from:
[www.nutrition.org]

American Society for Nutrition
a constituent society of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology

February 1, 2007


To the Editor:

We share Michael Pollan’s concern about the diet and health of the American people, but categorically reject the assertion that “scientists have ruined the way we eat.” ("Unhappy Meals," Jan. 28) Blaming scientists for our poor eating habits may fit nicely with his view that old is good and new is bad, but here he is guilty of the oversimplification and reductionism that he allegedly
abhors.

To cite one recent example of the benefits of nutrition science research: folate fortification of flour in the US and Canada (policy resulting from knowledge discovered through research by nutrition scientists) has resulted in a six-fold reduction in the prevalence of low folate status in adults and a 20-50% reduction in infants born with neural tube defects. Science is not the enemy of good diet, and nutrition research underlies many of Pollan’s recommendations.

Certainly there have been misinterpretations of research and exaggerated claims, but this is not the work of scientists. We have the ability to move beyond the confusion that Pollan laments, but this will take more research and not less.

Stephanie Atkinson, PhD, President

Satkins@mcmaster.ca

Joanne Lupton, PhD, Vice-President
jlupton@tamu.edu

American Society for Nutrition

Bethesda, MD

hi arugula,

i'm not a "science-hater", far from it, but your example of the virtues of science seems particularly unfortunate. this example only highlights the tendency of scientists to "swallow camels and squeeze out gnats".

People don't need fortified flour; people need the whole grain. The tendency of "science" to locate a substance needed by the human body, isolate it and then "put it" into foods that either had it all along before it was tampered with or never had it to begin with is exactly the thing "science-haters" hate. And for good reason.

Science is pretty good at determining what the human body needs, but notoriously bad at determining how the human body should get these things.

The essence of science is experimentation with verification. In essence then all of us on this board are scientists.

khale

Well said, khale.

I would agree that the scientific method is or at least can be excellent.

Khale, I would like to point out, while science is involved in stages of what you talk about, it's corporations, business and marketing that is responsible for things like fortified flour and the other junk we don't need. Scare the people into thinking they need something, then sell it to them, use some psuedo science to justify it, then make lots of money. "People who get regular doses of Vitimum U have less chance of heart attacks, buy our Vitimum U enriched whatever or DIED!" Also lots of things directed at certain groups, such moms, children, pregnant women, etc..

If people are really "hating science" for this, I don't think they have much understanding of what is going on - but I hope people are smarter than this.

Cheers,
Ian.

khale Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>science is pretty good at determining what the human body needs, but notoriously bad at determining how the human body should get these things.

That's not science, that's politics: who gets what, and why. If we were living in a world where folate-rich foods were cheaper and easier to get, we would not have this problem.

But it's very difficult for an uneducated (and I don't mean formal here) and low income person to make the determination of which foods are whole grain and which aren't, and even if they could, they'd end up buying the cheaper one, which is the refined junky one in almost every case.

If I were in charge, I'd stop subsidizing the garbage and start subsidizing fresh produce. If refined grains, refined oils, refined sugars, and animals/animal products fed with grains were extremely expensive and fresh produce were extremely cheap, we would not have so many unhealthy people.

Our system has it backwards, though. This is largely due to the strength and success of the lobbyists. They are not only very vocal but also very powerful.

Arugula for president!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yay, arugula!

Rock on arugula !

"That's not science, that's politics"

Exactly...



My website: The Coconut Chronicles

Arugula, you seem to have adopted the term "science bashers" since our latest discussion at [www.rawfoodsupport.com]. Nice try, but: Note that if anything, I am a nonsense basher and science promoter. I promote critical thought and thruthful representation of research. I am a scientist. Let me remind you what I said then:


"I would like to say that the word "scientific" is used too frequently, often for self-gratification or criticism of others by those who have little understanding of the term. Some presume that they behave scientifically if they read and quote published research; and they demand same from others. Often, they misquote and misrepresent the research that they report, and assume more than has been found in that research. Some others think that if they learn biology or chemistry, then they will become truly scientific. However, you will not become a scientist by studying books/articles, not even by quoting/summarizing them. By doing so, you can only become a scholar. To become a scientist, qualities are needed that cannot be acquired by mere studies. These include:
* the ability to think logically,
* the ability to think critically,
* the ability to understand and present research findings in a truthful (as is) and ethical manner,
and above all
* the ability to deliver novel, original and significant results, including methodology, findings and applications, which influence the shape of the current research, and give this research significant new directions."



As much as it may feel convenient to hide under the umbrella of science when quoting various research, unless critical thinking is employed and research is quoted AS IS, this has little to do with science.

Mindfull study of research, besides understanding of the probability theory used in the statistical analysis of the data, requires understanding that
* just because something is published, it does not mean what it suggests is right,
* just because something is published, it does not mean it is scientific,
* empirical sciences do not prove anything, they only provide compelling evidence, rigorous proofs are used in hard sciences (mathematics),
* because of this, the final verdict whether to accept some theory, based on that empiricial evidence, has to include the common sense of a scientist, which means that belief is being exercised,
and, above all
* science has little to do with democracy: for example, even if 99.99% of scientists accept theory 'X", that does not mean that that theory is right, in fact, every major theory is a minority before it becomes the accepted norm, until a new one comes along.


Fruitfully,
Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Gosia - AWESOME.

That is a very important distinction.

From reading your posts I've come to respect your scientific logic & analysis of matters, and it's great to hear your clear-minded understanding here of what science REALLY is.

gosia said:

<<"I would like to say that the word "scientific" is used too frequently, often for self-gratification or criticism of others by those who have little understanding of the term>>

that's a very perceptive and provocative statement gosia because you shed light on the entire dichotomy

1. self aggrandization and
2. criticism

though i also feel that there is an entire spectrum in between because scientific research is a pretty humbling process in and of itself so much so that unless a scientist is out of his/her gourd, its pretty hard to be puffed up about ANYthing

concerning criticism:

sometimes the criticism is well founded such as statements by scientist who are heavy proponents of wine by claiming that it "aids in digestion" (focusing on a few compounds) while ignoring the devastating cumulative and VERY obvious affects of alcohol itself which blatagly shows lack of "critical thinking" as u pointed out and insult's the public's intelligence

sometimes the criticism is unfounded:

and may arise out of the sense that science itself is a very exclusive sport which may compel some to exclaim that it is myopic as well which makes it an easy target for criticism

at any rate, we live in exciting times

Hi La Veronique!

la_veronique Wrote:
> concerning criticism:
>
> sometimes the criticism is well founded such as
> statements by scientist who are heavy proponents
> of wine by claiming that it "aids in digestion"
> (focusing on a few compounds) while ignoring the
> devastating cumulative and VERY obvious affects of
> alcohol itself which blatagly shows lack of
> "critical thinking" as u pointed out and insult's
> the public's intelligence

Not to be critical of your criticism example, but with regard to wine, the scienists where trying to isolate the benifical compounds in wine. This would make the benifical compounds avaliable without the alcohol which you dislike so much. So I don't see any blatant lack of "critical thinking" on the part of the scientist.

Personaly I would prefer to get the benifical compounds from the least refined source, which in this case would be mean drinking the wine (which is raw vegan anyway).

Cheers,
Ian.

Ian, nutritionism is regarded as a non-science by hard scientists for the exact flawed methodology mentioned here. That is, extracting and analysing compounds from foodstuffs instead of analysis of the impact of the wholesome diet on health.

I can't argue with a wine lover. Nevertheless, myself, after many attempts to learn to like wine, thinking that maybe I was weird, I finally gave up. Wine is sour and it makes me feel sick. My life on the other hand is sweet and like it this way.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

Gosia, you are far from a science promotor. I see none of these qualities in your posts, especially when you reject the need for a reliable and adequate sources of key nutrients, for which there is a preponderance of evidence, and also when you refuse to acknowledge the shortcomings of your most prized (only?) foodstuffs.

These are not evidence of critical thinking skills in action. They are something else entirely, maybe a temporary backlash of sorts. I do not think it will be permanent. At least, I hope not, not only for your sake, but also for the rest of your family.

No, I wouldn't expect that you would understand any of the things I said, arugula, because to you science euqates to something else than it is for me.

Note that critical thinking does not mean assuming that the suggestions from the published work are right. It means challening them:

* just because something is published, it does not mean what it suggests is right,
* just because something is published, it does not mean it is scientific,
* empirical sciences do not prove anything, they only provide compelling evidence, rigorous proofs are used in hard sciences (mathematics),
* because of this, the final verdict whether to accept some theory, based on that empiricial evidence, has to include the common sense of a scientist, which means that belief is being exercised,
and, above all
* science has little to do with democracy: for example, even if 99.99% of scientists accept theory 'X", that does not mean that that theory is right, in fact, every major theory is a minority before it becomes the accepted norm, until a new one comes along.


To be a scientist means to take an active role and think critically. A passive role is to read and accept what one reads as true. This is where we differ.


Kindly leave my family alone. Cooked lentils and pills do not appeal to us.


Gosia


PS Relevant quote:

"Most of us who believe in Science do not do so because of firsthand experience! Few of us have assembled even one rigorous experiment! So, people who accept scientific proof as valid are not sufficiently distinguished from those who accept creationism by the existence of "evidence" or evidentiary criteria. What's more, discourse exists because no system has a "complete" or totalizing set of evidentiary criteria that make all other kinds of belief impossible or unreasonable. The spectrum of phenomena and experience is simply too varied."


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/21/2007 01:30AM by rawgosia.

Gosia: Well said and bravo.

This does not justify your baffling preference for faddish misinterpretations, such as those of Vetrano and Graham and outright rejection for things that are beyond dispute. These people know very little: just enough to be dangerous.

Ignore a critical need for long enough and eventually you will die. Or maybe you will go to a real doctor for an injection when you feel that you really do need one like Graham does.

This is not a trivial and lighthearted thing to me. If you use your current way of thinking (we do not have the last 0.01% constituting "proof" therefore I will reject anything that is "inconvenient" and therefore all papers from established sources that are remotely connected to nutrient needs in the human are rejectable, i.e. garbage) you can rationalize anything and this going to be a big mistake in the long term.

I think it would be a better to get aquainted with the DRI books from the National Academies press and read the enormous body of effort behind their individual recommendations, particularly for those things that make the vegan most vulnerable.

I would be surprised if everyone here bought it all, lock stock and barrel (I myself have reservations about their calcium requirements, which are controversial), but they will at very least provide a reasonably sound starting point for making decisions instead of a relative vacuum.

Arugula, your intrepretation of the way my mind operates is incorrect. I recommend that you quote me AS IS, instead of hypothesizing about how I think.

As far as danger, I consider views that daily ingesting pills is a part of good nutrition as dangerous. I consider views that eating lentils and grains is part of good nutrition as dangerous. I consider not understanding statistics behind the data while misrepresenting the research findings, dangerous. I consider the disregard for the natural instincts, dangerous. I consider you presuming that your diet is superior from the diet of my family, dangerous.


Gosia


RawGosia channel
RawGosia streams

did i miss something here?
what on earth was the POINT of that Pollan letter?

WHEAT fortified flour?
what the?

so scientists are good for ameliorating the folate scarcity situation?

hello?


what is so compelling about this letter? to be a centerpiece for the alleged dichotomy between "science" and the imaginary hoarde that is supposedly wholly polarized against science?

i don't get it

i must have missed a previous post or something

la_veronique Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>the alleged dichotomy between
> "science" and the imaginary hoarde that is
> supposedly wholly polarized against science
>


LOL

and as for nutritional RDA's- I would question whether they are truly valid for raw foodists. It's possible that when you're raw, the rate of nutrient depletion is considerably less than on cooked foods. And certainly recent research has already proven the calcium RDA's to be unfounded... and raw vegans to have perfectly healthy bones despite not meeting the calcium RDA'S... so if they can be so wrong about calcium then what else are they wrong about? I will continue to question the validity of nutritional RDA'S until I see some more research involving raw vegans. Measurements pertaining to the cooked world may not necessarily apply to us.

Arugula,
to each his/her own, but the reason you seem to be drawing a lot of flak on your 'science' sources is you use them to make statements about concepts that exist outside of science/statistics as presently accepted.

someone quoted Einstein (i forgot who, I copied it to a file)
"No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."

but irregardless, even though i'm more then skeptical about ones experience being able to disprove the need for something that they might be defficient in (and still believe this to be something one wouldn't be able to admit comes actually from a concept/guru etc... and NOT from experience)

YOU, make statements like "detox is usually misdiagnosed as lack of kcals" or some horrid misuse of information when you yourself based on your diet listed could never have entered a clear detox period.

detox, isnt simply about eating raw whole food, its leaving certain compounds completely out of your system. Soy is downright hazerdous, legumes in themselves are a protein/starch combo, not to mention all the combinations of fresh fruit and nuts at EVERY meal without proper wait times means constant fermentation all day long. So, not to be harsh, its great that you continuly post articles, but really, don't use them against others. and to reiterate don't use facts to disprove things outside of such. Your response to Cousens not being able to subsist on 800-1000 calories because he doesn't have a hole in his palate (like the example suggested breathatarian) is just downright ignorance to the fact that people DO find energy sources outside the realm of charts and graphs.


>>breakfast: orange, apple, grapes, strawberries, blackberries, soy yogurt, flax, >>almonds, hazelnuts, pecan, brazil nuts

>>lunch: romaine, plum tomato, sweet onion, collard greens, zucchini, cucumber, >>carrot, alfalfa sprouts, walnuts, blackeyed peas, olive oil, red wine vinegar

Regarding Sunshine79's statement that "(RDA) measurements pertaining to the cooked world may not necessarily apply to us":

That might be possible. If it is, then one alternative to looking at the established RDAs would be to become familiar with as many of the symptoms of deficiency as possible, like for instance, leg cramps associated with calcium deficiency.

Just a couple of things to add:

First, my understanding is that the RDAs were deliberately doubled just to be on the "safe" side.

Second, if it's true that the established RDAs are not applicable to rawvegans, there are probably still requirements that DO apply to rawvegans. We may not know exactly what those requirements are, but they probably do exist. Otherwise, why would we have to eat at all? It that's the case, then even though we rawvegans don't need as much of whatever as SADs need to avoid deficiency, it's still possible for a rawvegan with a very limited diet to become deficient in certain nutrients.

I just try to eat all the available vegan foods in moderate amounts and soak or sprout all my seeds and nuts. I do eat a lot of fruit. I exercise. I try not to stay too far below half of the established RDA for any of the nutrients. Works for me.



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2007 05:25AM by suncloud.

Well, as if I hadn't already edited my above post enough times, I'd like to qualify one statement.

My last sentence (sort of) was "Works for me". I'd rather have that say, "Works for me......for now".



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2007 06:18AM by suncloud.

juh

juhhhbaa

juhhhbababa
juh baba hubba naba

yeahhh!

I don't think I can quite follow up lv's post properly at the moment, but after reading this thread I find I'm really sickened by some of it. I've seen you, arugula, even dare to insinuate that people, like Storm, who says repeatedly and openly that he (and even does so on videotape) sees a doctor for regular tests with his family, are deficient because of some tepid articles you've read on your computer. You act as if this constitutes higher knowledge on your part than an actual doctor who looks at their blood and finds that they have no deficiencies despite no cooked food and no supplements has. I also have just been tested, and likewise have no deficiencies without consuming any cooked food or supplements. You won't even deign to recommend that people get tested, but simply insist that based on the blind study of people none of us have ever met, that we are all deficient. That makes you look extremely narrow-minded.

dream earth,

I am in agreement with your assessment of arugula. She is in reverence of external authorities, and in fact fancies herself as an authority based on stuff she's read. Of course, she has doesn't have any real experience with an all raw diet. When she gets some experience, I would love to hear about it.

It seems to me that arugula has good intentions. I don't understand the need for hostility towards her.

It is easier to throw stones than to educate one's self. Learning at a high level is very difficult work.

Bryan et al. are posting articles from disreputable sources stating that there is no need to fear elevated homocysteine, there is no need to secure adequate levels of essential fatty acids, that there is no need to secure adequate, reliable sources of B12, that if one is truly enlightened there is minimal need for kcals, that vitamins and minerals don't matter, your body will tell you what it needs, etc. etc.

This is not only stupid but also dangerous.

And for pointing this out, I get bashed.