From my reading of it over time, it seems to possibly be a case of a failure of, as Pollan calls it, nutritional reductionism. There were foods with especially positive health benefits, as measure largely by statistical studies (controlled trials are notoriously difficult for food....). There was some study on why; an extremely important thing to answer when you see correlation. Anti-oxidants were fingered as a possible reason. The 'core' nutrients were extracted and sold as benefits. Unfortunately, quite a few studies have shown these are not benefiting people in the expected way.
Of course, understanding why is a good question. The initial assessment studies could be flawed; for example, it could be various lifestyle or geographic, etc. factors that confounded the initial studies, and it wasn't diet at all (or less so, anyway). Or, it could be diet, but the theoretical why could be in error; perhaps anti-oxidants have nothing to do with it. Or, perhaps in the nutritional reductionism case, it is diet, and it is anti-oxidants, but they cannot be used alone; you can't extract just the anti-oxidants. You need the other substances. Also, likely you need the lifestyle that goes with the anti-oxidants; eating good food. It is likely the whole package is the answer, not just the anti-oxidants.
Just my 0.02.
|
