My research and our appetites have gradually moved us to a diet with fewer carbohydrates and a much greater fat content (especially those happy, stable saturated fats). I wish I had taken more science courses and had a greater understanding of metabolism. On different food forums I notice people's comments getting disregarded because they don't have a degree or are learning from an author who doesn't have a degree (granted, this is sometimes completely justified; you have to sift it for yourself). This has led me to ponder why we (in general) easily understand that history textbooks can be biased, and even science books when it comes to evolution vs. creation, but we quickly assume that textbooks in the sciences are authored by science itself (or even scientists, which is a stretch). Why couldn't similar biases and prejudices (e.g., money, politics) that apply to history apply to the sciences as well? I mean this particularly in regard to nutrition, which I've been learning about. Just speculating, I imagine something like math or physics would be harder to bias (are they "hard" sciences? do I know what the hard sciences are?), but I don't have enough experience in those fields to know.
Meanwhile, the grocery had coupons for the ritzy bacon that we get! I got lots!
5 comments:
There is an excellent, excellent book by a Harvard nutrition expert called "Eat, Drink, and be Healthy"
I would totally recommend it. But I hear what you're saying: I wish I could go get a degree in nutrition, mostly just because I find it much more interesting to me now.
WAIT - I just had a flashback - didn't YOU introduce me to that book? HAHA!!
I did, SJ. And I have another recommendation for you: Good Calories, Bad Calories by Gary Taubes. The guy is a science journalist who chronicles the history of nutrition research, addressing the areas of diet-heart disease, diabetes, and obesity in relation to nutrition. It's fascinating and eye-opening. He's one of the people who gets a bad rap for writing about nutrition when he doesn't have a nutrition degree, but the bibliography is ~100 pages; his notes are at least that. I think he did a lot of leg work and isn't trying to hide anything. And you know, I've never been one to think you have to have a degree to know anything. ;)
I remember reading Eat, Drink, and Be Healthy. I was so sad and felt so let down that he said to limit dairy. I've always thought about it, but my body has never let me do it. Bring on the milk, cheese, and yogurt! (and bacon, which isn't dairy, but should always be around.)
Also, speaking of dairy, I have to share one of the many reasons I love Trey Owens: I'm fixing supper the other night and comment, "I think I grated too much cheese." Trey walking by quietly notes, "There is no such thing." I love it! And boy, was that a yummy casserole.
:D I have an excellent soup recipe calling for lentils and bacon (which, of course, parmesian cheese would taste excellent on!) I'll mail it to you :)
If I understand your thoughts in the post, then what you are really asking from science is to give an account for what they present as knowledge. I take from your comments that you percieve that anyone is capable of a bias. I think you are right and would go a step further to say that all of what we call knowledge from our perspective begins with a bias (this is not necessarily a bad thing and may even be necessary just to begin the quest for knowledge). This is a much misunderstood question in my experience among the general public and even among some of those who call themselves scientists. However that is not to say that their methods are necessarily faulty in the work that they do. They just fail to acknowledge their initial presumptions.
Diet is amazingly foremost in the conscienceness of our society. You may have heard that San Francisco recently went so for as to regulate the marketing scheme of food products by banning the sale of meals with toys (evidently this was to reduce the appeal of meals that they thought to be unhealthy because of their fats carbs and processing). I guess this means if you now want a box of Cracker Jacks in San Fransico you better bring them with you! Forgive my intrusion into your blog but the question you posed to science truely is most fascinating.
Post a Comment