Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science

I’ve just been flicking through Holford’s Optimum Nutrition Bible. Naturally, the page on sex (p. 217) jumped out at me…

I was surprised to see that “[i]n [Holford's] opinion the best method of contraception for any couple is knowing when ovulation occurs through observing temperature and vaginal mucus changes”. I know this was written in the 1990s - when Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs) may have been less publicised - but this ‘natural’ method of contraception does have a number of disadvantages.

• This method is pretty much useless in protecting against STDs. If the couple are in a long-term relationship and have both been for a check at a Geneto-Urinary Medicine clinic (if they’re not virgins), then this may not be a problem. If the ‘couple’ met in a bar that night, they would be well-advised to take more care…
• While there is some evidence that this method of contraception may be relatively reliable is practised very carefully (using a “sympto-thermal method [where] women must keep track of three things: their core body temperature, the fertile days of their cycle as measured by a calendar, and their cervical secretions“) it does require a considerable amount of care and self-restraint.

In fairness, Holford does acknowledge that condoms may be necessary for some parts of a woman’s cycle. However, for many or most people, it will be best for them to use ‘unnatural’ methods of contraception and of protection against STDs - condoms being an obvious example. Certainly, for Holford to argue that the ‘natural’ method of contraception which he advocates is best for “any couple” is not good advice.