Last week, Tara Parker Pope - one of the most fair minded and intelligent science and health reporters in America- published a blog that quoted liberally from a piece I had written on healthy foods. The article- entitled "
The 11 Best Foods You Aren't Eating"- was the NY Times most e-mailed article for the week and generated over 800 comments (and counting).
The purpose of the article was simple: to suggest some foods that you might be overlooking that were great for you for a host of reasons. It was lighthearted and fun, and used popular terms like "superfoods" in the same way we use the term "superstars" or "supermodels"- not as a scientific category, but more as a colloquial way of talking.
It clearly pointed out that these were not the only 11 great foods on the planet, but rather, some of the ones you might not have thought of that deserved a look. It was kind of akin to suggesting some new exercises to try at the gym that might be a good alternative to the bench press.
Now in fairness to the Times readers, about 99% of the comments were highly favorable and complementary.
Some were not.
Somewhere around comment 600, I was being accused of claiming that sardines cure cancer.
I had mentioned beets, which have 148 mcg of folic acid, a rather small quantity of this all-important birth defect preventing, homocysteine lowering B vitamin. Comment: "Doesn't Bowden know folic acid causes cancer?"
Later, a smarmy comment: "Who is Bowden anyway? Is he a Registered Dietitian?" implying that without this credential nothing I said should be taken seriously. This is like questioning the knowledge base of an expert on religion by asking to see his Taliban credentials.
Another dismissed my information on nutrition because I'm not a medical doctor, which is like dismissing a tennis pro's information on tennis rackets because he's not an accountant.
Poster 536 suggested everyone disregard this list because it was all processed food (there wasn't a processed food on it unless you count the processing necessary to stuff pumpkin into a can or fresh blueberries into a bag)
So what's the take home?
Perhaps the Times readers would have preferred me to say: "There's absolutely no provable scientific evidence for the health benefits of any foods or supplements, and I've got a doctor right here to back me up, right next to the PhD who says there's no such thing as global warming. So don't worry, be happy and keep eating your McDonald's. Enjoy and good luck.
The article and comments are still going strong.
You can read and/or comment on
The 11 Best Foods You Aren't Eatingat NYTimes.com
The purpose of the article was simple: to suggest some foods that you might be overlooking that were great for you for a host of reasons. It was lighthearted and fun, and used popular terms like "superfoods" in the same way we use the term "superstars" or "supermodels"- not as a scientific category, but more as a colloquial way of talking.
It clearly pointed out that these were not the only 11 great foods on the planet, but rather, some of the ones you might not have thought of that deserved a look. It was kind of akin to suggesting some new exercises to try at the gym that might be a good alternative to the bench press.
Now in fairness to the Times readers, about 99% of the comments were highly favorable and complementary.
Some were not.
Somewhere around comment 600, I was being accused of claiming that sardines cure cancer.
I had mentioned beets, which have 148 mcg of folic acid, a rather small quantity of this all-important birth defect preventing, homocysteine lowering B vitamin. Comment: "Doesn't Bowden know folic acid causes cancer?"
Later, a smarmy comment: "Who is Bowden anyway? Is he a Registered Dietitian?" implying that without this credential nothing I said should be taken seriously. This is like questioning the knowledge base of an expert on religion by asking to see his Taliban credentials.
Another dismissed my information on nutrition because I'm not a medical doctor, which is like dismissing a tennis pro's information on tennis rackets because he's not an accountant.
Poster 536 suggested everyone disregard this list because it was all processed food (there wasn't a processed food on it unless you count the processing necessary to stuff pumpkin into a can or fresh blueberries into a bag)
So what's the take home?
Perhaps the Times readers would have preferred me to say: "There's absolutely no provable scientific evidence for the health benefits of any foods or supplements, and I've got a doctor right here to back me up, right next to the PhD who says there's no such thing as global warming. So don't worry, be happy and keep eating your McDonald's. Enjoy and good luck.
The article and comments are still going strong.
You can read and/or comment onThe 11 Best Foods You Aren't Eatingat NYTimes.com