Why Reductionism is Making Us Sick

Research in human nutrition over the past four decades has led to many discoveries as well as a comprehensive understanding of the exact mechanisms behind how food nutrients affect our bodies. The “prevalence of epidemics of diet-related chronic diseases, especially obesity, type 2 diabetes, osteoporosis, cardiovascular diseases, and cancers, dramatically increases worldwide each year.” Why hasn’t all this intricate knowledge translated into improvements in public health?

Perhaps it has to do with our entire philosophy of nutrition called reductionism, where everything is broken down into its constituent parts, where food is reduced to a collection of single compounds with supposed single effects. “The reductionist approach has traditionally been and continues today as the dominant approach in nutrition research.” For example, did you know that mechanistically, there’s a chemical in ginger root that down-regulates phorbol myristate acetate-induced phosphorylation of ERK1/2 and JNK MAP kinases? That’s actually pretty cool, but not while millions of people continue to die of diet-related disease.

We already know that three quarters of chronic disease risk—diabetes, heart attacks, stroke, and cancer—can be eliminated if everyone followed four simple practices: not smoking, not being obese, getting a half hour of exercise a day, and eating a healthier diet, defined as more fruits, veggies, and whole grains, and less meat.

Think what that could mean in terms of the human costs. We already know enough to save millions of lives. So, shouldn’t our efforts be spent implementing these changes before another dollar is spent on research such as figuring out whether there is some grape skin extract that can lower cholesterol in zebra fish or even trying to find out whether there are whole foods that can do the same?

Why spend taxpayer dollars clogging the arteries of striped minnows by feeding them a high cholesterol diet to see whether hawthorn leaves and flowers have the potential to help? Even if they did and even if it worked in people, too, wouldn’t it be better to simply not clog our arteries in the first place? This dramatic drop in risk and increase in healthy life years through preventive nutrition need not involve superfoods or herbal extracts or fancy nutritional supplements—just healthier eating. When Hippocrates said, “Let food be your medicine and medicine be your food,” he “did not mean that foods are drugs, but rather, that the best way to remain in good health is to maintain a healthy diet.” (Note: Hippocrates probably never actually said that—but it’s a great sentiment anyways!)

The historical attitude of the field of nutrition, however, may be best summed up by the phrase, “Eat what you want after you eat what you should.” In other words, eat whatever you want as long as you get your vitamins and minerals. This mindset is epitomized by breakfast cereals, which often provide double-digit vitamins and minerals. But the road to health is not paved with Coke plus vitamins and minerals. This reductionistic attitude “is good for the food industry but not actually good for human health.” Why not? Well, if food is good only for a few nutrients, then you can get away with selling vitamin-fortified Twinkies.

We need to shift from the concept of merely getting adequate nutrition to getting optimal nutrition. That is, we shouldn’t just aim to avoid scurvy, but we should promote health and minimize our risk of developing degenerative diseases.

Bringing things down to their molecular components works for drug development, for example, discovering all the vitamins and curing deficiency diseases. In the field of nutrition, “[h]owever, the reductionist approach is beginning to reach its limits.” We discovered all the vitamins more than a half-century ago. When is the last time you heard of someone coming down with scurvy, pellagra, or kwashiorkor, the classic deficiency syndromes? What about the diseases of dietary excess: heart disease, diabetes, obesity, and hypertension? Ever heard of anyone with any of those? Of course we have. Yet we continue to have this deficiency mindset when it comes to nutrition.

When someone tries to reduce their consumption of meat, why is “where are you going to get your protein?” the first question they get asked, rather than “if you start eating like that, where are you going to get your heart disease?” The same deficiency mindset led to the emergence of a multibillion-dollar supplement industry. What about a daily multivitamin just “as ‘insurance’ against nutrient deficiency?” Better insurance would be just to eat healthy food.

In health,

Michael Greger, M.D.

PS: If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my free videos here and watch my live, year-in-review presentations—2015: Food as Medicine: Preventing and Treating the Most Dreaded Diseases with Diet, and my latest, 2016: How Not to Die: The Role of Diet in Preventing, Arresting, and Reversing Our Top 15 Killers.

Related at Care2

128 comments

Marie W
Marie W8 days ago

Thanks for sharing.

SEND
Jack Y
Jack Y3 months ago

thanks

SEND
Jack Y
Jack Y3 months ago

thanks

SEND
John J
John J3 months ago

thanks for sharing

SEND
John J
John J3 months ago

thanks for sharing

SEND
Angelo Morella
Angelo Morella4 months ago

Great advice that we should just eat healthy food. However we need to note that in order to maintain healthy levels of nutrients we need to consider, as we are taught in pharmacology, three processes, that is ADME absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination.
In the first instance if the nutrient is not in the food, it is not there to be absorbed. What nutrients in particular? Minerals, minerals come from the soil and may or may not be there in optimum amounts. Unless the farmer maintains optimum levels of minerals in the soil, it will not be there to be absorbed into the plant or animals optimally. To correct mineral content farmers can apply fertilizers that contain trace elements, apply foliar trace elements or provide supplements to animals. One cannot rely on organic fertilizers to have optimal mineral content as the plants do not create minerals and many inorganic fertilizers don’t contain trace elements. So home gardening takes on an unexpected level of complexity if one wants to grow food with optimal mineral content. Studies have yet to prove that organic food is better for you, the perplexing outcome of these studies may be because we expect organic food to be supernaturally better for you, however if the food is grown without optimal levels of minerals it cannot contain optimal levels of minerals and provide the optimum nutrition we need.
Sea food from the sea, as opposed to ponds and farms, is a good source

SEND
Glennis W
Glennis Whitney5 months ago

Learn something new everyday Thank you for caring and sharing

SEND
Glennis W
Glennis Whitney5 months ago

Great information Thank you for caring and sharing

SEND
Glennis W
Glennis Whitney5 months ago

Great information and advice Thank you for caring and sharing

SEND
Glennis W
Glennis Whitney5 months ago

Very interesting article Thank you for caring and sharing

SEND