The Case For Real Food (2x)

[Guest guest]

1) November 5, 2007, 9:31 am

The Case for Real Food

More than just vitamins? (Tony Cenicola/The New York

Times)

Is there more to a carrot than beta carotene? Is

lycopene the best we get from tomatoes? And when we

heap our plates with salmon, are we serving up

something other than omega-3s?

For years the scientific community has viewed

individual vitamins and nutrients as the best that

food has to offer. Nutrition studies have isolated

beta carotene, calcium, vitamin E and lycopene, among

other nutrients, in order to study their health

benefits in the body.

But now, after several vitamin studies have produced

disappointing results, there’s a growing belief that

food is more than just a sum of its nutrient parts. In

a recent commentary for the journal Nutrition Reviews,

University of Minnesota professor of epidemiology

R. s argues that nutrition researchers

should focus on whole foods rather than only on single

nutrients. “We argue for a need to return to food as

the source of nutrition knowledge,'’ writes Dr. s

with co-author C. Tapsell, a nutrition

researcher at the University of Wollongong in

Australia.

Dr. s believes that nutrition science needs to

consider the effects of “food synergy,'’ the notion

that the health benefits of certain foods aren’t

likely to come from a single nutrient but rather

combinations of compounds that work better together

than apart. “Every food is much more complicated than

any drug,’’ said Dr. s. “It makes sense to want

to break it down. But you get a lot of people talking

in the popular press about carbohydrates and fats in

particular as if they were unified entities. They’re

not. They’re extremely complicated.’’

The narrow focus on the health effects of single

nutrients stems from the earliest days of nutrition

research. In 1937, two scientists won a Nobel Prize

for identifying vitamin C as the essential component

in citrus fruit that prevents scurvy. The finding

spurred interest by the scientific community to study

other biologically active nutrients in foods.

For as long as observational studies have shown that

diets rich in fruits and vegetables, unsaturated fat

and fish, among other things, are associated with

better health, nutrition researchers have been busily

deconstructing these foods to identify the most potent

nutrients. For example, vitamin E has been widely

studied as a heart protector.

But attributing the broad health benefits of a diet to

a single compound has proven to be misguided. Several

studies have suggested an association between diets

rich in beta carotene and vitamin A, for instance, and

lower risk for many types of cancer. But in a

well-known 1994 Finnish study, smokers who took beta

carotene were found to have an 18 percent higher

incidence of lung cancer. In 1996, researchers gave

beta carotene and vitamin A to smokers and workers

exposed to asbestos. But the trial had to be stopped

because the people taking the combined therapy showed

markedly higher risks for lung cancer and heart

attacks.

Since then, studies of other vitamins, notably

vitamins E and B, have also failed to show a benefit.

Manufacturers say the problem is that vitamins are too

often examined in sick people while the real benefit

may be in preventing disease. But Dr. s notes

that the better explanation may simply be that food

synergy, rather than the biological activity of a few

key nutrients, is the real reason that certain diets,

like those consumed in the parts of the Mediterranean

and Japan, appear to lower the risks of heart disease

and other health problems.

“People ask me what vitamins they should take,’’ said

Dr. s. “I say ‘Don’t take any. Just make sure you

have a nutrient-rich diet.’ ’’

2) And if you missed this one..

Unhappy Meals

Illustration by Leo Jung

By MICHAEL POLLAN

Published: January 28, 2007

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html?_r=1 & oref=slogi\

n