When it comes to nutrition, I look at things a little differently than most of the world does. Most people reduce nutrition to a few variables, see things in absolutes, and encourage everyone else to do the same. "Just limit your intake of carbs, and ignore almost everything else." That's a common and popular message. "Stay away from saturated fats, cholesterol, and sodium." That's another one. "Meet these minimum levels of vitamins, minerals, essential fats, protein, and fiber." Many people take that view. "Don't eat any cooked foods." That idea has some supporters. And the list goes on and on.
The world of nutrition has a tendency to emphasize a few things and call it a day--and sometimes it's tough to figure out why people are emphasizing A, B, and C, and just about ignoring D through Z. Why did we become so obsessed with saturated fat a few decades ago? Why are there volumes of books that ignore almost everything but protein/fat/carbohydrate ratios? Why are the US government's guidelines so focused on food groups?
There are plenty of theories out there that have their own specific emphases--and there's scientific data supporting almost all of those theories. For instance, high carb, medium carb, and low carb proponents all point to studies indicating that their ideas are best. Mr. Low Carb will tell everyone about Study 1, Mr. Medium Carb will promote Study 2, and Mr. High Carb will let you know about Study 3. Studies 1, 2, and 3 are in complete disagreement over the optimal carb intake--but that hasn't changed our attitude about the science itself, and our insistence on relying on it.
The science, taken as a whole, seldom really tells us much about which theory is right. If anything, the data we have seems to indicate that we shouldn't make a big deal about something like carbohydrates as a percentage of calories--and that maybe our basic nutritional models are highly flawed, and our whole idea of nutrition as a (traditional) science isn't so scientific at all.
We've taken a scientific view of food by breaking it down to components like vitamins, minerals, proteins, fats, etc., and we've attempted to show that merely altering our intake of one or a few of them amounts to practicing good nutrition. For instance, we discovered that different foods contain different amounts of saturated fats--and, using the scientific method, we came to certain conclusions and recommended a low saturated fat diet to the general public. We also decided to assign a lot of weight to that particular nutrient, as opposed to one like zinc. Over the past few decades, plenty of people have made a point to recommend we eat a certain amount of saturated fat, but very few have done so with zinc (--presumably because, according to the scientific data, saturated fat intakes have a far more significant effect on us, and/or many people already consume the optimum or near optimum amount of zinc, but not saturated fat).
And so, the majority's recommendation is: "Pay attention to your saturated fat intake, and keep it below a certain level. Don't pay much attention to zinc."
We've been told that the scientific data supports that recommendation. But the data is mixed, and although the mainstream recommendation has remained the same, many people aren't so sure that our saturated fat intake ought to be so low, or that it's especially important and worthy of so much attention.
My main contention is that we're looking at nutrition the wrong way. The science doesn't seem to say much at all--but if it does say anything, it's that the very idea of breaking down food into nutrients, designing studies that see food as just those components, and then issuing a few recommendations that single out a few nutrients is wrong. That approach is extremely misleading. And that, in my opinion, is the main reason why research studies don't come to the same conclusions.
When similar studies point to much different conclusions, people generally conclude that some of the studies are flawed. But although that sometimes does explain the differences, sometimes it doesn't. All in all, the mixed results tend to favor the idea that our way of thinking is flawed.
The general public, however, is usually unaware that the scientific data is mixed in the first place, and that our current recommendations will almost certainly be discarded at some point in the future.
And the the world of doctors, nutritionists, etc. seems content with just going along with the most popular ideas. And why? Because it's safe. No one can blame a doctor for stating that low intakes of saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium are in fact a main component of a good diet. It's the safest recommendation in the world--even if it's not particularly effective, and it forces people away from what's really important. If you're carefully limiting how much saturated fat, cholesterol, and sodium you eat, odds are you're going to ignore quite a bit.
The current scientific model of nutrition has its uses and tells us something--but all in all, it's not so great. As I mentioned before, the data is mixed, and its reduction of food to components (and its emphasis on a select few of them) is not a complete approach that leads to sound ideas.
Furthermore, it often singles out a specific effect of food, rather than observing its total effect on overall health. For instance, a study might single out the effect of a certain nutrient on colon cancer, as opposed to health in general. Colon cancer is not a measure of overall health. And that being the case, if increasing a nutrient decreases colon cancer risk but has a negative effect on overall health, the study won't show that. It'll simply imply that we should increase our intake of that nutrient.
Studies on sunlight exposure are also a good example. As of right now, studies seem to indicate that even low levels of sunlight exposure increase the risk of certain types of cancer--and thus, we should all stay out of the sun and/or use sunscreen. But there are plenty of studies that suggest moderate sunlight exposure reduces the risk of overall cancer, and that 95% of the population ought to get a significant amount of unfiltered sunlight. In other words, according to many studies, if you single out one type of cancer, sunlight is bad; but if you include other types of cancer, sunlight is good.
Not to mention the fact that diet might change the way sunlight affects our bodies and our risk of cancer.
If a study attempts to connect Nutrient A with colon cancer or sunlight with skin cancer, it might tell the general public to do the opposite of what it ought to be doing.
And finally, studies have to be financed--and they have a strong tendency to support the groups that finance them. When orange growers put together a study, odds are it'll conclude that oranges are a superfood. When sunblock manufacturers pay for a study, it usually ends up suggesting that people should use sunblock. Pharmaceutical companies produce studies that make their drugs look good, and dairy companies put together studies that show their products lead to weight loss.
All of these industries are extremely money driven--and whenever you come across a study, odds are there'll be a path of hundred dollar bills connecting it to one or more individuals and/or companies.
But even in the case of the most well designed and least corrupt studies, we still start from the same standpoint: "See food as a bunch of nutrients, measure the effect that certain levels of these nutrients have, and then determine the optimal level of each nutrient-."
In other words, even the best studies are not starting with the correct approach--and most studies are far from being the best.
But as I mentioned earlier, I look at things differently. I don't discard the science of nutrition--but I look beyond it. Food is complex. Its effects on the human body are complex. The traditional scientific model cannot come close to really accounting for that. It might be able to in the future, I suppose--but it doesn't right now. That's my theory--and the scientific data supports it. (In other words, the genuinely scientific data is telling us that much of what we consider science isn't so.)
The mainstream science of nutrition suggests that saturated fat is more or less saturated fat, sodium is more or less sodium, and vitamin C is more or less vitamin C. The specific source of the nutrient isn't especially important, the overall diet of the person consuming it isn't especially important, and whether a person consumes 0.1 grams ten times a day or 1 gram once per day isn't important.
It also suggests that we should pay close attention to certain variables like our saturated fat intake, and almost no attention to thousands of other factors.
It also suggests that, say, a 6 foot tall 205 lb. man with 18% bodyfat should focus on losing 10 or 20 pounds. He should make that a priority, as opposed to simply eating living a certain lifestyle and not being especially concerned about his bodyweight.
And it also suggests that for many nutrients, a minimum level is important, and for others, a maximum level is the key figure. Ratios are seldom taken into account--and when they are, they're usually in the form of one nutrient relative to one other nutrient--as in sodium to potassium, and omega 3 fatty acids relative to omega 6 fatty acids--, or, in rarer case, several nutrients relative to each other--as in the essential amino acids.
We're constantly assured that the ideas coming out of mainstream nutritional circles are science. But that's not quite the case. There's some science--for instance, "Vitamin C prevents scurvy." But all in all, that type of science doesn't amount to much. "We should limit our intake of saturated fat, sodium, and cholesterol to these levels" is not like "Vitamin C prevents scurvy." That's my theory--and the scientific data supports it.
But the people want answers. There's demand for that. And answers have been provided--even though they're not necessarily correct. We want "Science has proven this, this, and this. So you need to do this, this, and this." But science hasn't really proven this or this, and it certainly hasn't proven this.
Now, I'm not suggesting that I have the answers. What I'm saying is that we should avoid being bound by confines of a few flawed starting ideas, we shouldn't be tied to the standard scientific field of nutrition or any narrow view of nutrition, and we shouldn't be content with merely recycling ideas that already have a major presence in the world. The main point of this work is to challenge the current model of nutrition, and encourage the world to explore alternatives to how we look at nutrition. We've held firmly to the belief that we have a scientific understanding of food--and that research studies focusing on a few nutrients tell us everything. Some groups have proposed alternative views--raw foodists, vegetarians, Fletcherists, proponents of the paleo diet, etc.--but they usually become quickly tied to a few ideas--for instance, "People didn't eat grains 20,000 years ago--therefore, we shouldn't eat them today."
We should consider the possibility that some truths might exist outside of those types of ideas. And I think most importantly, scientists need to abandon their orthodox view of nutrition. For instance, when researchers study societies renowned for their health, they should not necessarily focus on the standard measures. They should consider such variables as the variety of flavors in people's diets, an insistence on processing foods a certain way, whether foods are regularly undercooked or overcooked by our standards, the fact that certain foods are combined, etc. Or when a formerly isolated society is introduced to modern processed foods--as is often the case--and a segment of the population begins eating the new foods, while other stick to a traditional diet, scientists should examine the two groups--not just from the perspective of nutrients, disease rates, and mortality, but a wide variety of other factors.
My view of nutrition focuses on balance, harmony, and completeness, as opposed to the minimums, maximums, and absolutes favored by the mainstream scientific view. Is an orange a good food? I suppose so. But not if you eat 20 oranges a day. Should we limit our intake of saturated fat? I believe so. But does that mean there should be no minimum, and that we should focus on something like saturated fat in the first place? And how about vitamin C? We emphasize a minimum--but we don't care too much for the idea of a maximum.
There are also food components we know little about, and those we don't even know about. The mainstream scientific view of nutrition tells us to simply place our faith in that science, even though from the standpoint of that science, our knowledge is limited.
In other words, there's hardly any emphasis on balance, harmony, and completeness to begin with, not to mention the fact that even when there is, it's primarily from the perspective of a few dozen vitamins and minerals, cholesterol, several different types of fats, several amino acids, and several different types of carbohydrates; as well as several food groups.
Go through a few hundred diet books, nutritional studies, government recommendations, etc., and for the most part, you'll see that very approach most of the time.
Now, I think the limitations of the traditional vitamins/minerals/carbs/fats/amino acids/ cholesterol/food groups view (including its extreme emphasis on a select few nutrients) is evident, as are the merits of going beyond it.
But why should we emphasize balance, harmony, and completeness?
Well, almost everything seems to indicate that we should.
In my opinion, the scientific data, all in all, in all its forms, seems to tell us that. vitamin or mineral deficiencies seem to have drawbacks. Excesses--particularly in the case of minerals-seem to have their drawbacks. A relatively spread out carb-to-protein-to-fat ratio seems best (although recently, the trend has been to disagree with that theory). The benefits of phytonutrients in general, and the vast number of them--many of which are only present in one or a few foods--also seem to favor the idea; as do studies that compare low variety diets to their high variety counterparts (especially when those studies concern the long term overall effects of long term habits).
Traditional wisdom also sees nutrition that way. Many cultures focus on balance, harmony, and completeness. Over history, many societies have gone out of their way to put together a diet that seems suitable according to that view. Very few cultures--or perhaps none at all--have taken the opposite approach, or anything even close to it. For instance, there doesn't seem to be any record of people who value and prefer diets containing one or two foods groups, just cooked or raw foods, mostly green or orange foods, mostly sweet foods, etc.
Our natural eating habits also seem to place a premium on diets that aren't like that.
And plenty of real life examples also seem to say the same thing.
But as I've mentioned a few times already, even when people take up that approach nowadays, they often limit themselves to a few nutrients--and even when they don't, their main ideas stem from an obsessive view.
Now, before I get into the diet I feel is best, let me just say that I have no intentions of adding a disclaimer stating that you should consult your doctor before following my advice. It's the other way around. You should consult me before following your doctor's advice. If your doctor gives you any advice about nutrition, he should be forced to add that. "Consult with Rodney Ohebsion before following my advice." I'm tempted to go down to every doctor's office in the world and post that on the front door.
As you might imagine, I'm not 100% serious when I say that. And I'm not against Western medicine or Western science. I'm not trying to lead or follow a Crusade against that world. But my point is that we're too attached to the standard advice when it comes to nutrition, we're too quick to defer to that orthodoxy--and we're pretty much forced to do just that in order to avoid a potential lawsuit. Society is putting a gun to our heads, and forcing us to say, "Whenever I don't side with the mainstream scientific view of nutrition, don't take me seriously."
We're sending people to the doors of that orthodox school--the one that emphasizes a low cholesterol, low saturated fat, low sodium diet. And anyone who promotes that school's teachings is blameless. A doctor is not going to get sued for recommending a low cholesterol, low saturated fat, low sodium diet. There a thousand other things he could have recommended--for instance, a a high variety diet, a high vegetable diet, a 20+% raw foods diet, the reduced intake of highly refined sweeteners and fats, etc. But the mainstream science of nutrition gave him his orders--and if he goes along with them, he'll be blameless. Never mind that fact that the science behind those recommendations has produced mixed data. Never mind that fact that, say, the high variety diet might be better than the standard one.
I have to send people to a world that promotes a a low cholesterol, low saturated fat, low sodium diet--and that world doesn't have to send anyone anywhere else. Which is why I stated that they should say, "Consult with Rodney Ohebsion before following my advice."
Now, I'm not saying I'm right about everything. I'm not saying I have all the answers. The mainstream science of nutrition is saying something close to that--and it doesn't have to tell you to consult your doctor. It is your doctor.
I'm not claiming I know exactly what you should do. I'm not claiming my ideas won't change over time. But based on what I know, this is what I believe and recommend. If you want to consult your doctor before doing any of what I tell you, that's your business. But I'm not going to defer to your doctor. Newton and Einstein didn't tell you to consult a physicist. Tesla didn't tell people to consult Edison. And if anyone tells me that I have to tell people to consult a doctor, I'll take everything right to the Supreme Court. In fact, I'll go beyond the Supreme Court. Even the Supreme Court can't tell me what to do. I supersede the Supreme Court.
Again--I'm not 100% serious when I say that--but the point is, I shouldn't be required to support a proven science that isn't really proven; and until that world stops claiming that is has all the answers and has science to prove it, and until it stops discouraging people from looking outside of its beliefs and recommendations, I'm not going to tell people to consult their doctors. And under no circumstances am I going to represent people from that world as the ultimate authority on a matter. If you want to force me to add something about how people should listen to someone else, you better force that someone else to let people know that he doesn't have all the answers.
So without further ado, here's what I recommend:
1. Meet your needs, and don't go to extremes.
It can be tempting to take a much different approach--and plenty of people are lured into the idea of doing just that, whether it's a month long cabbage soup diet, just about any severe low calorie diet, any sudden dietary change that you intend to maintain over the long run, a raw foods diet, a strict low fat diet, a long term reduced food group diet, megadoses of supplements, etc. The dieting industry just about goes out of its way to encourage many extremes--and in many cases, promoting a philosophy like that brings in the most money.
Do yourself a favor and don't bother with any of that.
2. Eat a wide variety of foods. Make sure you include plenty of different naturally occurring colors and flavors.
A high variety diet tends to lead to balance, harmony, and completeness. As a general rule, individual foods don't have balanced nutritional profiles. They tend to be very high in certain nutrients and very low in others. And by nutrients, I mean more than just the standard list we usually use. I'm including variants of nutrients, as well as phytonutrients/phytochemicals and glyconutrients/essential sugars.
Not to mention the fact that plenty of of the components of foods increase or decrease the absorption of other components.
Now, when I say we should eat plenty of different foods, I mean over the long run. I don't have a position on how much variety we ought to get during, say, a day--but over s span of a few weeks, the variety in our diets should be high.
The naturally occurring colors and flavors of foods give us a good idea of what nutrients are present in them. Our modern food supply, however, is far too concentrated in a few areas.
3. Don't eat the same foods day in and day out.
Honestly, I'm not 100% sure about this one--but all in all, I think it's a good idea. I definitely recommend eating a wide variety of foods, so I obviously don't think we should pretty much eat the same foods every day. But I'm not so sure if we should avoid eating one or a few foods almost every single day. In other words, some people might get a lot of variety in their diets all in all, but eat rice, lettuce, and milk (not necessarily together) 275-365 days a year. It would probably be better to avoid something like that.
At the bare minimum, we shouldn't eat the same food in ssmae form too frequently. If you're, say, going to eat rice every day, avoid eating it boiled at the same temperature for the same length of time over and over again, Consider eating undercooked rice, overcooked rice, rice cakes, rice noodles, soaked rice, sprouted rice, fermented rice, etc.
4. Don't eat the same combinations of foods over and over again.
Again--certain nutrients can increase or decrease the absorption of other nutrients. Eating the same combinations of foods consistently can lead to an imbalance.
5. Include both raw and cooked foods in your diet.
I can't say I'm a big fan on raw foodism. In my opinion, a 100% or even a 90% raw foods diet is unbalanced. The act of cooking a food changes its nutritional properties. It also allows us to eat foods that are not suitable for eating in their raw forms, or can't be eaten in significant quantities in their raw forms. Yes--I suppose we can go overboard with a food because we can eat so much of it when it's cooked. But on the other hand, raw foodists are usually the ones who tend to go overboard when it comes to certain foods. After all, they have caloric needs, and most raw foods are low in calories--especially when you consider how long it takes to actually eat them. In order to get, say, 2000 calories a day, there's a good chance a person will end up eating massive quantities of foods like bananas, dates, coconuts, and nuts.
I don't have much more commentary when it comes to raw and cooked foods, and I can't say I know the optimal ratio of raw to cooked foods--but I don't recommend any extremes, one way or the other.
6. In order to get enough rare nutrients, be sure to eat seeds, green leafy vegetables, mushrooms, peppers, seaweed (don't go overboard with seaweed), and at least some of these foods: tomatoes, cucumbers, celery, rice, tea, parsley, greens, potatoes, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, peanuts, cinnamon, ginger, rosemary, lentils, sweet potatoes, nuts, citrus fruits, cantaloupe, beans, okra, poultry, meat, seafood, oysters, dairy foods, eggs, pumpkins, Brussels sprouts, mangoes, papayas, bananas, onions, cauliflower, and asparagus.
7. Limit your intake of refined wheat, heavily processed vegetable oils, margarine, corn syrup, or cane sugar.
8. Chew your food adequately.
By now, you're probably wondering why this book is called The Einstein Diet. I can't say I'm 100% sure myself, but here are my theories:
1. People go for things like that. The South Beach Diet. The Zone. Eat This, Not That! And now, the Einstein Diet. I need readers, too!
2. Rather than confining my view to absolutes, I see things from the standpoint of relativity--as in nutrients relative to other nutrients.
3. I'm a genius like Einstein. (I'll be expecting my Nobel Prize tomorrow. Actually, don't bother giving me one. I wouldn't lower myself to something like that. Don't give me a Nobel Prize. Just give me money. I deserve money. A lot of it.)