Subscribe in a reader






Buy Conservative Advertising

Wikio - Top Blogs

Find the best blogs at Blogs.com.


Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


No one but the author bears any responsibility for the non-advertising content on this blog. AND PLEASE NOTE: the author neither necessarily uses nor endorses any product advertised on this blog.

« "A Little Pizza Homework" | Main | One more reason to think about getting a second opinion »

May 05, 2014

"An Apple a Day, and Other Myths"

Quite discouraging. The author argues that recent decades of research have revealed only that it's bad to smoke and being fat tends to be bad for your health, and not much else.

In the opening plenary session, Dr. Walter C. Willett, a Harvard epidemiologist who has spent many years studying cancer and nutrition, sounded almost rueful as he gave a status report. Whatever is true for other diseases, when it comes to cancer there was little evidence that fruits and vegetables are protective or that fatty foods are bad.

About all that can be said with any assurance is that controlling obesity is important, as it also is for heart disease, Type 2 diabetes, hypertension, stroke and other threats to life. Avoiding an excess of alcohol has clear benefits. But unless a person is seriously malnourished, the influence of specific foods is so weak that the signal is easily swamped by noise.

Link via Instapundit.

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Ted Craig

"Dr. Walter C. Willett, a Harvard epidemiologist who has spent many years studying cancer and nutrition, sounded almost rueful as he gave a status report."

Yeah, people often sound rueful when they have to admit they are a fraud. Willett is to nutrition what Bernie Madoff was to investing.

JKB

Ted Craig,

That sounds a bit like shooting the messenger. What this study is revealing is the false "science" of pretty much the whole field. Willett has challenged the consensus by showing the consensus has no basis in science. If yo must blame someone, I suggest heaping our scorn on the American Heart Association, which became a major player promoting supposition as science. And never bothered to apply critical thinking to their dogma.

Ted Craig

Willett has rarely challenged the consensus and when others have he has attacked them to the point of getting admonished by Nature:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorbutterworth/2013/05/27/top-science-journal-rebukes-harvards-top-nutritionist/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Powered by TypePad
Member since 07/2003

Shelfari: Book reviews on your book blog