“How can you fact check the testimonies people have from this diet!? Are you really disregarding a whole food diet??”
Her implication seemed to be that the anecdotes of hundreds of people who had found “success” on this diet plan were all that mattered. Science and reason be damned! I replied back that,
“Every diet book has testimonials from people describing how said diet changed their lives and improved their health. This does not mean that those diet books are based on [or promote] good science. The problem with the Whole30 is that [in my opinion] they do not seem to care if the information they provide their fans is accurate or not.”
The internet is a cesspool of god awful nutrition advice. Some of this terrible information is delivered in such a way that makes it seem legitimate and can fool even the most intelligent among us. I created this guide as a resource to help cut through the hype you see in media headlines and on your Facebook feed. If you see an article/book/talk/product from one of the sources below please proceed with caution as it may be a load of nonsensical, pseudoscientific rubbish (especially if it's from The Food Babe).
To land a spot on this list, a significant portion of the dietary information provided by the source must be scientifically erroneous or misleading.
One of the questions I get asked the most is where to turn for reliable sources of nutrition information. Well, from now on I will have this handy guide to direct them to. I’ve broken it down into categories so you can browse depending on what you are looking for. To make this list, the vast majority of the dietary information published must be based on quality scientific evidence. No one can be 100% accurate 100% of the time, but you must be handing out valid information on nutrition for at least ~90-95% of your content to remain on the list. The people listed here regularly discuss topics within the full context of available data, do not cherry-pick their sources and include those that may challenge their beliefs, interpret relevant clinical trials accurately and take into account their limitations, and frequently cite valid and credible sources.
While reviewing the Whole30’s It Starts With Food, I came across an interesting tidbit I thought deserved its own post. If you have ever read anything about artificial/low-calorie/nonnutritive sweeteners, it’s likely you’ve come across the following statements :
Aspartame (Equal) is 200 times sweeter than table sugar
Stevia (Truvia) is 200-400 times sweeter than table sugar
Sucralose (Splenda) is 600 times sweeter than table sugar
Saccharin (Sweet’N Low) is 200-700 times sweeter than table sugar
These statements may lead you to believe that high potency nonnutritive sweeteners (NNS) like the ones listed above are many times sweeter than sugar, causing the reward and pleasure signals in your brain to go haywire. Would you be surprised to hear that in reality sugar actually ranks higher in sweetness than common NNS sweeteners?
Pamela Ronald studies the genes that make plants more resistant to disease and stress. In an eye-opening talk, she describes her decade-long quest to help create a variety of rice that can survive prolonged flooding. She shows how the genetic improvement of seeds saved the Hawaiian papaya crop in the 1950s and makes the case that it may simply be the most effective way to enhance food security for our planet’s growing population.
Media outlets are notoriously awful at interpreting scientific publications. A study done in the UK found that among the top 10 papers there, up to 72% of the dietary advice given was unsubstantiated or false . So it should not be a surprise that a while back the media bungled yet another publication.
With the rising popularity of low carb/paleo type diets has come a curious unintended consequence: expecting mothers receiving a false positive on their Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM) test
Gestational Diabetes Mellitus (GDM)
GDM is diabetes (“Type 4 Diabetes”) diagnosed in the second or third trimester of pregnancy that is not obviously type 1 or 2 . Women with diabetes in the first trimester would be classified as having type 2 diabetes . The essential contributing factor to GDM is pancreatic insufficiency . Basically, your pancreas is not making enough insulin for your body to overcome the increased insulin resistance due to the placental hormones of pregnancy and increased maternal adipose tissue, which could potentially cause your blood glucose levels to remain high.
GDM = weak pancreas. Not making enough insulin for you and the baby.
In my last post we took a look at the infamous Séralini study, Long-term toxicity of a Roundup herbicide and a Roundup-tolerant genetically modified maize . The study was poorly conducted and ultimately added little to the scientific understanding of the safety of Monsanto’s Roundup-tolerant NK603 genetically modified (GM) maize.
This article will examine the original Monsanto paper that spawned this GMO melodramatic episode . I'll also be using this post to deliver some broader educational points about the safety, science, and regulations behind genetically modified organisms.