So I’m really not sure what to make of the current spate of articles claiming that everything nutritionists have been telling is for the last 50 years is wrong, and based off studies looking at the Lenten diet of Mediterranean fisherman and extrapolating to their year-round diet. These claims are now saying that there’s nothing wrong with saturated fat, it doesn’t raise one’s risk of heart disease, and, to the contrary, the tendency to substitute extra carbs and/or added sugars in particular, in place of fat, has caused our obesity problem.
Mona Charen describes the debate in the National Review, and this weekend the article that caused all the fuss was in the Wall Street Journal, by Nina Teicholz. Is she right? It wouldn’t be the first time that conventional wisdom was proven wrong. It wasn’t that long ago that papers reported that the 8 glasses of water a day requirement was a myth, and that sodium is just fine for healthy people. But typically, when someone comes out swinging against the conventional wisdom, the conventional wisdom is still right — for instance, the anti-vaccine crowd or the anti-GMO protesters are cases where the crusaders are wrong, sometimes even, literally, dead wrong.
And here’s an article which someone in the Charen piece’s comment section linked to: “Is ADHD Caused by Insufficient Dietary Fat?” This is by a researcher at MIT, though she disclaims any connection to her MIT research in the article, and I have no idea whether it is related to her specialized field of study. Her basic conclusion is this: “I believe that symptoms will improve slowly over time if the child’s diet is simply adjusted to include more meats, eggs, fish, and high-fat dairy, while minimizing the consumption of empty carbs.” Should I make an effort to make eggs for the kids in the morning more often? Or is that just wishful thinking?
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In