Those who follow baseball may know that a promising 2010 Red Sox season was sabotaged by a rash of broken bones:

"Ouch! My bones are so brittle. But I always drink plenty of… 'Malk'?"

Beer goes in here!

They're suffering from a critical deficiency of 11 herbs and spices.

And I quit right here:

A quarter of the diet is toxic grains and the protein may be derived from toxic legumes. It looks like roughly 70% of calories come from carbs and 25% from protein.

If you're pretending to be an expert on biological science and you don't know what "toxic" means, I'm not reading any further.

I almost stopped at:

Uh oh! Jacoby Ellsbury, who managed only 18 games in 2010, whose bones break on incidental contact and whose hairline fractures won’t heal in six months, is the dietitian’s prize pupil?

There was nothing incidental about the contact with Adrian Beltre that broke Ellsbury's ribs. See the video at mlb.com. Most people would characterize that, rather, as getting kicked directly in the ribs by a very large professional athlete.

Further, the reason that Ellsbury's recovery took so long wasn't his lack of micronutrients,** but because the Red Sox doctors failed to diagnose the extent of his cracked ribs and prescribed insufficient rest and incomplete rehab because of it.

**Classic ######## dump to prefix "micro" to a word that already describes fricking molecular compounds.

"Perfect Health Diet"...

That name is almost as crackpotty as adding "PhD" after your name on a book cover*.

*) Though I feel for the poor bastards who have to use "MD" on the cover of their refutation of relativity.

As Matt mentions, some clown-car nutrition stuff in this article, one example being the assertion that eating grains causes rickets -- given what I've seen in reputable sources, this disease is normally caused by a lack of Vitamin D.

Come on, bachslunch, if you're going to raise that point you're morally obligated to say "that's a clown diet, bro".

one example being the assertion that eating grains causes rickets -- given what I've seen in reputable sources, this disease is normally caused by a lack of Vitamin D.

Here's a cite on rickets and macrobiotic diets. http://www.ajcn.org/content/51/2/202.abstract

http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/sox_therapy/discussion/petit_object_aaron_cook/#4170048

**Classic ######## dump to prefix "micro" to a word that already describes fricking molecular compounds.

Micro and Macro refers to the dosage not the size of the molecule.

I've read the book and I agree the name gives a strong sniff of quackery, but I will say the book as a mindboggling number of cites to scientific journal articles in what seem to be reputable journals. Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

Edit: I didn't see that in Cook thread.

Here's a cite on rickets and macrobiotic diets.

My understanding is that those on macrobiotic diets normally don't consume dairy products. Given that it's common to fortify such items with Vitamin D (and it's likely many folks fulfill their Vitamin D requirement from dairy), that could explain why some macrobiotic folks get rickets -- especially if they have limited sunlight exposure.

That stuff about toxic grains is something you usually hear from "caveman diet" proponents.

I've read the book and I agree the name gives a strong sniff of quackery, but I will say the book as a mindboggling number of cites to scientific journal articles in what seem to be reputable journals. Just something I thought I'd throw out there.

That's the thing with these diets. Most of them are good diets. The paleo diet seems to involve lots of fiber, lots of protein, almost no processed carbs. You eat that way, you'll most likely be eating a very healthy diet, you'll feel good, all sorts of good things. The reputable journals can be cited willy-nilly to back that up.

The problem is when the people advocating these diets start claiming that all other diets are unhealthy because of wackjob ideas XYZ. It is not unhealthy to get some protein from legumes or to eat some whole grains. The idea that these are "toxic" in normal portions is wackadoo pseudo-science.

As an extreme example, I had a friend Paul in college who started following The Blood Type Diet. He became a total convert, and would explain to people over every meal why he was eating the way he was eating. The diet says that people are different biochemically according to blood type, and different blood types require different personalized diets. His blood type required cutting out most processed carbs, eating lots of leafy greens, lean protein, and moderate amounts of dairy and nuts. This is, of course, a healthy diet, and a radically healthy diet for a college student. (I was usually eating buttered spaghetti or waffles at the same table.) So he felt better.

I remember one dinner when he was explaining his diet to this really sweet Southern girl, she was a friend of my girlfriend's, they were both bio majors. So Paul goes through his whole spiel about the blood type diet, and evolution, and how we need these specialized diets, and what he ate, and on and on. She sits through the whole thing for like ten minutes, and then, in the sweetest, soft voice you can imagine asks, "do you know what a blood type is?"

It's a healthy diet. It's a healthy diet for relatively simple reasons, not because of odd, evidence free evolutionary story-telling. It is not the only healthy diet in the world.

The whole Cubs/Sox offseason dealings were intriguing but now the spate of Sox injuries is being blamed on the Cubs owner?

As Matt mentions, some clown-car nutrition stuff in this article, one example being the assertion that eating grains causes rickets -- given what I've seen in reputable sources, this disease is normally caused by a lack of Vitamin D.

Where's the crazy clown town tag that's supposed to accompany this thread?

I sent this to my girlfriend, who is just finishing a dual Masters at Friedman (the Tufts nutrition school cited in the article). Her response, FWIW:

Great, awesome, I think everyone should take advice from an astrophysicist who write about diets and says that grains are toxic.

This kind of garbage makes me so mad.

But on the other side of this, a girl I'm in class with works for this company that measures biomarkers for athletes and then designs diets for them based on which nutrients they're missing, and while she couldn't tell me which teams, she did say the MLB teams they work with have ridiculously bad diets.

I should probably also list foods that are considered good sources of Vitamin D -- and with one exception, unless you're a macrobiotic eater who consumes seafood, you're not likely to have any good source to get this nutrient without resorting to consistent sunlight exposure or a vitamin supplement. Good sources of this vitamin apparently include cod-liver oil, swordfish, salmon, mackerel, tuna, sardines, sole, flounder, and fortified milk/milk products. Egg, liver, pork, shrimp, certain mushrooms, and few other D-fortified items have smaller amounts in them. Sources:

http://www.thedailygreen.com/healthy-eating/eat-safe/sources-of-vitamin-d-in-foods

http://www.algaecal.com/vitamin-d/sources.html

http://www.myhealthnewsdaily.com/468-good-sources-vitamin-d.html

http://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/VitaminD-HealthProfessional/#h3

In short, if you don't consume any animal products, you're going to have to chow down on a whole lot of mushrooms, get good sun, or take vitamins.

**Classic ######## dump to prefix "micro" to a word that already describes fricking molecular compounds.

Macronutrients: carbs, fats, proteins, ie, containts calories
Micronutrients: vitamins, minerals, etc, doesn't contain calories.

Of all the misinterpreted science in there, this is actually fine.

Fortunately, there is ample evidence that rickets is caused by vitamin D deficiency and that eating whole grains does not lead to vitamin D deficiency. It's also very easy and common to check vitamin D serum levels to ensure that you are within a healthy range, and being out in the sun for most of the day and mostly not being vegans, I would guess that most Major League players are just fine.

The weird thing about this is how obviously untrue it is on its face. Does this guy think there is an epidemic of rickets in the world? It's a pretty uncommon disease, pretty much unheard of in adults, and the mechanisms are well characterized. It's almost as if he doesn't understand what rickets is or how vitmain D works.

I sent this to my girlfriend, who is just finishing a dual Masters at Friedman (the Tufts nutrition school cited in the article).

What does she think of the book WheatBelly?

Macronutrients: carbs, fats, proteins, ie, containts calories
Micronutrients: vitamins, minerals, etc, doesn't contain calories.

Of all the misinterpreted science in there, this is actually fine.

Yup. Totally got that one wrong. Need to double-check things before snarking.

What does she think of the book WheatBelly?

Sean - I e-mailed her to ask - if she has any opinion or has read it, I'll pass it on here.

If anyone wants to see good old Victorian rickets, the Warren Anatomical Museum in Harvard's Countway Library (their medical library) has a skeleton of a woman with extreme rickets. Her legs go in spirals -- here's a picture, and it ain't pretty.

They also have Phineas Gage's skull and the steel bar that went through it. Fun little museum, if you happen to be in the vicinity of Longwood Ave in Boston.

I shared this on the previous thread because I thought it was interesting, not to endorse it. I find the general defense of nutrition science to be about as confounding as the use of toxic to refer to grains in the shared article. If I have learned nothing over the past few years of reading about nutrition, it's that 95% of what you read about nutrition is probably complete BS. The thing about breakfast sparking your metabolism? BS. The stuff about salt being bad for you? BS. The stuff about high fat diets being bad for you? BS. It's almost always from correlation studies with so many confounding factors that haven't been teased out as to make it almost worthless. Within the quackery in this article, there is also some truth.

It makes me nervous if the Red Sox players aren't being advised to consume crap tons of protein, and to eat a relatively high-fat diet, especially in season. I am skeptical of a nutritionist that doesn't recommend red meat as a protein source, given that the evidence against red meat is scant and again usually population based BS evidence. There is some evidence that excessive consumption of soy products reduces testosterone levels, etc.

Again, it's not that I endorse the conclusions of the author, it's that I'm highly skeptical of most nutritionists.

Her legs go in spirals -- here's a picture, and it ain't pretty.

Christ, she looks like Honus Wagner.

given that the evidence against red meat is scant and again usually population based BS evidence.

How is population-based evidence BS? Population-based studies are generally considered a stronger study design. Do you mean ecological studies? Ecological studies (where data is collected on a population, rather than individual level) are certainly weak evidence, but the overwhelming majority of modern nutritional epidemiology is done using individual-level data.

How is population-based evidence BS?

I have a theory based on nothing more than observation, and no training at all in medicine or nutrition, so take that for what it's worth. The theory is the diet of modern America is great for elite athletes and horrible for the population. For guys with great genetics in the prime of their life the result is athletes who are bigger, stronger, and faster than anything we've seen before. For people not so genetically blessed, older, and/or less active, the result is epidemic obesity.

Perhaps I meant ecology-based, and do not have my terminology correct. I mean to describe stuff like this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/really-to-lower-your-risk-of-diabetes-eat-breakfast/ as the sort of study I find bad, whereas a study like this debunks it using a controlled study: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/18/eating-a-big-breakfast-doesnt-cut-daily-calories/ I'm happy to be enlightened as to the terminology differences (non-sarcastic).

Edit: I know these studies aren't exactly the same, but I think the point stands. In general, I think we get lots of diet advice that is based on covariance (people who skip breakfast are generally unhealthy; people who eat lots of saturated fats are generally unhealthy) rather than through sound study. This also applies to meal frequency claims I think.

What's the MLB meal money these days? Pretty sure it's enough to eat like a King, at least on the road. There may be some fringe players that still eat cheap and pocket the difference, but I doubt that is the norm. I'm betting that there are also some restaurant owners/managers that would pick up a few checks just to have the buzz of being patronized by the local MLB team.

Seems like MLB players are likely to have a better diet than the average person, unless one believes steak is bad for you even in the short term.

What's the MLB meal money these days? Pretty sure it's enough to eat like a King, at least on the road. There may be some fringe players that still eat cheap and pocket the difference, but I doubt that is the norm. I'm betting that there are also some restaurant owners/managers that would pick up a few checks just to have the buzz of being patronized by the local MLB team.

Seems like MLB players are likely to have a better diet than the average person, unless one believes steak is bad for you even in the short term.

I wouldn't doubt that a lot of these guys still eat like crap. That they CAN eat like a King doesn't mean they don't prefer to eat at The King. The schedule for these guys means they are not eating dinner at any kind of reasonable dinner hour so their big meal is either at 2-3PM or at midnight. I'd bet in a lot of cases they just grab sandwiches and whatever the hotel bar is offering up.

The " toxic legume " quote refers to soybeans. There's a lot of literature that suggest that soybeans are harmful- especially to hormonal regulation in the body

Read " The Vegetarian Myth " for practical implications as well as footnoted references

Perhaps I meant ecology-based, and do not have my terminology correct. I mean to describe stuff like this: http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/30/really-to-lower-your-risk-of-diabetes-eat-breakfast/ as the sort of study I find bad, whereas a study like this debunks it using a controlled study: http://healthland.time.com/2011/01/18/eating-a-big-breakfast-doesnt-cut-daily-calories/ I'm happy to be enlightened as to the terminology differences (non-sarcastic).

Well, to start, that's great that you're interested in the science. A lot of people just like the studies that just support what they already believe without thinking about what they mean or what the limitations are. In your example though, I'm not sure one study even debunks the other in that situation, and it does look like the first study has a comparison group. Without having reaqd the studies themselves, I'm not sure what you consider "bad" about that first study. They're studying different questions, very different aspects of breakfast in different populations, over different time periods, with different outcomes. You have to look at studies very carefully and think about the very specific questions each study is addressing.

Generally, in order of weakest to strongest evidence, human studies go:

Ecologic
Case-Control
Cohort
Randomized Clinical Trial

Those are the main types of studies, but there are tons of variations within them and sometimes reasons why weaker designs answer questions better than some stronger ones.

For kind of an easy intro to clinical study designs, there's always wikipedia. On the other hand, this might be a little advanced, but this website has a grad-level intro course on epidemiology and study designs. I'd focus on the different study designs, but to understand how to assess strengths and weaknesses of various studies, you do need to understand the methods and what the study designs are trying to do, and what their limitations are in terms of causality.

What Is Her Diet Advice?

To get an idea of what diet she might be recommending, I looked at the Dana-Farber nutrition team web site, and was surprised to see this graphic illustration of their “Optimal Diet plan for cancer survivors”:

Well, that sounds reasonable! I'm sure any dietician would recommend that cancer survivors and muscular 25 year old male athletes eat the same kind of diet!