Psst... We're working on the next generation of Chowhound! View >
HOME > Chowhound > Food Media & News >
Feb 19, 2011 07:13 AM

Nutrition Action newsletter

Does anyone subscribe to this newsletter? What is your opinion ?

  1. Click to Upload a photo (10 MB limit)
  1. I've subscribed to it for years. Mostly good information, but many of the articles have lots of unnecessary adjectives, making them seem more like editorials than serous articles. If we subscribe to this newsletter we probably know that saturated fats clog our arteries. Do we need to always read "...contains 200 mg of *artery clogging* saturated fat."?

    On the back page they always have "Right Stuff" vs "Food Porn" in which they compare a healthy product against one that will cause instant death if you gaze upon it. The trouble is the two are seldom related. For example, the latest issue has "Finn Crisp Plus 8 Wholegrains Thin Crispbread" vs "Pepperidge Farm Petite Cake (Mocha Bliss)" While the former is clearly better for you, it is hardly a substitute for the latter.

    The only thing I do not like is there is no feedback mechanism. You will also get solicited to become a supporting member of CSPI. When these come in the mail I do the responsible thing and put them in the recycle bin.

    Overall, tho, I think it is a valuable resource and continue to renew my subscription.

    1. I subscribed to it years ago, believe what I read and suffered horrid health consequences. Contrary to what they purport to be, they put their food philosophy before good science and ignore that which contradicts it.

      Thank goodness I found Medline and discovered that their and the Ornish diet recommendations I was following had made me severely insulin resistant, diabetic, caused me to develop new onset PCOS in midlife along with labile hypertension and severe dyslipidemia, all reversed quickly once I did the opposite of what they recommended.

      1. A bit late on this post, but I have been subscribing for years. Nutrition Action always has the latest info on vitamins. They feature diet related causes of illness, and have Best Bite ratings on common foods, usually a theme, like best cereals to choose. I have been a subscriber for many years. It's short enough not to be overwhelming, but full of pertinent articles.

        CSPI is also a leader in food safety. They broke the alar chemicals on apples story years ago, leading to a ban, and were in part responsible for the nutrition labels we have on all our products now. Please support them!

        12 Replies
        1. re: chowhound22

          But they're completely WRONG, wrong, wrong in the role of nutrition and metabolism. They're more guided by philosophy than science.. I think the science has left them behind and they're increasingly irrelevent. Low fat/low salt leads to higher disease rates and mortality, a good review of peer reviewed science shows. We don't need their outmoded reccos for food labeling, thanks.

          1. re: mcf

            I like the newsletter and think it provides valid information. Can you give more specific examples of how they are wrong?

            1. re: Boychucker

              I did; everything about diet and health. CH moderators will delete this thread or my posts if I get all scientific here. If you have a genuine interest, read the scientific evaluation that's exhaustively researched in anything on the topic by Gary Taubes.

              1. re: mcf

                It is going to take years and years for folks to come out of the brainwashing about fats causing heart attacks. This is especially true when doctors are pushing the cholesterol panic buttons and cholesterol lowering meds. I don't blame people for believing all these newsletters (and their GP). It is hard to go "against the grain" of the mass media and common (outmoded) perceptions. I suppose another 10 years will change seems to take a decade to reverse the "common wisdom" of the previous decade :)

                1. re: sedimental

                  The strong belief about fats being totally bad for us is older than one decade. This belief has been entrenched for probably 3 decades. I wish I knew the truth.

                  1. re: sueatmo

                    Sure, I meant a decade to change behaviors *after* new information comes to light. If the front page of all the newspapers today read "dietary fats don't cause heart attacks" it would still take a decade for behaviors and beliefs to change.....and for the "new truth" to firmly replace the "old truth".

                    Medical doctors contribute to the pace of a big belief change IMO. A few years ago, I had asked my doctor what he thought about me taking a couple of specific vitamin supplements for a problem I was having. I had done some research. He literally *waved* his hand in the air and told me to just go take a multiple vitamin off a grocery store shelf....there is no evidence that vitamins make any significant difference in health unless you are deficient... yada, yada. Now he *prescribes* vitamin D, vitamin C (and E) in some cases, recommends fish oil or flax oil...... I reminded him of that too :)

                    1. re: sedimental

                      Lol, glad you reminded him of his past dismissive behavior. But he prob recommends fish or flax oil and/or vitamin d to cover his behind. The newer research says to do this, so in case someone gets mad later about not receiving the latest treatments, he falls in line. But in general I agree with you. "Truths" about eating and health change. But the belief in low fat eating has persisted.

                      1. re: sueatmo

                        That's begun to change, though, and this should be the final nail in the coffin of low fat or saturated fat:

            2. re: mcf

              We're going to have to agree to disagree. CSPI is a leading food activism org. Their magazine is a way to support the truly important work they do. You probably haven't picked it up in a while but they do talk about good fats.

              The org works with members and gov't to get rules changed. EG: they are instrumental in rallying for ADDED sugars(not naturally occurring)to be included to nutrition labels. They educate the public about antibiotics in the food supply. They help rally votes against GMOs. Check out their site. It's one of the few orgs that are effective in getting legislation passed and I trust their info is correct, since they accept no advertising.

              1. re: chowhound22

                You do realize that the post you're replying to is 4 years old, right?

                1. re: Bob Martinez

                  Yes Bob- but there are newer threads below. I just replied to the one that addressed me. Anyway, didn't want a good org to be dissed without a counterpoint.

                  I've noticed it's common for Chowhound threads to be commented on years after posting. Restaurants change, close, become better or worse.

                2. re: chowhound22

                  They're food activists, with a bias to push, not well founded in objective, peer reviewed science nor clinical outcomes. Like Ornish, their hero.

                  They're stupid over carbs and sodium and fat and protein, backed the wrong horse and caused a lot of suffering. Other folks push for food reform without perverse dietary advice.

            3. I used to subscribe. It seemed to me to be pretty much the same article over and over. The same outrage. Repeatedly. OK, I got their message, and I declined to renew. I seem to remember that some of the recipes looked healthy and good.

              1 Reply
              1. re: sueatmo

                Ditto; no longer a subscriber. I felt much of what was printed was not steeped in long term scientific research from multiple sources. Recipes were not that great, I found.

              2. I love it! It is simple, straight forward and easy to read reliable information.

                1 Reply