Reply to Tamsin (see below for my response to some points made)…

Tamsin:  … I am afraid that yes for a lot of people, it really is that
simple. In a world where 200million people are obese, with all the
consequent health risks that this entails, and with an increasingly
sedentary lifestyle in the developed world, taking in any amount of
essential fatty acids and fish oils is not going to do as much for you as
adjusting one's energy balance: eating less or exercising more as a first
step to improving health will do more good as a whole for individuals AND
for society than specific dietary changes.

Ed:  Tamsin, you bring up a good point about COMPARISON of variables (ie.
What weighs heavier in influencing outcomes, energy balance or diet
quality?), but I have to ask you: How did 200 million of us become obese?
Was it a pure lack of will-power, or did the food industry have something
to do with it?  Are there ways that food scientists have capitalized on
human physiology to create foods that encourage consumption, or not?

Continuing with this line of thinking, a telling string of questions might
be: What is caffeine doing in Coca-cola?  What was the original ingredient
in “COCA”-cola?  Have “cola” companies been able to move into even primary
schools now with their soda pop machines?  Has this now largely replaced
milk/juice consumption?  In short, what role has industry played in this
century’s over-consumption by the public (a public who has - for reasons
which this key article could have resolved - become cynical regarding
nutrition knowledge/advice)?

Also, apparently my research examples showing diet QUALITY (increased
omega-3 fat consumption) affecting human lives in a quantitative way
(surviving heart disease) and possibly also in a qualitative way (possibly
affecting “intelligence”) failed to persuade you that diet quality is a
major issue.  If the 2 examples that I gave are not convincing enough,
then I will believe that this discussion was over before it began (which,
I feel, is unfortunate).


Tamsin:  Until the message is clear that most people will never be able
just to eat as much as they want and stay as thin as they like, then the
growing trend of increasing obesity will continue, while people
desperately turn to pharmaceuticals or quack diets.

Ed:  Tamsin, this goes back to my earlier point about the food industry
using human physiology to drive up consumption which, when combined with
perpetuated public confusion that stems from those “in the know” who
prefer not to inform the public about the details regarding human
nutrition and satiety, leads to our predicament.

I concur that the human will is not an entirely robust bed-rock that can
be relied upon to stem overeating (many will overeat, even if you show
them how to manage food intake, satiety mechanisms, etc), but you are
calling for a denial of human weakness (ie. the public just needs to be
disciplined more, or suffer) and I am calling for education of the public.

In short, I believe that I am being more realistic and that you are
evading a critical issue.  So, it seems that we both believe that the
other is evading something.  Now we just have to figure out which of our
competing views is the more rational one.


Tamsin:  One has to ask if ET has something against Leonard, especially
given what he writes about the pressures of agribusiness, when Leonard is
well known for being an eminent nutritional anthropologist with a long
history of good and solid research in this area?

 Ed:  I have nothing personally against Leonard.  I have to admit that I
did research Leonard’s numerous publications (and I was awful scared to
find out that he is indeed eminent!).  The reason that I did not let this
interfere with my response is that I recognized that my fear (of strongly
disagreeing with someone eminent) was irrational, no matter how strongly
felt – it’s very roots stem from the logical fallacy of the Appeal to
Authority.

Ed