Frank Forencich on why it might be wise to stop listening to health experts:
If health experts were the solution, we’d all be fit and happy. But we’re not.
In fact, we might even go so far to say that the proliferation of health information, advice and expertise is actually having a negative, disempowering effect on the very people it is supposed to be helping. Intimidated by the apparent complexity of health, fitness, nutrition and training, we balk. Afraid to take matters into our own hands, we give our innate intelligence over to others. Afraid to move our bodies, we hire personal trainers to hold the clipboard and count our reps. Afraid to make our own food choices, we hire nutritionists to tell us what to eat. At every decision point in the modern world, we come to a grinding halt, unwilling to take a chance with our own judgment. Awash in information, study becomes a substitute for authentic action.
Frank’s suggestion?
Take whatever health knowledge you’ve got and put it into practice. … You’ve got enough information. Now is the time for action.
Something to consider as resolution season rolls around!
Weight Maven is written by Beth Mazur. Beth believes that obesity is more symptom than cause and that the real problem is our Western diet -- especially sugar, refined grains, and industrial oils. Beth writes about nutrition, ancestral health & food policy. And cats! 
As I like to say, for every expert, there’s an equal and opposite expert. So we might as well be our own experts, right?
So true, so true!!
I can always count on you for drawing my attention to the best commentary out there on health. I couldn’t agree with Frank’s message more, but it leaves some questions, the first of which is, what can we offer those who are not “given half a chance and a decent environment”?
Adele, I like to think that Frank’s suggestion is the ancestral health equivalent of the flight attendant’s “put your own oxygen mask on first and then assist your child.” It would be a pretty big step to see if this approach actually worked for those given half a chance/decent environment (it’s a bit of a paradigm shift).
I get that, but in my brain I’m trying to work through the “health information” glut vs. social constraints that are far larger contributors to poor health for many people. In the conversations around nutrition and fitness communities, I mostly see, if not the “worried well,” then usually the “worried somewhat unwell.” (Which isn’t to say that some of the approaches offered by non-mainstream experts haven’t been life-changing for some; I understand that they have.) My concern is always the “messy middle,” those who do not seek out health information, but are exposed to it through the myriad was that this stuff pollutes our environment. How much guidance is “enough” to reach them, in a useful and meaningful way that can be implemented in a socially/culturally acceptable manner in the environment they are in now that will lead toward improved health and reduced occurrences of preventable chronic disease? Let me put it in concrete terms: food labels. What should be there, if anything? Different guidance? No guidance? I don’t have the answer (I never do).
But I am in 100% agreement that if the rest of us-who are focused on good health already-quit fretting about the little nit-picky details, we might have some time/energy left over to turn our attention to the larger public health issues.
The framework for my masters thesis was diffusion of innovation theory (popularized by Gladwell’s “Tipping Point”). I mentioned before that I think there may be some relevance in that work, but the move put my planned post on the way back burner. Hope to get back to it soon. This article on Lustig I read today really highlights the challenges, but also has a couple clues. Getting sugar of the GRAS list would certainly be an interesting … maybe it could happen?