You know what I find interesting. I post a link to a peer reviewed scientific article that backs up exactly what I'm stating and no one reads it. Is that what we call intellectual dishonesty. I think it is.
Do you need me to go and get a bunch more articles ?
It's your guys call. I think though that we need to be looking at the facts and not trying to be right. That would make it an easier discussion and probably more beneficial. Don't you want to know the truth of the situation. Isn't that important.
It really just appears to us that you are cherry picking. I like reading about nutrition too, and the results of scientific articles (though I admit, I read enough stuff at work that I'm not terribly interested in reading the actual articles).
I read all sorts of stuff, from the vegans to the Paleos, and in-between. It seems like the in-between folks (doctors, nutritionists Registered Dietitians, and health writers) are the only ones that don't cherry pick their way to "the answer". They review ALL the papers, not just the ones that tell them what they want to hear.
Examples: Dr. Mark Hyman, Marion Nestle, Luise Light, Denise Minger
When you consider that we are not binary, and are a complicated "system" (as someone else put it) - it's fascinating. How many studies that reviewed the effects of eating X on Y didn't consider the intake of Z? (All those studies on meat and sat fat and cholesterol on heart disease, for example, without controlling for sugar or carbohydrate).
FTFY. Don't go to anyone who says they're a [only] nutritionist. I can say I'm a nutritionist, and I'd be right. Nutritionist means nothing. A Dietitian must take an undergraduate courseload in Dietitics (or closely related, often it IS called nutrition or food science) and then get matched (like a doctor) to a Dietitic internship. Then they have to do the internship, usually at a hospital, and then take a rigorous exam before they can be accredited and call themselves a Dietitian.
So my wife is a Dietitian. She's done significant research on this, and with cancer in both her and my families, as well as MS in hers, it is a serious issue for her. I think she might have been published as well, but I'm not sure on that one.
The general direction that she sees the peer reviewed studies and whatnot heading is that Organic is a good thing, and better than non organic (IN GENERAL) and that less meat is better than more meat. We generally in our house eat very little red meat--mostly chicken--and fish (but only a few times a month--gotta watch the mercury, and no Tilapia or Shrimp--she's very careful about the origin of the fish). Our [starchy] carbs are generally rice, potato, or corn. Nothing wrong with gluten, other than when we eat it we end up with wayyy too many calories for the day. We try to make every meal have fruits, vegetables, and/or nuts. We try to make the fruit/vegetable the biggest part of the meal.
The "problem" with diets like Paleo is that you get a lot of false negatives. Removing gluten is silly; there is nothing wrong with it. But when you remove it, you also remove Cheeto's, McDonalds, etc. The problem with Organic is that I can eat organic butter, organic biscuits fried in lard, and organic bacon for a meal. Organic is "healthier" because the research is starting to show that not only are we what we eat, but we're what our food eats as well.
Oh, and meat is not necessary--it just is the easiest way to get the protein we need (and we don't need that much*). Additionally, we eat protein first because it takes the longest to digest, so you feel full longer and faster.
We're not perfect. We don't follow any diet. Everything in moderation, including moderation. Eat food, mostly plants, not too much. But we're still human, and last night she had a horrible day at work so we went to a greasy spoon and had waffles with butter and syrup, pork sausages, and scrambled eggs. Not real healthy.
*Assuming no body builders, serious athletes, people coming out of surgery, etc.
