I realise this post may not fit 100% into our Forum rules, but hope it will pass, as it is so valuable.

I would like to refer interested members to a not-for-profit web site which is commendable for its scientific, detailed and excellent information on healthy foods, nutrition, vitamin content etc.

Most web sites of its kind (Dr. Mercola, Andrew Weil, Dr Oz) recycle health news, add some hype, and sell/promote very profitable supplements related to whatever is reported to be a "superfood" This is a smart way to make lots of money, riding on the back of often poorly-paid research workers.

I refer to the George Mateljan Foundation.

As just one example of their amazingly comprehensive information, have a look at their entry on the health benefits of garlic here

Their profile is here

I hope this may be useful information for health-minded folks on the forum.

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by jko

Well,done..it's always good to review opinions on what constitutes healthy eating.

I didn't spend too much time looking around, but here are my thoughts on some random pages.

I was put off by the strong appeal to the naturalistic fallacy (the assumption that if something is natural, it must therefore be wholesome or healthy, and if something is not natural [i.e. artificially derived] it must therefore be unhealthy). I was pleased to see no mention of silver (colloidal or otherwise) or homeopathic remedies, but disappointed by the slant against GMO foods. The article admits that there's no real evidence against them, but in the next sentence says something like "the best way to avoid GMOs it to buy organic food"; a statement that strongly implies GMOs need to be avoided, for reasons that aren't given. And the old canard about MSG:

Many people also react to artificial food additives, such as monosodium glutamate, sulfites, and food colorings; foods containing these ingredients must be eliminated.

No supporting cites are offered, just the anecdotal "many people report headaches after eating at restaurants that use MSG". Red flag #1.

The Wiki page on George Mateljan is just a stub that appears to have been created to establish credibility but contains no useful information aside from mentioning that he has a book for sale.

The article on supplemental garlic certainly gives the plant a sparkling personality (caution flag #1) and cites quite a bit of supportive research articles while not mentioning any of the negative ones (of which there are many on this subject). That's called cherry picking the data. A truly neutral cite offering "scientific, detailed and excellent information" should provide a balance of the data, most importantly offering a consensus (e.g. conclusions supported by 95% of research data, not supported by 5%). Go to WebMD or NIH and you'll see an example of this.

The site never (as far as I saw) links out to primary sources. All of the supporting links I found were internal - the site links back to itself in support of its many claims (caution flag #2).

In an article on gluten sensitivity, readers are advised to self-diagnose (caution flag #3) in order to determine if they have a gluten sensitivity or wheat allergy. The site also explains how to do an oral food challenge, which is a good way to test for food allergies BUT it carries a risk of serious reaction, and should be performed under the supervision of trained medical personnel with emergency treatment readily available (red flag#2). Just to be on the safe side, however, the site has the usual disclaimer at the bottom: "For education only, consult a healthcare practitioner for any health problems." On the 'comments from readers' page he publishes a review by a self-proclaimed homeopathic "doctor". Red flag#2.

As to whether or not it's the "number 1 in the world" web site (claimed at the bottom of every page), Alexa reports:

Global ranking of 10,913 - a far cry from #1. But "number 1 in the world" is a bit vague. Maybe he means it's the number 1 web site in the world that uses a burlap background image. If so, then he's probably right.

Particularly interesting is the bounce rate of almost 77%. Those are the visitors that arrive at the site but don't bother going any further into it. In other words they take one look and leave. The average time spent on the site is just over two minutes. Not really much time to get educated about anything.

Anyway that's about all the time I'm going to put into the site. There are enough of these kinds of sites out there already; I'm not sure why the author felt there needed to be one more.

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by attrayant