Why we need Dr Karl to actually research nutrition science rather than dole out ideology

Ok, so Dr Karl did an AMA (Ask Me Anything) on Reddit the other day which was really cool. When someone asks how he gets all this knowledge he replies:

The reading of $10,000 of scientific/medical/etc literature per year

Which is great, but when someone asks him about human nutrition he says:

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

And basically to “eat stuff your grandmother recognised as food”.

Ok, so for a guy who spends $k’s of money on science research, all he does when asked about possibly the most important topic facing us all is dole out some silly motto from a $10 buck philosophy book?

In Defense of Food: An Eater’s Manifesto – by Michael Pollan

Pollan is on my level in many areas, completely in-line with my whole low-human-interference thing and all that, but in the end he bases his nutritional approach on moralistic and philosophical grounds – not much science or evidence. One thing is certain, it’s not based on any of the biochemistry books I know of.

So back to Dr Karl – I find it really disappointing that one of Oz’s eminent science celebrities with a lot of influence can’t be bothered to find any evidence for himself but instead is happy to give advice on an important subject based on a single flimsy-grounded book, instead of any of those $10k worth of science literature.

I’m not saying the advice is bad per se – it’s a million times better than the average Aussie’s diet – but it’s based on ideology, super cherry picked and lacking in evidence – or at least ignoring much of the evidence to the contrary.

Eat food.

I’m all over that.

Not too much.

How vague is that? What on earth is “too much”?

Mostly plants.

Why?

Pollan and Dr Karl are far from vegans, and I’m not having a go at people loading up on veggies and stuff – that’s fine, do what thou wilt – but where is the evidence for this ideology? Why are we still having eminent folk telling us to avoid animal/saturated fat – it’s an affront to science and all available evidence.

I don’t spend $10k a year on science journals – maybe there’s some medical evidence I’m missing by being a rogue PubMed/Google Scholar researcher – but if there was don’t you think he’d present this science rather than just blurt out something from a book anyone can read?

I’ve searched low and high, and I’m yet to find a single piece of scientific evidence that eating plants is beneficial to a good quality meat-eater outside of a specific deficiency, in which case identify which plant is rich in the stuff you need and is highly bioavailable and go nuts.

Or if you live on a grain and sugar and canola oil junk food diet then you’re probably gunna need a gamut of veggies to offset/substitute that – or maybe the anti-nutrients exacerbate the situation… I don’t know.

The point is, plants can be tasty and good for variety, but I’m boggled at the idea that they should be a bulk of your diet. Their bioavailable nutrients compare poorly to meat, they are full of ANTI-nutrients which bind to receptors and whatnot which actually prevent efficient uptake of many nutrients. They are calorically bereft – some people think this is good because you can eat larger portions – all this means is you HAVE to eat more to be satiated, which means way too much time collecting and preparing a large range and eating far more frequently (like my food does), also way too much toilet time – not to mention the issues of excess fibre and carbohydrates.

In the end, every argument I’ve seen for eating plants is either fallacious or outright backwards. Every single time it’s based on ideology. They can be tasty, they add variety, and they are visually stimulating. That’s it.

If we’re talking about saving the planet – go a little further down the research rabbit hole and you might discover that raising animals properly (not in CAFOs etc) and not feeding them grains is at least as ecologically friendly as endless fields of semi-edible plants – if not far more so.

Now, as to the other bit about only eating stuff that your grandma would eat… Ok, I’m a fair bit younger than Dr Karl, but both my grandmothers were young adults just as the 50’s nutrition science nonsense begun and had their staples as fresh meat and veg which is great, but it was always accompanied by breads and sweets and margarine/shortening and cakes and ice cream and chocolate and Schweppes lemonade and beer.

They both spent the last 20+ of their years fat and likely diabetic and with blood pressure issues and with osteoporosis and heart troubles and poor eyesight and difficulty getting around and everything else that “comes with age”, both dying around 70 of stroke/heart issues I think.

So the advice to eat like my grandma isn’t really that appealing.

I’d prefer to think of it like “eat like your grandma¹⁰⁰⁰” – basically, eat like my grandma of 1,000 generations ago did – it would definitely have been food, but I really doubt it was “not too much” or “mostly plants”.

I love Dr Karl, have grown up with him on my screen, radio, and covering a good chunk of my bookshelf. He’s usually super aware when he doesn’t have the answer and is forward enough to say “I don’t know”. I’m just really disappointed that possibly the most important science question we have, he’s unwilling to say “I don’t know”, instead doling out unresearched advice as an authority.

30 years ago Time Magazine told the world that cholesterol and saturated fat are evil and killing you. We now know this is not true, indeed many folk never believed it to start with. My problem is promoting this information in the first place instead of saying “dunno”.

Sorry Dr Karl, I don’t know the One True Answer – nobody does, and there maybe isn’t one – but please go back to saying “dunno” on subjects like this where you don’t either.

Edit: case in point –

RT @DoctorKarl "Majority of medical/nutritionists advise against [saturated fat]"– They're still wrong, have been the whole time.

— Some Idiot actually (@AshSimmonds) December 30, 2013