Certain foods, due to their effect on blood sugar levels, precipitate the release of molecules which are associated with inflammation. Excessive consumption of refined carbohydrates, french fries or soda isn't going to trigger that response. While those who eat this way may have significant negative health issues, it won't be due to so-called “inflammatory” foods. To suggest so is junk-science and a lack of common sense.
We know health's basics including making good choices about nutritious foods. That said, are subsidies and large scale federal programs the best way to support healthful choices?
Bloomberg's recent hit piece on milk touches upon almost every sensitive issue that worries parents: food, school and their children. Toss in a conspiracy theory about "Big Dairy," and that's how Bloomberg came up with a fear-mongering headline, complete with a disgusting photo that is supposed to make readers feel queasy.
Dr. Edward Archer believes that nutrition science is not just misguided but actually harmful. That's an extraordinary statement that requires extraordinary evidence. Does he provide it in his latest paper?
Substitute the word "Halloween" for any celebratory event and pervasive worry-lists abound. Fun also matters.
Food labels serve one purpose, and one purpose only: To provide nutritional information to consumers. The process by which a food is produced is not relevant to its nutritional content or safety profile. Therefore, products made using animal cell culture techniques absolutely should not require special labeling.
Some studies are so incredibly stupid, one wonders how they get published in any scientific journal, let alone a prestigious one. And yet, it's happened once again. A new study in JAMA Internal Medicine claims that eating organic food will reduce a person's risk of developing cancer. You got it right: Magic prevents cancer.
Here's another observational study of organic food, but it's from the French, who brought us "fine dining." The paper's claims are greater than their proofs. It's just another paper from a "high impact" journal shedding shade.
Dr. Ioannidis is not just a bull in a china shop; he's a bazooka in a china shop. And now the bazooka is aimed at shoddy nutrition research, which he suggests is in need of "radical reform."
Foodies – and you know who they are – may be turning against quinoa, the healthy grain. It's not because they feel guilty for having made poor people in South America suffer. Instead, it's due to "processing."
Soy has estrogen and anti-estrogen components. This study hoped to determine whether women with breast cancer should eat more or less soy. The study itself has good and bad points. But the media presented misleading headlines, which confused more than clarified. (What else is new?)
With medical fitness to serve being a recurring theme in 2016, Santa Claus requested his doctor release his latest health report. Will he be cleared by Christmas?