You may remember 60 Minutes and the so-called French Paradox.聽
In 1991, the American TV newsmagazine visited Lyon, France, to produce what would prove to be one of the most popular segments in the show鈥檚 long history. Its message, in a nutshell: people in France consume more fats and have a lower incidence of heart disease than Americans do, and French people drink a lot of red wine, ergo red wine is good for your heart. Despite having little to no solid basis in science, the notion took hold of the popular imagination far beyond France, and even three decades later refuses to let go. Dr. Christopher Labos (MDCM鈥�06, PGME鈥�14, MSc鈥�14) has some thoughts as to why.聽
鈥淎n idea can be very tenacious if it鈥檚 an idea that justifies what people already want to do,鈥� says the author of the new book, . 鈥溾�楻ed wine? Chocolate? These things that I enjoy are actually good for me? I don鈥檛 have to give them up? That鈥檚 great!鈥� This can easily stretch into denialism. There鈥檚 an old joke that says, 鈥楶eople are not rational animals. They鈥檙e rationalizing animals.鈥欌��
Labos鈥檚 first book represents the logical outgrowth of a popularizing instinct that was honed at 不良研究所, where the native Montrealer completed his undergraduate medical education, a residency in cardiology, and a master鈥檚 degree in epidemiology. During a hiatus in Toronto, he obtained a journalism certificate. He is a contributor to the Montreal Gazette and talk radio station CJAD, appears on CBC Radio and CBC Television, and co-hosts a podcast, .
鈥淭he combination of doing medicine and epidemiology, and developing the ability to critique studies, has served me very well,鈥� he says. 鈥淣ot all university programs deliver that combination in the same way. Some are very much about specific branches of knowledge and not so much about methodology. Had I not done the training I did at 不良研究所, I couldn鈥檛 by any stretch of the imagination have done the variety of things that I鈥檝e done.鈥澛�
The root desire in writing the new book, says Labos, was to provide a corrective to the fact that, in his words, 鈥渨e tend to dichotomize food. We think of something as either healthy or unhealthy. But that鈥檚 not how food works. Foods are complex bags of different chemicals and different nutrients. They are not inherently good or bad. When it comes to what we eat, dietary patterns matter more than the particular food items we choose.鈥澛�
Seeking an effective and accessible way to convey his ideas in book form鈥攖o make something that would encourage critical thinking and not be 鈥渁 case of the author handing down wisdom from on high鈥濃�擫abos hit upon the idea of structuring the book as series of encounters between fictional people whose paths cross at an airport. It鈥檚 an unconventional strategy, but it works. Serious points arise organically out of relatable, and at times even humorous, conversations; the book takes on the narrative momentum and readability of a novel without compromising the science at its core.聽聽
鈥淭he advantage of having dialogues is that you can have different characters espouse different points of view, with none of them actually being correct, because ultimately there is no right answer,鈥� says Labos. 鈥淭he chapter doesn鈥檛 have to end with them coming to an agreement. Different people are coming from different value sets. Someone who cares about animals and worries about their ethical treatment and wants to espouse vegetarianism... well, there is a scientific backing to that. But someone who鈥檚 willing to accept the risk and is willing to live with the ethical consequences of eating animals, that鈥檚 okay, too.鈥澛�
If it鈥檚 not already obvious, Labos stresses that he has not written a diet book. He has no interest in issuing edicts on what foodstuffs people should and shouldn鈥檛 consume.聽
鈥淵ou can drink alcohol if you want, just don鈥檛 convince yourself that it鈥檚 good for your heart, because it isn鈥檛. You can eat chocolate if you want, but don鈥檛 go around thinking it鈥檚 healthy. If you want to eat red meat, you should understand that it increases your risk of colonic cancer by a very small amount, so if you鈥檙e okay with that risk, go ahead. In general, just understand that there are consequences. There鈥檚 a reason we say 鈥榖eer belly鈥� and not 鈥榗elery belly.鈥欌�澛�
Ultimately, says Labos, his message is a simple one.聽聽聽
鈥淭here is no 鈥榬ight鈥� way to eat. The 60 Minutes case, where the popular belief has long outlived the popular memory of the original story, is a perfect example of how a lot of things we believe are based on very shaky foundations. The things that make the biggest difference are actually pretty straightforward. Eat a lot of fruits and vegetables. Eat very little processed food. As a general rule, just eat less.鈥澛�
Simple as those principles might look in black and white, it鈥檚 very useful to have a book like Labos鈥檚 that explores the nuances behind them. There are bonus benefits, too. Readers of Does Coffee Cause Cancer? may well find themselves sharpening their dialectical and conversational skills regarding food and drink, which in turn may bring some unanticipated social benefits.聽聽
鈥淵es,鈥� says Labos. 鈥淛ust think: you can be the person at the cocktail party who says, 鈥榃ell, you know, the thing about alcohol is that it鈥檚 prone to reverse causation.鈥欌�澛犅�