Debunking food, fat, and fitness myths

[rachelmanija]

I would like your best recs for in-depth articles, studies, or books on the most cutting-edge current knowledge about nutrition, body weight, and health.

I am NOT interested in basic articles about very well-known ideas like fat will kill you, carbs will kill you, meat will kill you, anything your grandma wouldn't recognize as food such as everything but cabbage and turnips will kill you, etc.

I am also NOT interested in articles with a primarily political bent (i.e., "pushing diets on women is based on sexism/capitalism not science;") I agree with that, but I'm looking for stuff where the meat is science and the politics is the side dish rather than the reverse.

I'm looking for more in-depth, up-to-date information on topics including but not limited to...

- Do we actually know anything about nutrition, given the every-five-year swings between "eggs are cardioprotective/eggs are a heart attack on a plate," "fat is the Devil/carbs are the Devil," etc? If so, what is it and how do we know it?

- What is the actual science on grains (and no, I don't mean Wheat Belly)?

- What is the best and most cutting-edge knowledge on gaining strength?

- What is the actual science on the causes of Type 2 diabetes, why its prevalence has risen so much, and its association with obesity?

- What is the actual knowledge of the diet and health of "cavemen?"

- What is the actual science on being fat, thin, and in-between in terms of health? For instance, is it better to be fat and active than "normal weight" and sedentary? (I know the answer but I'm looking for something that goes into this in-depth.)

- What is the deal with "calorie reduction makes you healthier and live longer" vs. "dieting is bad for you?"

I'm already familiar with Michael Pollan, Barbara Ehrenreich, Mark's Daily Apple, Diet Cults, Body of Truth, and The Starvation Experiment. And lots more but those are the things I get recced a lot already.

Comments

[elf]

I tend to think anything that separates "fruit" from "vegetables" is based on social goals and not science. The site doesn't define either of them, although it does have subgroups of vegetables.

As far as I can sort out, mushrooms are entirely outside of any of their food groups.

[duskpeterson]

They list mushrooms as vegetables here - or do you mean that scientists don't consider mushrooms vegetables? And are you referring to problems like "tomatoes are really a fruit"?

As a popular history writer, I tend to distinguish between research and presenting research results to the public. But then the question becomes: Did the USDA offer lay definitions because that was the easiest way to communicate with the public, or because they were working from bad research? I do notice that they have this page, so they seem to be aware that definitions can vary, depending on which group is using the word.

[elf]

Ah! I didn't see the fold-out charts, which don't display properly on my browser. I did a ctrl-f search for mushrooms but got no results because they don't show if you haven't clicked on the "+" markers.

And yeah, I meant tomatoes, bell peppers, olives, cucumbers... there aren't many that go the other way, but the casual classification seems to be based on sweetness rather than any other nutritional concerns.

I'm twitchy about any nutrition site that has a page called "All about the vegetable group" that doesn't tell you how it's deciding what a vegetable is. They've got no criteria for helping people decide what a fruit/vegetable not on the list falls under. (Lychee: Probably fruit. Jujube: Not certain; they're sweet-ish but no more so than cucumbers. Fruit-ish, though. Bamboo shoots: Probably vegetable; starchy? Or other? Mung bean sprouts: Vegetables? Or in the separate category that beans go in?)

It's not that I think the page/system is founded on bad science, it's that whatever science it's using is opaque to the reader.

[duskpeterson]

You've raised an important point I've never thought about: How are those borderline cases classified nutritionally? At the very least, the USDA should have a page listing how each food is classified for nutritional purposes. For example, is a gluten-free "grain" like quinoa nutritionally similar to actual grains?

I know that they've got more technical material buried in that website, but they need to put something about this on their front pages.