Thread by @nateliason

I think many people think about whether a food is healthy or not the wrong way.

As a starting point: consider that there's very little compelling evidence to suggest small amounts of alcohol during pregnancy is bad for your future child.

But do you want to roll those dice?

When I say something like "canola oil is bad for you," what I'm saying is akin to saying "drinking during pregnancy is bad for your future child."

Is it possible that canola oil is fine?

Yes, of course.

But considering there's quite a bit of evidence that it might not be fine, and you could cut it out of your diet without much issue, why would you roll those dice?

"Well, it hasn't been proven to be bad, so it's not bad."

That's a ridiculous way to think about diet. If I grab a cup of pond sludge and hand it to you and say "hey no one's run a double blind placebo controlled study showing this is bad" you probably still shouldn't drink it.

This is exactly how the lobbies behind oil, sugar, tobacco, and other "things we realized were bad too late" create misinformation.

"Merchants of Doubt" is a great book on this subject: nateliason.com/notes/merchant…

The default position for anything new in the food world has to be that it's unhealthy till proven beneficial, not that it's beneficial till proven unhealthy.

As far as I can find, we have never created a carb, protein, or fat that is superior to its natural alternative.