Dispelling nutrition myths, ranting, and occasionally, raving

Leave a comment

Follow Friday: @rooted_project


I’ve been neglecting follow Friday posts. I’ve also been thinking a lot lately about how most of what I blog about is tearing things apart. Granted, they all deserve our derision… That being said, after ranting a few times about how there’s so much in-fighting in dietetics I thought that maybe in an effort to counterbalance some of that, that I would start devoting my Follow Friday posts to promoting blogs, websites, and initiatives of my fellow RDs.

Since The Rooted Project held their first public event this past week I thought they’d be a great project to start this new positive series off.

The Rooted Project is the brainchild of British dietitians Rosie Saunt and Helen West. Both of whom I’ve mentioned on my blog before. Their aim is to bring evidence-based nutrition to the masses through public panels and events. If you’re in London I recommend keeping an eye on what they have in the works. If you’re not, like me, I recommend following them on twitter.


Eating to change your eye colour


I recently came across a post by David Wolfe (yeah, that guy) about the ability of a raw food diet to change your eye colour.

Apparently this is a thing ever since some raw food guru nutritionista chick made the claim that after changing from an unhealthy diet she cleared-up her constipation and her brown eyes became hazel/green.

Naturally I was skeptical. Even David Wolfe was. Yet, he somehow came to the conclusion that it was possible based on this article. The thing is, the article doesn’t actually support the claim that a raw food diet can change a person’s eye colour. It says that eye colour can change as we age, but this is generally referring to children, not adults and is unrelated to diet. It then carries on to state that significant changes in eye colour may be the result of a disease and anyone experiencing such changes should see an eye doctor. No mention of diet.

I did a little googling and found some other articles. None of which were written by anyone with any medical knowledge of eyes. Wolfe and this Vice article both mention “iridologists” which is pretty ridiculous. Iridologists are to optometry what phrenologists are to neurology. Essentially a great source of perhaps entertaining information but otherwise quackery. To be fair, even these iridologists seemed to think the notion of changing ones eye colour via diet was farfetched. Everything I could find through the googles was anecdotal.

I feel the need to voice my disappointment in seeing a dietitian’s name continually come-up in connection with this raw food eye colour change business. As dietitians we are obligated to provide evidence-based dietary advice. Neither advising people to choose a diet to change their eye colour, nor advocating for raw food diets for all are ethical for a member of our profession.

Next I turned to google scholar. Again, nothing. There is absolutely no scientific evidence of a relationship between diet and eye colour. Of course, it’s possible that, that research just hasn’t been done. And I will be happy to revise this post if a study is ever published showing that eye colour can be changed by switching to a raw food diet.

Even if eye colour can be changed by diet, who cares?! I mean, seriously. Having brown eyes does not mean that you eat unhealthily and are constipated. Having blue eyes doesn’t mean that you’re healthy and having regular bowel movements. Are we now judging a person’s health and habits based on eye colour? Could we get anymore superficial? Why would we want to go on an extreme diet just for the purpose of changing the colour of our eyes? A raw diet is not necessarily the healthiest choice. There are many reasons that we cook our food: to kill toxins and microorganisms, to increase absorption of nutrients, to improve palatability. Personally, I would rather keep my grey/blue eyes and enjoy my food.

Leave a comment

Can eating chocolate reduce your risk of developing type 2 diabetes?


A recent study in the British Journal of Nutrition reportedly showed that regular consumption of chocolate could reduce the risk of developing type 2 diabetes. Naturally, I wondered if that was really what the study showed.

Looking at the study, there were a few things that stood out to me. The research was done using a food frequency questionnaire, a notoriously inaccurate measure of diet. Besides the fact that this measure is often inaccurate, is the fact that we couldn’t tell if it distinguished between types of chocolate consumed. While the authors made much of the potential link between polyphenols in chocolate and reduced risk of T2 diabetes, we don’t know if the study actually looked at types of chocolate that were rich in polyphenols. By the article, we can’t tell if they made any distinction between dark chocolate, milk chocolate, white chocolate, chocolate bars, chocolate cake, chocolate ice cream, and so on. Without accounting for different types of chocolate (many of which contain negligible quantities of polyphenols) there’s no way to attribute the reduced risk of T2 diabetes to the consumption of polyphenol-rich chocolate.

Perhaps more importantly though, there’s no way we can draw any conclusions regarding causation. This wasn’t a longitudinal study so we don’t know if people who have T2 diabetes are avoiding eating chocolate (quite plausible) or if there’s some other reason why people who eat chocolate are less likely to have T2 diabetes than people who don’t.

I also wondered about the true significance of the results. For that I consulted with my math expert, Scott. His take was that the sample size wasn’t very large and that it was limited to Luxembourg. This makes it difficult to generalize the results to populations outside of Luxembourg, for example, North America, as there could be other differences between Canadians and Americans and Luxembourgians (is that the right term?) that would make it impossible to apply the findings to our population.

He also said:

Although they followed proper testing and analysis, I’d be concerned about variables that they did not include in this study, such as location and what might be in their environment or particular diet (food items not mentioned) that may distinguish this sample from say a sample in North America. I am also wary anytime the analysis includes a questionnaire or feedback rather than pure conclusions based on observed tests and results. As you well know from interviewing people at stats can, there are more than admitted “fake” stats and responses… Yes, I do see a correlation between the two, I would require further testing to be conclusive on the hypothesis.

I followed up this analysis by asking him if he thought the standard deviations were of concern. To my untrained eye, I thought that it was possible that the range for each result was large enough that there might, in actuality, be no real difference between each group. Scott said:

I would support that claim, you would want the SD to be much closer to the mean than those results. I suspect the SD would fluctuate with any other sample size tested under those conditions.

And there you have it. While it’s possible that there’s a reduced risk of having diabetes to chocolate consuming Luxembourgians, there’s more research to be done before anything definitive, especially for other populations, can be concluded.

Leave a comment

Follow Friday: Nima


I’m skeptical about this (surprise, surprise, me, skeptical!) new device. If it works though, it sounds like it could be fairly revolutionary for people with celiac disease.

You take a little bit of your meal and put it in the Nima and it tells you if it’s safe to eat or not. Of course, there are some drawbacks. If the gluten contamination isn’t distributed throughout the meal it could provide you with a false sense of safety.

Eating out can be such a terrifying prospect for people with celiac disease. If something like this works, it could make the experience much less stressful and hazardous.

Leave a comment

Follow Friday @nutritionwonk

If you enjoy reading topical nutrition blogs (and if you don’t, um… you may be in the wrong place) I recommend you check out one of the newer kids on the block Nutrition Wonk (aka Katherine aka @smarfdoc on twitter).

As a grad student studying nutrition biochemistry and epidemiology, Katherine takes a science-focused approach to writing about popular nutrition news. She does an excellent job of writing in a way that’s both accessible to the layperson and informative to those in the field.

Looking for an unbiased assessment of the latest article on the war on sugar? A thorough take-down of Laura Prepon’s diet book? How about an interview with Dr Yoni Freedhoff? She’s got it all, and more.

I’m looking forward to reading her future posts and I hope you will as well!