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?
The guidelines were born of good intentions; created to make Americans healthier. However, they were not inscribed on stone tablets and handed to mankind. Instead, the guidelines are the result of a bureaucratic process and, as such, are susceptible to dubious conclusions and adverse influence by activist groups.
The prestigious school is growing its list of misguided "experts" while thoroughly undermining its great reputation. Columbia's latest hire is former New York Times food writer Mark Bittman, who calls biotechnology "overrated" while endorsing the mandatory labeling of GMOs, a policy rejected by every major mainstream medical and scientific organization in America.
Much current nutrition research aims to clarify possible links between eating and getting various diseases. Is diet really responsible for cancer? For multiple sclerosis? Hard to tell, because it's really hard to know what people really eat.
A closer look at food science reveals that a tax on sugary drinks (such as soda, sports drinks, and tea), a policy being pondered by voters in the San Francisco Bay area, is deeply misguided. We get sugar in our diets from many different sources, some of which we would consider "healthy" foods.
The importance of protein for muscle-building and cell functions was discovered in the 1830's, but there is still some controversy regarding what's considered an ideal source of protein for overall health. A recent study in the Journal of American Medical Association directly compared animal protein with plant protein, and it produced some interesting results.
Here'e to appreciating how, through precisely-calibrated nutrition, these extraordinary Olympic athletes become powerhouses of performance. Aside from their sport-specific training, it can be argued that Team USA is only Team USA because of the U.S.O.C's Sport Nutrition Team, which puts the right food on the training table and guides each athlete through their individualized schedule of consumption.