When you’re faced with a potential solution to a health issue – even if the issue is simply, “how can I be healthier” – we all apply our own version of a “quality-assurance” test to the product or practice being offered as a personal check against scheme’s and scams. Remember, the goal of health is the polar opposite of the goal of profit.
For most, we have come to believe that science is the lone arbiter of the facts. Or rather, the science that we actually read and assuming we can accurately interpret it (which narrows it down substantially). With BA, we have attempted to show you how vulnerable this plan makes you in being duped by some for-profit entity that couldn’t care less about your health (even if they DID understand what that was; which they don’t).
My fitness center has a reputation for promoting a healthy lifestyle in all of its forms – including nutrition. So we often get visits from representatives of food products that claim to have the same goal. During one such visit recently from a local organic ranch I was handed a promotional flyer that listed all of the health benefits of eating grass-fed and organically raised cattle. This was a ranch that was doing everything right, but I didn’t want to know about the health benefits of grass-fed beef (none of that was news to me – nor would it be to my clients), I wanted to know how well this particular ranch was doing it. I’m sure I’m not the average customer in that way. But one item on this flyer caught my eye because it pointed out the primary difference between the common test for veracity – which is riddled with ways to deceive the average person, and the B3 version of that test – which is foolproof. Let’s take a look…
Here is the case being made – verbatim – from the flyer:
“Grass-fed foods are higher in beta carotene, vitamin e, conjugated linoleic acid, and omega 3 fatty acids (research shows that these nutrients are important to reducing cancer, cholesterol, diabetes, high blood pressure, and heart disease).”
You’ll notice that the writer was making an assumption that the reader would want some supporting data to prove that this product was actually healthier. So far, so good. The alleged facts are in the first part of the sentence, while the supporting science that the writer assumes would have the greatest impact on the average consumer is in parenthesis. The problem with this science is that it isn’t science at all: what research? By who? Who paid for it? What did the actual science say?”Important”(?) – what does that mean? Etc. You get the point. Those words don’t support anything; they could have very well been written about a Twinkie and still justified as true in somebody’s mind.
Here is how I would present the very same food, including the only supporting data wherein there is no opportunity for deception of any kind:
“Grass-fed foods are the only form of beef that ever existed in the world prior to last 200 years.”
In that one simple (and much shorter) sentence is everything you need to know about the quality and health benefits of this food.
As we say in the BA Rules Of Food, “if it didn’t exist in the exact same form 5,000 years ago, it isn’t food.”
And, amazingly (not really), no reference to science needed or even desired. It was meaningless anyway. I don’t fault this particular rancher for attempting to satisfy the public’s demand for a reference to some supporting science – not matter how meaningless – but I was not moved even slightly by that barely-there test that only proved that some research somewhere says that certain nutrients (which I still have no proof are actually in grass-fed beef) are “important” (whatever that means) to “reducing” (whatever that means) certain diseases. Really? Is that the best we can do? And, as consumers, is that what we really want?
Still stuck on the need for science? How about a 60,000-year case study called the survival of the human species since the dawn of its existence. Now there’s some science you can lean on and anybody can understand.