Comments on the following draft (already sent; waiting for editor's reply)
are welcome.

---------begin draft-----------

LETTER TO THE EDITOR (Scientific American magazine):


An Unscientific American?

On the surface of it, and from the standpoint of informing public health
policy and/or research direction, the article by Leonard ("Food for
Thought") published in the 'Human Evolution' Special Edition issue appears
to be strikingly uninformative.  This perception is perhaps best
illustrated and verified by a take-away message from the article that
appears as a bullet point on page 65:

"The health concerns of the industrial world, where calorie-packed foods
are readily available, stem not from deviations from a specific diet but
from an imbalance between the energy we consume and the energy we expend."

My response: All hail the supreme Energy Balance Equation!  For 'tis the
cal'ries-in-minus-cal'ries-out that doth endow a man his heretofore claim
to health!  Human health is just THAT simple to summarize and the 'masses'
MUST now concur with this epiphany, no matter how incongruent it is with
the growing body of medical and scientific evidence on the matter!

Conceding the point that being overweight is indeed a crucial detriment to
health, I must nevertheless charge Mr. Leonard with the error of taking
quite a myopic viewpoint regarding this one aspect of health/risk.
Apparently Mr. Leonard is unaware (or unconcerned?) with recent scientific
advances in knowledge regarding a cause-and-effect relationship noted
between PARTICULAR eating patterns, regardless of changes in bodyweight,
and particular HEALTH OUTCOMES (no - not just "biomarkers" of "health"
or "risk" - but real-life "health outcomes").

Of all the "health outcomes" measured, mortality is the hardest to dispute
(only a severe skeptic would deny that someone cold and no longer
breathing is still available for "follow up"!).  A case in point would be
the notable reduction in all-cause mortality (from fish oil
supplementation) in the GISSI-Prevention Trial1, a trial involving over
11,000 people with coronary heart disease.

As a validation of the power of the specific food component tested here
(fish oil), the reduction in mortality that was found in the trial, which
was already evident by the 3-month mark, was also independent of both
baseline diet AND concurrent drug therapy.  And it is this kind of finding
that has led to the production of prescription "fish oil" capsules (e.g.
Omacor) approved for the secondary prevention of myocardial infarction.

I will leave aside the evolutionary issue of the necessary surplus of
particular long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acids (e.g. DHA) that is
required for brain development in humans, and simply offer up another
example/validation of discernable evidence of benefit from a recent
clinical trial.  The trial in question2 assessed the effect of altering
maternal intake of fish oil on a subsequent measure of the child's
intelligence at 4 years of age.  The point estimate showed a 3-4%
difference (increase) in 4-year-old intelligence (Kaufman Assessment
Battery for Children) that reached statistical significance.

Carrying this issue of the "surplus of particular fatty acids required by
the human brain" to its logical extension, to find that carbohydrate
intake (potatoes, etc) was the only theory offered up to explain the
evolution of the human brain is no less than amusing.  One is tempted to
ask whether Mr. Leonard feels restraint or pressure (ie. is "under
duress") from the corporate interests of agribusiness, or if he is perhaps
in cahoots with them to advance interests of his own.  My query on this
particular issue of honest reporting, although stated frankly, is
admittedly baseless and without any substantial weight of argument. My
inclination to be so bold here and to throw such an idea out into this
forum is really a ploy to elevate awareness of the fact that billions of
dollars change hands annually in the food industry; and that relatively
empty summations regarding nutrition science ought to be questioned (as
nothing "sells" products like public confusion combined with the
pervasive, misleading, authoritative advertisements that we are bombarded
with).

Regardless of Mr. Leonard's reply on this query (which I can imagine would
be more than subtle), I must elaborate that the preventable medical costs
expected to result from changes in diet and lifestyle would add up to a
sum greater than the initial cost of the diet and lifestyle changes made
(on a whole).  In other words, we should expect a net monetary gain for
society as a whole, even if particular individuals and particular food
corporations bear a disproportionately large portion of this initial cost
(and EVENTUALLY this will turn PROFITABLE for the corporations that
instigate the technology required to bring the low-technology -
 "evolutionary" - foods back to market).  There are already a number of
promising, low-cost modifications of diet and lifestyle available to us:
such as vigorous exercise and an ample intake of fruits, vegetables, lean
meats, and fish (baked or broiled, but not fried).


Reference:
1.  Marchioli R, et al. Early protection against sudden death by n-3
polyunsaturated fatty acids after myocardial infarction: time-course
analysis of the results of the Gruppo Italiano per lo Studio della
Sopravvivenza nell'Infarto Miocardico (GISSI)-Prevenzione. Circulation.
2002 Apr 23;105(16):1897-903.

2.  Helland IB, Smith L, Saarem K, Saugstad OD, Drevon CA. Maternal
supplementation with very-long-chain n-3 fatty acids during pregnancy and
lactation augments children's IQ at 4 years of age. Pediatrics. 2003
Jan;111(1):e39-44.


Edward Thompson
Health & Exercise Sciences
Globe College, MN
Email: [log in to unmask]


--------------end draft-----------------

Again, comments (either pro OR con) are welcome.

Ed