In a nutshell, "nutritionism" is the idea that the healthfulness of a food is based on the sum of the nutrients it contains. I learned about this concept from Michael Pollan, who you may have heard of... he wrote "The Omnivore's Dilemma" and "In Defense of Food", both phenomenal books that I highly recommend. Pollan makes the argument that this is a reductionist philosophy that assumes we know more about the composition of foods and the inner workings of the human body than we really do. I couldn't agree more.
Take the carrot, for example... we all know carrots are good for us. You've probably heard that they're high in beta carotene. Well, when researchers have taken beta carotene out of the carrot and given it to people in pill form, it turns out it doesn't do jack shit. Is beta carotene useless? Or is it just useless outside the context of the food it comes from? Context matters. We're not as smart as we think we are, and we don't have it all figured out. Studying individual nutrients outside the context of a real food tells us very little about what we should eat, and sometimes it just makes things more confusing. We don't eat nutrients, we eat food.
If we want to learn how eating a carrot affects our health, then we need to study carrots. Yet, as obvious as that may sound, we don't often study nutrition in this way. We study the nutrients on their own, and then decide whether a food is good or bad based on which nutrients it contains. There are plenty of examples where this paradigm has led us astray... here are just a few.





