Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving


3 Comments

Why science is failing

Screenshot_20180809-153200_Instagram

After my fellow dietitian Abby Langer wrote this article for Self, which I personally felt was quite considered and rather generous to the carnivore movement, I noticed a commonality among many of the people spewing abuse and vitriol (does an all-meat diet make you exceptionally angry?) toward her, and RDs in general. Any guesses? It was that many of them were engineers. I’m not sure what’s up with that. However, I can tell you that they are far more confident in their belief in the magic of the carnivore diet than I am in probably anything.

Then I was listening to StartUp podcast and something clicked. This season they’re following what’s called a “church plant” which is people trying to start new churches. On the last episode they were talking to a researcher who said that membership in all Christian churches in North America is declining, except for at evangelical churches. The reason for that? The certainty the evangelical church provides. Unlike other churches where there may be grey areas, things left up to interpretation, the evangelical church has definitive answers. And people like certainty. In religion and in nutrition.

You’ve probably heard the comparison of certain dietary beliefs to religious beliefs before. It’s nothing new. People attach their sense of self to a religious or dietary belief. They’re vegan, paleo, vegetarian, carnivore, catholic, or muslim. In the realm of diets, dietitians are agnostic. In the realm of medicine, Western doctors are agnostic. A great deal of the time, science is agnostic. We constantly question our beliefs and change them as new evidence comes to light. When someone asks is corn good for me we inwardly cringe because there are so many ways to answer that question and they all start with “it depends”. The carnivores are the evangelicals of the dietary world. They have all the answers with the utmost certainty. And how can someone who’s desperate to find a diet that will cure what ails them not be enticed by that confidence when faced with dietitians and doctors who are saying “let’s try this first and if that doesn’t work then we’ll try this” and on and on. We don’t offer a one-size-fits-all approach. We offer tailoring to help individuals find the way of eating that fits them best.

If you want certainty without evidence then you can find all the advice you want, and then some, from carnivorous engineers on twitter. If you’d rather have uncertainty and a little variety in your diet then find yourself a dietitian.


Leave a comment

So you don’t want the government in your kitchen

zombomeme30072018180438

According to Wikipedia, “A government is the system or group of people governing an organized community, often a state.[1] A government is like a clan with the purpose to govern the whole family or whole nation with powers of financial, military and civil laws. The main purpose of government is to seek the welfare of the civilians and to fulfill their need for the betterment of the nation.”

Canadians have a poor understanding of government. This comes as no surprise to me as I frequently see people complaining that the government should merely educate people about making healthy choices rather than introducing legislation that would make it easier for us to make healthy choices and/or harder to make unhealthy choices.  People want the government to stay out of their kitchens, shopping carts, restaurants, etc. This attitude shows a great deal of privilege, and ignorance.

To be able to afford to choose what we want to eat when we want to eat it is a measure of privilege. There are many people in Canada (and other countries) who don’t have that luxury. People who have no choice in what they eat, who can only afford or access limited options, people who go hungry.

Policies, subsidies, taxes (and tax breaks), legislation, and tariffs are all factors influenced by government that impact how much we pay for various products. Unlike something like a sugar-sweetened beverage tax, the consumer doesn’t directly see the effect of these factors on the price they pay at the cash register so they often don’t even realise just how much the government is influencing the cost of food. Also, there is a certain judgement value that comes with a tax like a SSB tax; taxes such as this are often referred to as “sin taxes”.

Yes, elected officials serve us and we essentially hire them to represent us in government. However, it’s also their job to “seek the welfare of the civilians”. So, what should the government do when our desires “I want to eat chips and drink pop for breakfast, lunch, and supper” are diametrically opposed to our welfare? It’s a tricky question. I certainly don’t want the government telling me what I can and can’t eat; and I’m a dietitian! I also know that education is not the (sole) answer.

Most people have a decent understanding of which foods they should be eating more of, and which they should be eating less of. Simply telling people to eat more vegetables and drink less pop is unlikely to result in any change in eating habits. I do think the government has a role to play in helping us to adopt healthier eating behaviours.

In terms of education, rather than simply promoting messages and plastering billboards telling us what foods to eat (or to limit) or putting calories on menus (ahem), the government should be making food literacy a mandatory component of the curriculum in schools. Children should be learning where food comes from, how to prepare it, how to read nutrition facts panels and ingredient lists, and how to find credible nutrition information in a sea of goop.

Beyond education, the government should be looking at the factors that influence our food choices. The most commonly cited of these factors are: access, affordability, time, and personal preference. A little brainstorming about these:

  • Access: there could be legislation about where fast food outlets can be located and ensuring there are grocery stores, markets, or convenience stores stocking nutritious foods to serve all communities. Many grocery stores are now offering delivery options; perhaps the government could support these initiatives.
  • Affordability: while it’s a bit of a myth that healthy eating has to be expensive, there can be more of an up-front cost to purchasing food for a healthy meal than there is to buy a burger and fries. In addition to creating policies and subsidies that would make healthier foods such as fresh produce more affordable, the government could also look to the creation of affordable housing, better transit systems, and basic income guarantees (BIG) so that people have more money in their pockets for nutritious food.
  • Time: part of the food literacy education in schools would serve to show people that it is possible to make a quick, healthy, and tasty meal. In addition to this, the government could pass legislation around work hours so that more people could have flexibility in their days and more time to prepare food. BIG would also support this as it would provide value for labour in the home. If our society put more value on food preparation and family meal times then as individuals we would be more likely to put in the time to cook and eat together.
  • Personal preference: this is a little trickier for the government to address. However, given the other measures, I think that an increase in appreciation for nutritious food would follow. If parents have more time and money and access to nutritious food, then they’d be more likely to choose these foods. Particularly if they’ve had exposure to these foods from a younger age through things such as food literacy education in schools.

The government is already in your kitchen, in your shopping cart, in restaurants, on the farm, in the grocery store. No one is saying that the government should ban the consumption of pop, or any other food. Rather than removing personal choice, legislation can serve to give more choice to those who are currently limited by their circumstances, and make it easier for all of us to make healthier choices.


4 Comments

If you’re cheating on your diet, then you should probably break-up with it

20180714_124528

Yes, the above post is undoubtedly very cute. Using emojis is a fun way to make your point. However, I would argue that if you are struggling with your weight that you should actually reverse the suggestion by Dr Nadolsky.

I’m not saying, eat unhealthy food all day every day. I’m saying, take some of those “treat” foods from the weekend and enjoy them whenever you feel like it. Something more along these lines:

20180714_131443.png

If you’re struggling with your weight and you’re eating super healthy through the week and then you “undo” all your hard work by eating a bunch of crap on the weekend your problem is not the weekend. Your problem is the week. If your workweek diet is very restrictive and doesn’t allow room for treats, or carbs, or entire food groups, then it’s not a sustainable way of eating. If you feel deprived during the week, then it’s not a sustainable way of eating. If you can’t continue to eat the way you eat during the week through the weekend, then it’s not a sustainable way of eating. If your diet through the week is devoid of pleasure, then it’s not a sustainable way of eating. If you’re cheating on your diet whether it be for one day a week, or all weekend, then you should probably break-up with it.

Regardless of your weight, your diet should be one that you enjoy. That provides you with nourishment and pleasure. You should be able to enjoy your food every damn day of the week.


2 Comments

Call in the food police, we’ve got another unruly body

zombomeme24062018183417

I feel the need to expand on something I touched on in my post last week. It’s related to people judging dietitians on the basis of our weight. My previous post mainly discussed why it’s inappropriate to judge anyone’s professional abilities, including dietitians, on the basis of their perceived size. However, I think this all too common judgement also speaks to the lack of understanding of what we do.

There’s a common (mis)perception that dietitians are all weight loss counsellors. As a result, if we don’t have that elusive “perfect body” people think that we suck at our jobs. After all, what else do we do other than police the food people put into their mouths. If we can’t control the food going into our own mouths, how on earth can we possibly control the food going into the mouths of all the other owners of “unruly” bodies. While some dietitians certainly do work in weight management, even those dietitians are not actually food police. The majority of dietitians don’t work in weight management. Curious what a dietitian actually does, check out this old post.

It is not part of my job to control my body so that it fits your perceived notion of healthy and fit. Whether or not I am large has no bearing on my knowledge of nutrition. It does not impede my ability to calculate a tube feed, modify a recipe, expound on celiac disease, or help someone with diabetes manage their blood sugar. Just as being small and having no knowledge of nutrition does not automatically imbue me with the capacity to do these things. As with any profession, the size of a dietitian is not a reflection of their knowledge, experience, or capability.

Dietitians do So Much More than help people lose weight. Despite the impression that our name gives, we are not all about putting people on diets. For many of us, aside from medically necessary diets (for example in the case of allergy sufferers or those with celiac disease) “diet” is a four letter word. We’re not all on a mission to rein in unruly bodies and create a world populated solely by thin bodies. When we do work in positions of counsel we usually aim to help people to gain greater compassion for, and appreciation of their own bodies. To help people view food as a source of pleasure rather than an enemy out to destroy our hard-fought-for chiselled physiques.


7 Comments

Being thin is not a qualification for providing nutrition advice

20180616_141936.png

20180616_141901

Last week a bunch of crossfitters and meatatarians got all worked up because the former president of the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (the US organization representing registered nutrition professionals) released a video that essentially warned RDs to watch for people without appropriate credentials providing nutrition advice. Some people evidently felt that she was unworthy to issue such a warning as she did not fit their limited definition of an acceptable body size. There are so many things wrong with this assertion that I don’t even know where to begin.

First, I happen to agree with Beseler (the RD in the video). As I’ve argued in the past, dietitians are regulated healthcare professionals which means that we have to complete a number of requirements to maintain our licencing. Being licenced also means that the public has added protection and recourse in the event that we do provide advice that causes harm. Would the video have more credence if it came from someone slimmer? Let me remind you that being young thin and pretty are not qualifications to provide nutrition advice.

Second, just as being young thin and pretty aren’t qualifications to provide nutrition advice, nor is being old large and unattractive a sign that someone is not qualified to provide nutrition advice. An individual’s appearance is not a reflection of their expertise. Personally, I wouldn’t want to receive nutrition advice from someone who judges others based purely on their size.

Third, I can’t tell from the video what size Beseler is anyway. Her size should be irrelevant anyway. Attacking her based on her weight is bullying. The narrow perception of what bodies are acceptable also shows the narrow-mindedness of the attackers. It also shows the pervasiveness of weight bias in our society. That people are more willing to accept advice from someone who has no nutrition education simply because they fit a thin ideal over someone who is highly credentialed but may not have that “perfect” physique is a sad reflection of our ingrained fear of fat.

Healthy bodies come in all different shapes and sizes. Your worth is not related to your size.