1. The excessive amount of nutrition advice from “nutritionists.”
If you spend any amount of time looking at books or Internet sites which discuss nutrition, you’ll see a lot of advice and diets from ”nutritionists.” Much of the content is highly questionable from the perspective of someone actually trained and educated in nutrition. I have a Master’s degree in nutrition, and I don’t even claim to be a “nutritionist.” Why? Because in the US the term “nutritionist” is not regulated. What does that mean? Anyone can claim to be a nutritionist. You can be a nutritionist. Your mother can be a nutritionist. That slightly crazy lady from church who suggests using garlic to cure cancer can be a nutritionist. In some parts of Canada (Quebec and Nova Scotia), it apparently is a regulated term, but in the US it is not. If you are looking for accurate nutrition advice, you should look for someone who either has a real degree in nutrition (MS, PhD, etc.) or is a dietician (RD – Registered Dietitian). Even with an MS in nutrition, I’m not legally qualified to perform nutritional counselling. Only an RD is qualified to do that. If someone is dispensing nutrition advice and is not an RD or does not have a higher degree in nutrition, I’m very skeptical. Using the term “nutritionist” is a pretty good indicator that you should be skeptical.
In writing this I just came across a fake nutrition certification which I was unaware of. Prescription for Nutritional Healing, a book owned by about 90% of the church members I know (including myself, although I have never used it), is written by an MD (a urologist) and a “CNC” – Certified Nutrition Consultant. This certification is offered by the “American Association of Nutritional Consultants,” which according to Quackwatch is “a thoroughly disreputable organization whose only membership requirement has been payment of a $50 fee and whose “CNC” designation is based on passage of an open-book examination based mainly on the contents of quacky books” (link). A quick look at the AANC website indicates that this is likely accurate. Quackwatch also documents that membership in the AANC has been held by several household pets.
2. The Weston A. Price Foundation.
I first heard about these people probably around six months ago when a friend sent a link to nutrition advice on their website. Since then I seem to find them everywhere. Who are these people? They are an organization “founded in 1999 to disseminate the research of nutrition pioneer Dr. Weston Price, whose studies of isolated nonindustrialized peoples established the parameters of human health and determined the optimum characteristics of human diets.” Okay, fair enough. I’m all about learning more about the optimum characteristics of human diets. But let’s find out more about these people.
Some issues of concern:
-
Weston A. Price was a dentist. I’m not against dentistry by any means, but I have yet to find any evidence that this man had any training in nutrition.
-
Co-founder Sally Price holds a graduate degree in English. I’m sure she writes very grammatically-correct books, but again, I’m not sure I place a lot of credibility in her nutrition training.
-
Other co-founder, Mary Enig, actually does hold graduate degrees in nutrition. Okay, this is a good sign. However, she “admits that she is “on the fringe” in her nutritional views and advice” (link). She promotes the consumption of coconuts (high in saturated fat) for weight loss, and also “claims that natural coconut oil may be effective in the treatment of AIDS and other viral infections.” You know, Mary, I’m just not sure about that. Also, “Enig’s organization, the WAPF, is an advocate of raw milk and claims that “homogenized milk has been linked to heart disease.” The only reference to back this claim is an article Enig wrote that addressed a 1970’s era theory that was later disproven.”
-
Weston A. Price’s findings were published in a book, not a peer-reviewed scientific journal (as far as I can tell). Again, anyone can publish a book, but not just anyone will be published in a scientific journal.
-
The point of his book was to show how the diets of isolated primitive peoples are associated with superior health. I’m all for eating minimally processed foods, but it’s bad science to assume that if we all eat the same diets as these primitive peoples, our health will be superior. You can’t generalize the results of one population to an entirely different population. Real research has indicated that a diet for one type of people can be benign or even harmful in another type of people. Even if these people did have better health than we do, you can’t assume that nutrition is the only cause. There is also something to be said for environmental factors such as pollution, advertising, heredity and genetics. And as Quackwatch points out, “While extolling their health, he ignored their short life expectancy and high rates of infant mortality, endemic diseases, and malnutrition” (link).
Anyway, I’m not claiming to be an expert on Weston A. Price, nor am I saying that all the principles promoted by the foundation are necessarily wrong. But I have seen enough about the foundation to be very highly skeptical about any theories they promote which are not supported by other research or reputable organizations.
That’s my deal. Look for real qualifications and training. And like your mom taught you, don’t believe everything you read.
I agree with you 100%… watch out for “nutritionist” posers – get your advice from an RD. I am “reading” (a.k.a. listening) to In Defense of Food… what an awful book so far. Pollen brings up Weston Price as a “forgotten” nutritionist who knew all these about nutrition and teeth all to make the point that what you eat affects your health… duh!
Well said, Annette!
“Posers” are one thing, but not having an advanced degree in nutrition doesn’t make one a poser. If a lack of an advanced degree is enough to discredit someone, there are many mathematicians, scientists, etc down through history that we should just forget about. I can’t remember all the specifics, but as I recall, Pierre de Fermat was actually a lawyer. Yet it’s his contributions to mathematics that have immortalized his name.
I’m not saying this Price fella is a nutrition expert or anything (don’t know a thing about him). It’s just that I feel your post precludes the possibility that someone without such a degree could ever make meaningful contributions, and that’s simply not true.
Hey Annette, John said you commented on the info I sent you, I was wondering if you even got it! I’m so glad I encouraged some research into non-standard nutritional teachings. I do agree that they are off in many areas (unclean food etc.) but my main point was that if God created something to be eaten, even the most highly educated humans are not going to come up with something better. We just have to try to get things as close to the way they were created as possible. BTW, our family has been enjoying raw milk, disease free, for over 3 years and John has lost weight incorporating coconut oil into his diet. We got into this whole crazy thing by reading The Makers Diet- still not 100% on (& self-promoting), but food for thought.
Math is highly different than…well almost every other field. ab + ac = a(b+c) can be proven, and can’t be politicized. And it’s hard to sell math.
Ye Ben’s point is still completely valid, for the same reason. Other fields are swayed by the social influences at the time, and that affects who has, or does not have, a degree and/or influence.
BTW, it’s been scientifically proven that Fritos make you happy. Try it, it’s true. And I don’t even like them.
I agree, there have been meaningful contributions by people untrained in the field they contribute to. But I do think that their contributions deserve more scrutiny than otherwise would be applied. If I were to attempt some research in knot theory, I hope I would not be taken as seriously as someone who was trained in it.
The other thing to consider is – if this research were so revolutionary and accurate, why has it not been further studied and advocated by others? So much of the philosophy behind science is the concept of reproducing results to demonstrate their accuracy and generalizability. If it can’t be reproduced by anyone else, it’s probably not accurate data.
Nutrition n00b here again… On the subject of scientists not studying some “revolutionary” new diet or whatever, it could be fear of losing funding or being seen as a quack when agreeing with the alternate medicine folks. Doesn’t prove anything, mind you, just a similar vein of thought that Mr. Smith brought up concerning scientists awhile back.
Also, I just read more on the recent findings on pharmaceuticals not delivering the intended benefits because of the assumptions of the testers involved. For example, a cholesterol drug lowers bad cholesterol, but doesn’t stop heart blockages, thus heart attack risks stay the same. But they advertised it with the express purpose of lowering the risk of heart attack. Similarly with diet, the same thing can be said. Targeting this one thing or that doesn’t always get you the intended consequence even though research shows the two are linked.
Granted, both of my points are on the negative side of this whole topic and there is plenty of positive, provable nutrition info out there, it’s just that most Americans don’t do the basics very well and only when our health gets bad do we seem to reach for the “fastest” method available, not necessarily the best and most proven.
Mraaagghh… her post points out the possible exceptions… but I wanted to be the one to point out the exceptions. That’s my job… mrraagghh.
hi folks…
we had a child with some wacky health problems…migraines at 5 days, lack of sleeping patterns, tiny, pale, generally sickly…went to plenty of nutritionists, harvard top in their field highly credentially hard to get appointments with docs, rds, you name it…with little results, actually no results, and thousands of dollars–really–wasted–if your goal is results–as was ours.
we did get results with the wap diet…amazing results actually–not an impressive credential to find..
our take away was if you want credentials…that’s one path
if you want results..well, that is another
Dieticians are not research scientists. They are actually educators with a fairly basic understanding of food science and biochemistry. Their primary role is to educate their patients according to the current nutritional dogma.
As someone with over 20 years experience as food scientist I am constantly amazed at how little basic science is studied by dieticians.