ccbowers-
and with ‘micronutrients’ becoming the newer thing– I’m guessing the knowledge about what makes a good diet is just beginning.
Oh, and the hype part will probably get worse too…
(I like the phrase ‘vitamin du jour’ BTW)

As you both have pointed out, there are all sorts of fads and ideas and bend and stretch diets one way or another. Often they try and play on the anthropological or evolutionary “history” of our species (ignoring the fact that the evidence is slim and we have evolved much in the last few hundred years).

To me, the varied diet with fresh fruite and veg, taken in limited quantities is merely the best way to cover our bases. One would be hard pressed to find someone who is otherwise healthy and whose nutritional needs are not met by such a diet. It is sound, reasonable advice.

I merely wanted to point out that because such a diet generally covers the bases, doesn’t mean other diets wouldn’t cover the bases as well – especially for different people doing different things.

As an example, I used to weigh a solid 250lbs for most of my adults life. In the span of 5 months I dropped down to 175 and then built up muscle and began competitively cycling for a few years (I’d easily put 20k miles on my bike in a year). I ate very low carb, high fat, high protein diet. In fact, if I didn’t eat at least 5,000 calories a day, I would lose weight. I also had to eat a lot of protein, and I was very picky about which fruit and veg to eat since there were times I literally couldn’t fit enough food in my stomach at a time to meet my caloric needs – in fact, after doing a 100 mile bike ride, I would eat two dinners and then wake up at 5am starving and eat a massive breakfast again.

The point is that a diet varied and with lots of fruit and veg would not have supported me. I know it is an extreme example, but the point is that people are indeed in different states and may have very different needs. A pregnant or post-menopausal woman would need more calcium. A woman with heavy periods will need more iron. And the same varied diet with lots of fruit and veg may not be optimal or even sufficient and a monotonous diet with the right composition may indeed be just as good if not better.

I totally agree, and I like the progression of the recent comments. There is much hype, and overinterpretation of basic science in advice given regarding these topics. Its hard for me to forget the last overhyped concept (e.g. your antioxidant example, or vitamin du jour) before jumping on the next bandwagon, running way ahead of the science.

So you would say that a person that does not eat a varied diet that includes fruit and vegetables is not likely to be undernourished?

No. If you were to take the plethora of diets that a person could theoretically eat, and compare all the rest with a varied diet w/ fruit and veg, then of course, the likelihood that all other diets combined were not as effective overall becomes a truism.

However, your assumption (which I wasn’t actually saying is wrong) was that being devoid of fruits and veg and eating a monotonous diet means you must be under nourished. As I said – on the whole, that may be correct. But only when averaging in all the potentially terrible diets a person can consume.

But especially in today’s society, in terms of clinical under nourishment (which we have agreed upon mean a clinical deficiency in calories and/or vitamins/minerals/nutrients) one can eat a very monotonous and devoid of fresh foods diet and still be quite well nourished.

For example, eating nothing but beef jerky, Total breakfast cereal, and bacon and eggs would certainly provide all the calories you need and (since Total, like many foods these days is fortified with vitamins and minerals) likely all the nutrients you would need as well.

You may still be obese and suffer myriad other health problems (and arguably be malnourished as we stated above) but you will not necessarily be under nourished.

So to me, the research you speak of (and the “common knowledge”) that a varied diets w/ fruit and veg are the “healthiest” to me just indicates that said diet is simply the most convenient way for the average person to not be under nourished and also likely not be malnourished.

So what I would say you are missing, since you asked, is merely that the nutrition research is giving the easiest and likeliest diet to be well nourished, but not stating it is the only way to be well nourished. And when you break it down to mal- and under- nourished, then it becomes easier to pick nits and find diets that lend to one but not the other (though I suppose we can agree that under- would be a subset of mal- such that all under-nourished people are mal-nourished, but the contrapositive is not true).

So I wasn’t trying to say you are wrong, merely to prevent you from narrowly focusing on only one diet to the exclusion of others which may well be just as effective for some people.

I have heard that some populations (Inuit for ex) can thrive without a varied diet,but I don’t know how well their overall health has been studied. I am more concerned about whether the typical diet of a meat and potatoes type American who avoids fruit and veg is causing future health problems.

Again,I do not know the answer,but why does mainstream research on nutrition suggest that we should be eating a balanced diet,if there is no good reason to do so? What am I missing here?

if we accept the research that a healthy diet should consist of a variety of foods, which should include fruits and vegetables,and if you have a segment of the population that eschews those categories,would it be likely that those people might be considered undernourished?

The assumpion implicit and necessary in that statement is that only a varied diet that includes fruits and veg would prevent undernourishment.

Although I understand the concern, I think that that particular worry could be better used elsewhere. I guess I do try to encourage variety and emphasize fruits and vegetables with my children, but my rationalization is that I am promoting potentially healthier lifestyle of eating that will impact how they eat as adults. This is not because I worry about specific nutritional deficiencies, but because diet can potentially impact cancer and cardiovascular risk (which are the leading causes of death overall for adults). This effect may be small for some things, but it is one of the modifiable risk factors.

For my worry while they are children… physical safety is major concern since accidents is the leading cause of death for children. The reason why I mention this is because, as skeptics, we should be weighing our concerns to the actual risks despite the subjective feeling of risk (e.g. worrying about random kidnappers, but not worrying about speeding all over town in a motorcycle)