Thoughts about nutrition, nutrients ... and moderation

On 29 and 30 June the "Food for Thought 2020: The science and politics of nutrition" event took place, organized by The BMJ and Swiss Re Institute. With it, a great deal of preparation came together in something that can definitely be described as fireworks of fresh insights. When it comes to nutrition, we all think we know a thing or two. Unfortunately, quite often, we don't know the half of it and, what's all the more challenging, science isn't exactly ready to agree on what's good and what's bad either!

My goodness. I just checked and saw that I've been involved in twenty-five events since February. In my role at Swiss Re Institute I find myself in the fortunate position of learning about fascinating new research all the time. Often the focus is on economic developments, societal changes, technological advances and environmental shifts. Often it's also about our health, of course, with cancer research and analyses across the globe around morbidity and mortality ... but that's just it - morbidity and mortality have a cold sound to them, don't they? When you talk about "nutrition", it gets a bit warmer. And when you talk about "food", well now then it gets warm and heated, steaming and boiling. Maybe because of that, I found this conference particularly fascinating - that which we ingest every day, has a direct impact on our physical and our mental health - it's a topic that impacts us all, every single day ... and yet most of us don't spend nearly enough time thinking about what we're stuffing into the one vessel we have, the temple we should take care of, our body.

Over the course of the two days, we had the pleasure to hear from +20 key experts in the field of nutrition. These conversations were definitely enlightening. I can only recommend tuning in and taking the time for them - find them here > day 1 recordings (progress in nutritional research, Type2Diabetes reversal, salt guidelines and > day 2 recordings (impact of nutrition on mental health, reimagining food systems, conflicts of interest in the field of nutritional research). In addition, The BMJ and Swiss Re Institute worked together to deliver fresh research - and making it publicly available in time for the event and discussions. Find them all here - when there, you'll also see that several of the research papers have also been given the podcast treatment - an excellent way to learn more directly from the researchers (these interviews were done by Gary Taubes, who did an excellent job in asking the important questions.

What follows here are simply a few personal ruminations, based on everything I've heard. Like I said, those talks were excellent, err, food for thought.

The research challenge

While we know that nutrition is one of the key drivers of chronic disease, there continues to be great controversy as to what constitutes a healthy diet. Why is that? How come we're leaping ahead with new technological insights on an almost daily basis, but when it comes to nutritional research, we still seem to be far from facts, still stuck in the same old mires of controversy. Turns out that nutritional research is notoriously difficult because, well, we're human. It's incredibly hard to conduct the sweeping trials necessary, because human beings a) change and b) frankly don't adhere very well. Think about it - if someone were to include you in a ten year trial - would you stick to whatever thing you're supposed to stick to? No, you wouldn't (even with the best of intentions). We're human, things happen and we often use food to help us deal with what happens.

Personally, I feel that nutritional controversies will remain with us until technology takes care of it. While I don't like the idea, I think that a chipped future is inevitable (I wrote about that lovely scenario here). Once we're chipped, accurate data can then flow (against remuneration and with privacy layers, of course) - and those data streams will, very quickly, elevate facts, dispel myths, and offer targeted advice to individuals in real-time.

It's not about nutrients, it's about nutrition

Our capacity to give something a singular focus is both a blessing and a curse. Sometimes serendipity leads to an invention, sure. But most often it is the long hard work, the extreme dedication to the one thing, that gives scientists what they need to leap forward. That same focus can also drive us mad and make us blind. And that goes for scientists as much as for the rest of us. That which brings balance, is the capacity to step back and see the whole picture. We all have it - we often forget to do it.

When it comes to nutrition, there's an incredibly loud focus on nutrients, on bits and pieces contained in what we consume, such as carbohydrates, proteins, lipids, minerals and vitamins. What I found interesting, as I was listening to the experts, was that several of them advocated for a decreasing focus on nutrients - and an increased focus on nutrition as a whole. I very much liked that. Because if you get obsessive about every little thing in your foods, you do neither your physical nor your mental health any service. Instead look at the big picture, balance your meals, eat in moderation, regale yourself with something occasionally - that, to me, is what makes most sense. Be good to yourself (eat in moderation), but also be kind to yourself (beyond a healthy diet, by all means don't deny yourself the occasional treat).

We're all unique

Another think that I found quite telling - and that spells out another reason for why nutritional research is so hard - is that we really are all different. What's entirely fine and healthy for one person, can be demonstrably unhealthy for another. Yes, we know a great deal more today about sugar, about salt, about meat, about fats, about carbs, etc., and based on what we know we can make assumptions and dietary suggestions. But that's not where the story ends for the individual, that's where it begins.

From the generally agreed insights, both doctors and patients can make assumptions and give various directions a try. But there's no ultimate truth when it come to nutrition. There's only ultimate truth when it comes to the individual - and that truth won't be discovered until it is experienced and mindfully watched over time. For most of us, a healthy balance is possible - fairly easily possible, in fact. But that balance must be based on us as individuals, not on any of the gazillion cure-all diets that are promoted out there the way snake oil salesmen promoted their wares in the Wild West.

Nutrition - the doctor's blindspot

This was startling to me. Several speakers addressed the topic - as it turns out, when studying medicine or psychiatry, nutrition is simply not part of the curriculum. How is that possible? There was a clear call from experts that nutrition must become a core part of the training of every future medical expert.

It would seem obvious, wouldn't it? Today we know that a huge chunk of the global disease burden can be attributed to diet. Talking about NCDs here, such as cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. One of the speakers, Dr. Georgia Ede, makes the need for nutritional education by medical experts perfectly clear on her website where she writes:

"If you have a physical or mental health problem, the first place to look is your diet."

I'll leave it at that ... as said, lots of food for thought. Take care of yourself ...

... well, maybe one more thought. The Stoics had/have four cardinal virtues, they are: Wisdom, Courage, Justice and Temperance ... temperance being moderation, of course. Maybe we should all work on our inner Stoic - with those four cardinal virtues we'd make the world a far better place ... and, with moderation alone, you'll very likely do yourself a great deal of physical and mental good.