’Tis the season of wavering New Year’s resolutions, and 2024 might be an especially hard year to keep to a new diet because there are so many contradictory claims —and so little left on the menu that is not being vilified by someone with initials after their name.
Mainstream experts are still warning against eating meat, cheese, sugar and the ill-defined group known as ultra-processed foods. Now people are saying to avoid tomatoes, peppers and eggplant, and even one theory says that people are poisoning themselves with spinach.
On everyone’s good list? Cauliflower. At least, for now.
Illustration: Yusha
Spinach and kale are on the bad list of Sally K. Norton, who has a degree in public health, but has strayed from the mainstream by advising against foods high in substances called oxalates. Her bad list also includes beans, grains, almonds, potatoes, beets and chocolate — what she calls “toxic superfoods.”
Oxalates are real compounds and there is some scientific debate about their contribution to kidney stones. Norton’s hypothesis is that oxalates caused her chronic pain and might also cause nervous system problems, premature aging, hearing loss and eye floaters.
Meanwhile, heart surgeon Steven Gundry says that people might be sickened by a different group of plants — ones high in lectins, which are part of plants’ defense systems. He blames lectins for a host of problems from bad digestion to autoimmune disease to weight gain. In his diet, spinach and greens are acceptable, but not tomatoes, peppers, seeds, beans or whole grains.
The Office for Science and Society at McGill University has a nice write-up puncturing the oxalate theory. Chemist Joe Schwarcz, who heads the office, debunks the widespread dangers of lectins in a chapter in his diet-myth-busting book A Grain of Salt.
Schwarcz said that some plants contain minute traces of compounds that are toxic at vastly higher doses.
It makes no sense to talk about something as toxic without considering the amount, he said, adding that the preponderance of evidence suggests that the more fruits, vegetables and whole grains a person eats — and the less fat — the better off they are.
Even age-old assumptions about fats are now contested.
Olive oil is considered a good fat, and many now say that saturated fats found in meat and dairy are not the dietary villains they have been made out to be. Some recent studies suggest that those who ate full-fat dairy were healthier than those who went for low-fat or nonfat options.
Journalist Gary Taubes, author of Rethinking Diabetes, has been a longtime critic of the mainstream advice to eat a low-fat diet.
That recommendation is based not on rigorous science, but observations comparing people in different countries, he said.
Those kinds of studies cannot easily untangle which health differences might be due to socioeconomic factors and other variables.
Another reason for some of the conflicting evidence over which foods are healthy is that many studies simply ask study subjects to remember what they ate — that does not always make it clear which foods make a difference.
The studies aimed at finding long-term benefits from a particular diet are not all that rigorous. One of the most widely publicized studies of longevity — the “blue zones” — examined the diet and lifestyle of people in five regions of the world with purportedly unusual longevity. It is an intriguing observation and made for an entertaining Netflix series, but it is impossible to pin longevity in these regions on diet, let alone any particular kind of food.
However, out of all the contradictory claims, there is one area of agreement: Diet influences health, and it is possible to benefit from experimenting on yourself. Any individual might have food sensitivities that differ from the population at large.
A diet that makes you feel energetic and helps you achieve a healthy weight might indeed be better for you, as an individual, than what has been associated with longevity in large populations. Some people feel better avoiding gluten even if they do not have celiac disease, and others might feel better skipping dairy products. Maybe a few people are sensitive to lectins or oxalates and benefit from avoiding them. It would be easier to stick with any diet plan if it is giving you short-term benefits.
So instead of New Year’s resolutions, we could have New Year’s experiments. If a change does not make you feel better, you can still consider it a lesson learned — and there is always cauliflower.
F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the Follow the Science podcast. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS