> If you need a doctor to explicitly mention to you that good nutrition will improve your health, then I'd suggest being a little more perceptive
huh? the point was made about their in depth understanding of impact of specific nutrition. not that "good diet is important" generality. and I am being "a little more perceptive" by doing a decade of my own research. not sure why that comment was necessary or what it has to do with my point
By good diet, I mean higher intake in fruits and vegetables, moderate intake in meats. Stay away from high processed foods with excessive sugar, fat, and sodium. It shouldn't take a decade of research to figure that out unless your diet is completely strict due to specific ailments.
By good diet, I mean higher intake in fruits and vegetables, moderate intake in meats.
this is a common truism that may or may not be beneficial to any one individual. it has nothing to do with understanding of nutrition as pertaining to treating specific health issues.
it's like saying, "exercise and sleep good". while this is true in most cases, has nothing to do with original point "Most doctors know very little about what food does to the body."
No, but what's good for the gander is usually good for the goose (I know its a rephrasing of the original). That's how we get effective medicine and built models of understanding. While individual factors are prevalent, they usually don't cause as much deviation from the overarching model. For example, higher intake in fruits and vegetables is a practical step, easily understood, and well studied to help reduce meat related illnesses like heart disease and CVD. While the mechanisms aren't well understood, that doesn't preclude the data.
huh? the point was made about their in depth understanding of impact of specific nutrition. not that "good diet is important" generality. and I am being "a little more perceptive" by doing a decade of my own research. not sure why that comment was necessary or what it has to do with my point