is just reading the wrong research.

[skip hellewell]

Hi Sheela
Thanks for your thoughtful comment. This whole bad American diet thing is starting to feel like the cigarette war of the last 50 years. Even when we knew there was a significant lung cancer risk factor with cigarettes, it took a generation to inform people and change behavior; even today c. 20% still smoke in the US.
All the factors you mention are important and merit a book of their own. Changing a culture takes time—there's a lot of inertia to overcome. We're just at the start of this battle, but at lease we've gotten started. W. Churchill said something about that in WWII—about reaching the "beginning of the end."
Taubes work on sugar and refined carbs is a contribution, a step in the right direction. You're right that the large majority of scientists are careful and work with integrity, but Food Inc., just like Tobacco Inc of years past, always seem to find enough to carry their water. And the good people too often remain silent, on the sideline. An example is the Framingham Study's failure to publish promptly when they learned saturated fat wasn't a primary cause of heart disease.
Thanks for staying in touch.

[Sheela]

Hi Skip, that is a good quote and a good analogy. In fact, there is another parallel between Food Inc and tobacco companies, related to your quote. You are probably aware of this as well. As tobacco companies faced the "beginning of the end" here in the US, they realized that there were still billions of people in developing countries who wouldn't know about the risks of smoking. Those countries are now a huge market for tobacco. We are now seeing the same thing with food in developing countries; just as we are seeing success in reducing undernutrition, we are seeing increases in overweight and obesity. It's very frustrating, especially when Food Inc is able to exert their influence, as you mention, on the scientists and governments who should be protecting people.