A few years ago, I was your typical office-worker: stressed out, uneven energy, overweight, and inconsistent complexion. Now I'm just your typical 28-year old urban hunter-gatherer on a quest to be healthy, and having a few adventures along the way. See my full bio.
This WSJ article is so completely typical of the current state of our health science, in both good and bad ways: When Everyday Foods are Hard to Digest.
First, the the article admits doctors don't really know what causes a widespread condition, in this case IBS.
"As many as 20% of adults at some point suffer from a painful digestive disorder that is difficult to diagnose and has no cure."
You would be astonished how many "diseases" and disorders there are where doctors have no clue what's going on, but give an amorphous set of symptoms a technical sounding name. Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Depression.
Second, can we stop using the word "cure" so much? Cures makes people think that there's some magic potion -- i.e., an injection or prescription drug -- that will make everything better. There aren't magical "cures" for metabolic conditions. Metabolic conditions like IBS or obesity aren't primarily caused by bacteria (infection) or a virus (polio), where the word cure seems more appropriate.
Third, the article points out that more scientists are realizing that diet may hold the answer. Wait -- you mean that a problem in my digestive tract might have a connection to the food I'm eating? As they say in the Usual Suspects: What, do you got a team of monkeys working around the clock on this? That's on par with the insight that the foods you eat just might be related to tooth decay.
Fourth, they come up with some meaningless scientific jargon and a stupid acronym.
"A long list of foods—including dairy products, some fruits and vegetables, wheat, rye, corn syrup and artificial sweeteners—can potentially create such problems in susceptible people. Collectively, they're known as Fodmaps, an acronym that for stands for Fermentable Oligosaccharides, Disaccharides, Monosaccharides and Polyols."
Even if they were completely wrong in the science, it would sound like they were right because of the technical language. If they know how to spell "oligosaccharides", then they must know the effects of oligosaccharides on the body, right?
Fifth, there's no evolutionary explanation. The food recommendations closely resemble paleo recommendations: grains and legumes are out, dairy is implicated, as well as certain industrial foods. And of course, there's no mention of that -- which isn't really a big deal. To hell with "The Paleo Diet". What really bugs me is that there is no evolutionary, big picture explanation for WHY people get incredible amounts of gas and bloating when they eat these foods. It's just some mysterious property of a specific type of carbohydrate.
In the same vein, look at the title of the article.
When Everyday Foods are Hard to Digest
"Everyday" foods? There's no historical perspective on the human diet -- most of the so-called "everyday" foods that people have to remove on FODMAPS haven't been everyday foods for very long. Vegetable oils, dairy, grains, legumes (like soy).
The tragedy of this article is that it actually makes sense why we aren't well-adapted to eating those foods. But instead of helping people develop a better understanding of there own lives, this article makes people more confused and dependent on nutrition experts.
AND WHAT DOES FUCKING FODMAPS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT ANY OTHER PART OF YOUR HEALTH?
How does FODMAPS help you workout better?
How does FODMAPS help you feed a newborn?
How does FODMAPS help you get healthy sun?
How does FODMAPS help you lead a more meaningful existence?
Answer: it doesn't.
Comments
Everyday foodsThe irony of
Everyday foodsThe irony of using a scientific-jargon heavy "nutritionist" stance to undo the damage done by the supposedly fool-proof scientifically-based food pyramid we all had shoved down our throats (otherwise known as CW) for most of our lifetimes isn't lost on this reader either. There is no magic bullet and there never has been. The gut is a hugely complicated mix of us and them (bacteria), you put food in, stuff (s*#t?) happens. Bottom line, we don't have a clue. Scientists want to understand things, and the media like to sell their publications. combine those two - scientists find a clue and make a possible extrapolation, and the media see an opportunity to play on people's fear - and you have a perfect recipe for hype. Add to the recipe some special interests - food manufacturers, the grain, meat and/or dairy lobbies, and the magic bullet gets shinier and shinier all the time. I think I'd rather eat an apple, thanks.The more I read, the more I realize that the actual "understanding" we have - of health as well as disease - is just the tip of the iceberg. Like in depression - sure, it's a chemical imbalance. but what chemicals? Where? Why? Why does one drug work in one person and not another? If you really look deeply, most so-called "medical" treatments for most diseases are developed by trial and error. At the heart of almost all of them, there is stuff we really don't understand. We're just happy it works. Diet isn't any different.
I'm not sure if you're
I'm not sure if you're against the article or the FODMAP diet. Who is the "they" you mention? The FODMAP diet doesn't compete with paleo, but it does have a lot in common with it. They're both new and have exciting results in solving a 20th/21st century problem.I'm guessing that you were in a bad mood while writing this because in parts where you agree with the article you decided to take a patronizing tone. You have to rememeber that this article was written for WSJ readers. And the diet itself is very interesting, Mat Lalonde has mentioned it a few times as well.
I'm against Nutritionism.
I'm against Nutritionism. I'm against articles that are written in a way that hits people over the head with jargon and tells them that it's right because sciences says so. I'm annoyed with articles that essentially require people to memorize a new set of scientific facts with no better ability to navigate their daily lives other than memorizing another set of foods to eat or not eat.
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer,
Sorry to be a Debbie Downer, but they actually do know what causes depression---chemical imbalances. In a few cases, it's genetic. In most cases, it is circumstantial (death in family, terrible divorce, job loss), and most cases significantly reduce in severity after 6 months to a year. I don't think you mean Depression here, John. You're talking depression with a small d. Discontent, irritability, mood swings, black and white thinking, loss of perspective, feeling blue, fuzzy brain. I doubt Depression could be "cured" by diet only, but I'm sure symptoms of depression could be greatly alleviated.
What would we do without
What would we do without experts?In all fairness, though, I'm sure grains, vegetable oils and dairy are everyday foods for most people reading the Journal. The Journal usually gives poor health advice, so this is a big step in the right direction.
The FODMAP diet (just one
The FODMAP diet (just one dietary approach to IBS, and only treats a subset of patients) isn't really that similar to the Paleo diet. You can eat oats with rice milk or cornflour-battered tofu fried in canola oil and avoid FODMAPs. But almost every Paleo recipe will not be FODMAP compliant because they will invariably include garlic, onion, sweet potato, avocado, cauliflower...or some other fruit/vegetable which contains a lot of FODMAPs.Most people following a Paleo diet are nowhere near a FODMAP diet, and vice versa.
On the specifics, agreed. In
On the specifics, agreed. In general terms, they're singling out key food groups like grains, legumes, dairy, and certain industrial foods.
The only grains they single
The only grains they single out are the gluten-containing grains (and not because of their gluten, but because of their fructans), and legumes as you mention. Dairy isn't forbidden, just lactose (hard cheeses are fine, as is lactose-free dairy). And the only industrial foods singled out are the artificial and high-fructose sweeteners (and I guess the addition of inulin to make foods 'high-fiber'). Mostly what is singled out are Paleo-friendly fruits and vegetables. I'm sorry, I just don't see how these two diets 'closely resemble' one another, at any level.
I can see at least one
I can see at least one reason why they don't offer an evolutionary explanation - Evolutionary psychology is soooo overproscribed in mass media, to explain every little thing about human behavior. Maybe they're just getting sick of mentioning evolution at all?
It doesn't have to be
It doesn't have to be evolutionary psychology, and it doesn't have to be the justification -- the science can be the evidence. A little bit of historical perspective on the human diet would go a long way!