My Story
As a nutrition major, I see a lot of dumb things (so many, in fact, I refer to my colleagues as The League of Morons). But it’s not just the discussion of high school freshmen-level fodder in my 4000 level classes that get to me—no, mostly it’s the blatant refutation of anything that isn’t stated verbatim in the ADA handbook. Think Boyscouts of America versus the new kid in town. Bible thumpers up against this girl. Any way you slice, it’s a fight to the finish…only no one knows what they're really fighting for.
Real life example/case in point: low-carb diets. When Dr. Atkins’ New Diet Revolution hit bookstore shelves in 2002, it created a dichotomous sensation—some were thrilled (“OH MY GOD STEAK FOR EVERY MEAL!!1!!!”) while others were chilled to the bone…or in some cases, their very heart. How does this apply to me? Well, over time, I began to notice that when I ate pasta, rice or bread during lunch, I’d feel pretty wonky afterward—like my body was trying to play "catch up." Sometimes I'd feel legitimately sick. However, when I stuck to mid-day meals that were little more than salad and meat (ones with little to no carbohydrates), I thrived. While I’ve since theorized it's because my pancreas enjoys not having to release a ton of insulin three times a day, the main reason I hammer down a head of lettuce and what amounts to half a steer is because it makes me feel good. But science doesn’t care about that, does it?
…I was once told by a very reasonable nutrition professor (who shall remain nameless) that the only thing we know for sure in the field of nutrition is that the principles of moderation, variety and balance work. If that's the case, what's holding us back? I thought science was supposed to be, you know, experimental in nature; I was under the impression nutrition's main focus was making people feel good instead of adhering to dogma.
Am I being unfaithful to the LOM I hope to join some day by eating a "balanced meal" only twice a day? Is there such thing as a reasonable approach to popularly termed "unreasonable methods"? Who knows--but in any case, I’ll be riding the fence for as long as it takes. Or until I have a heart attack.
Concepts and Issues Present
*Reductionism: Dietetians' viewpoints have been whittled down to so few that they're unwilling to accept (or even try to accept) new ones.
*Psychology: I've always perceived myself as an independent thinker--the very epitome of "the lone rebel." Perhaps these good feelings I experience after eating my steak 'n' salad lunch comes from knowing I've done something different than everyone else.
*Technologies/Instruments: "Oh, why is Atkins' bad for you? Well, you wouldn't understand--and I don't have time to explain the epidemiological studies to you--so just trust us...m'kay?" With this kind of 'Members Only' mentality geared toward an unknowing (but desperate) public, is it any wonder Men's and Women's Health are able to get away with garbage?
*Idealology: Put this on the side of every cereal box for the 20 years, and most people will refute any argument that doesn't line up with it.
