I'm pretty passionate about good scientific education - I'd argue nothing is more valuable than the ability to ask questions to understand the world around you, and model a system to answer them, as best and objectively, as possible. Humans are such inquisitive creatures since birth, and good scientific education, in my opinion, can only foster that further.
Unfortunately, America doesn't have the best scientific education - not to say some isn't great! But I don't think I really appreciated science until very late into my undergraduate career. **bias - I went to 13 years of catholic school** But after working in labs with individuals from foreign countries (Netherlands, Australia, England, etc), it seems science edu in America is generally pretty piss poor in the elementary-high school range.
I could rant about that for a while, but I'd like to specifically talk about nutritional sciences.
What is the study of nutrition? You can look at nutrition from so many perspectives (community, international, physiological, biochemical, molecular, human, animal, etc), but at the end of the day, in it's simplest form, it's the study of dosage.
I'd argue that nutrition, toxicology, and pharmacology are really all the same principle - they look at the dosage of a specific compound and it's effects in the body - the origin of the compounds just differs. Nutritional sciences is the study of the dosage of specific nutrients, and non-nutritive food components, that is essential for good health, deterrence of disease, and optimization of physical performance. Nutritional scientists attempt to understand how much of all the components of food we need (or should avoid), and the best vehicles for delivering these components to the populations/individuals that need them.
Unfortunately, modern 'nutrition' has lost the science part. The internet is flooded with ''only eat these foods, avoid these other foods and you'll be fine''. Some Veg*ns purport that meat and/or dairy is ridden with cancer causing toxins. Paleo'ers think that we should all eat unlimited amounts of whatever food items we want, as long as they're not grains or dairy. Low carb'ers think that as long as it's got fat and protein, you're golden.
"The dosage makes the poison" - Paracelsus had it right and was a true scientist. Determining the dosage is what these sciences do. What modern nutrition movements have done is remove this component, and allow sentiment and theory to run rampant. And it's particularly unique to nutritional sciences. If a Medical doctor tells people to take 850mg of Metformin daily, they don't question it. If a toxicologist says that 300mg of cyanide is lethal, people listen. However, when Nutritional Scientists sitting on the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine decided the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs), everyone and their mom made a blog saying it was wrong.
Nutrition, almost unfortunately, relates more to people - it's closer to home so individuals have more opinions on it. I'm not against having an opinion - I certainly think the DRIs are in drastic need of an update (there's very little funding to do so at the moment), and I've discussed their misinterpretations here - but what is problematic is when everyone sits around and theorizes, misinterprets literature (because most have never been trained on how to read it..) and pushes their conclusions as fact. It always amazes me when I see the credentials of people who call themselves nutritionists, or have nutrition blogs - little to no statistics education, never set foot in a biochem, physiology or metabolism class nor have they done research or worked in a lab. This isn't to come off sounding like a bully - but really understanding science requires a background in these fields. That's why all of these courses are pre-requisites before you can continue on the field.
What is it about the American mindset that is so readily willing to dismiss a scientist and believe a blogger? I'm not sure i'll ever understand - luckily, nutrition doesn't have quite the immediate and serious effect that medicine does. However, looking at the incidence of measles and pertussis in the wake of the anti-vaccine movement, this line of anti-scientific thought is dangerous. Even more serious ramifications from this thought process will likely be seen regarding the doubts about global climate change. Talk about trust issues...
Ultimately, what I see in all this, is people craving for scientific stimulation. All of these self-named nutritionists have finally embraced the questioning aspect of science - the downfall is that they've never been trained on how to accurately answer them. Maybe one day we'll be able to present the material in a matter that reaches/interests individuals earlier on, and creates even better scientists to adequately answer the next questions.
In the mean time, I think it's time for scientists (and clinicians - the two are not mutually exclusive, especially in nutrition) to start fighting back and being more vocal. Debunk myths and point out where more research is needed. Your credentials are at stake.
Unfortunately, America doesn't have the best scientific education - not to say some isn't great! But I don't think I really appreciated science until very late into my undergraduate career. **bias - I went to 13 years of catholic school** But after working in labs with individuals from foreign countries (Netherlands, Australia, England, etc), it seems science edu in America is generally pretty piss poor in the elementary-high school range.
I could rant about that for a while, but I'd like to specifically talk about nutritional sciences.
What is the study of nutrition? You can look at nutrition from so many perspectives (community, international, physiological, biochemical, molecular, human, animal, etc), but at the end of the day, in it's simplest form, it's the study of dosage.
I'd argue that nutrition, toxicology, and pharmacology are really all the same principle - they look at the dosage of a specific compound and it's effects in the body - the origin of the compounds just differs. Nutritional sciences is the study of the dosage of specific nutrients, and non-nutritive food components, that is essential for good health, deterrence of disease, and optimization of physical performance. Nutritional scientists attempt to understand how much of all the components of food we need (or should avoid), and the best vehicles for delivering these components to the populations/individuals that need them.
Unfortunately, modern 'nutrition' has lost the science part. The internet is flooded with ''only eat these foods, avoid these other foods and you'll be fine''. Some Veg*ns purport that meat and/or dairy is ridden with cancer causing toxins. Paleo'ers think that we should all eat unlimited amounts of whatever food items we want, as long as they're not grains or dairy. Low carb'ers think that as long as it's got fat and protein, you're golden.
"The dosage makes the poison" - Paracelsus had it right and was a true scientist. Determining the dosage is what these sciences do. What modern nutrition movements have done is remove this component, and allow sentiment and theory to run rampant. And it's particularly unique to nutritional sciences. If a Medical doctor tells people to take 850mg of Metformin daily, they don't question it. If a toxicologist says that 300mg of cyanide is lethal, people listen. However, when Nutritional Scientists sitting on the Food and Nutrition Board of the Institute of Medicine decided the Acceptable Macronutrient Distribution Ranges (AMDRs), everyone and their mom made a blog saying it was wrong.
Nutrition, almost unfortunately, relates more to people - it's closer to home so individuals have more opinions on it. I'm not against having an opinion - I certainly think the DRIs are in drastic need of an update (there's very little funding to do so at the moment), and I've discussed their misinterpretations here - but what is problematic is when everyone sits around and theorizes, misinterprets literature (because most have never been trained on how to read it..) and pushes their conclusions as fact. It always amazes me when I see the credentials of people who call themselves nutritionists, or have nutrition blogs - little to no statistics education, never set foot in a biochem, physiology or metabolism class nor have they done research or worked in a lab. This isn't to come off sounding like a bully - but really understanding science requires a background in these fields. That's why all of these courses are pre-requisites before you can continue on the field.
What is it about the American mindset that is so readily willing to dismiss a scientist and believe a blogger? I'm not sure i'll ever understand - luckily, nutrition doesn't have quite the immediate and serious effect that medicine does. However, looking at the incidence of measles and pertussis in the wake of the anti-vaccine movement, this line of anti-scientific thought is dangerous. Even more serious ramifications from this thought process will likely be seen regarding the doubts about global climate change. Talk about trust issues...
Ultimately, what I see in all this, is people craving for scientific stimulation. All of these self-named nutritionists have finally embraced the questioning aspect of science - the downfall is that they've never been trained on how to accurately answer them. Maybe one day we'll be able to present the material in a matter that reaches/interests individuals earlier on, and creates even better scientists to adequately answer the next questions.
In the mean time, I think it's time for scientists (and clinicians - the two are not mutually exclusive, especially in nutrition) to start fighting back and being more vocal. Debunk myths and point out where more research is needed. Your credentials are at stake.
Comments
Post a Comment