A good friend and I have been having a friendly debate for years about what constitutes healthy eating. And while we don’t always agree, one day it dawned on me that there is an astonishing similarity between healthy eating and successful investing.
The same principles that lead to a long life will make your portfolio live longer, too. Here’s why…
Eating is the most basic of creaturely activities. And since thousands of controlled scientific studies on the subject have been done over the last six decades, you’d think there would be a broad consensus on proper human nutrition.
Yet that’s not the case.
For instance, U.S. government guidelines tell us we need to eat more whole grains. But many, including Dr. William Davis, a cardiologist and best-selling author of Wheat Belly, insist that wheat – even whole wheat – is the primary culprit behind our obesity epidemic and the health problems that stem from it.
In The China Study, Dr. T. Colin Campbell showed convincing evidence that the saturated fat in animal products dramatically shortens our lives. Yet in The Big Fat Surprise, Nina Teicholz takes apart the statistical data and encourages us to eat foods that are not only healthy but also do the best job of satiating hunger: meat, cheese, eggs and butter.
In Eat to Live, Dr. Joel Fuhrman, a practicing physician and nutrition researcher, emphasizes that eating fruits and vegetables – and particularly kale, collards, onions, mushrooms, blueberries, blackberries and pomegranates – dramatically reduces the risk of cancer. YetNew York Times science writer George Johnson reported from last month’s meeting of the American Association for Cancer Research that the link between so-called “super foods” and cancer reduction is unproven and “in no case now is the evidence of protection judged to be convincing.”
What makes things even more frustrating for we laymen is that each side points to large, randomized, double-blind studies that support their conclusions, while simultaneously pointing a finger at opposing studies and describing their findings as “flawed.”
The problem, of course, is that it’s difficult to determine how