Nutritional ‘science’ is seriously, flawed.

I must confess to an epiphany, one which I know is shared by many of my former colleagues; nutritional ‘science’ is somewhat of a misnomer. The elephant in the room is that the much of the scientific ‘evidence’, and the official dietary advice that flows from it, is quite simply, imperfect and flawed.

Take a moment and think about it; the connections between nutrition and health are very, very complex, intergenerational, to some extent genetically determined, and reflect an entire lifetime of eating. Is it any wonder then that it has proven to be difficult to determine the many and various influences that diet has on our health.

Just as an example; consider this one mind blowing fact – your grand mother’s diet has influenced your health. Her nutritional status, when she was pregnant with your mother, will have influenced your mother’s development in her womb and since your mother will have been born with all her possible eggs (including the one destined to become you); you too are influenced by your grandmother’s diet.

Another example of the complications in establishing links between diet and health is the important role that your infant and childhood diet has had your growth, development and future health. Were you breastfed? Fed too much?  Or too little? I could go on, but you get the picture.

Advertisements