Your understanding is incorrect in that Nutrition is included in medical education, although you are right in that it isn't much. There is a saying in medical

Your understanding is incorrect in that Nutrition is included in medical education, although you are right in that it isn't much. There is a saying in medical education that med profs often like to quote: "Half of what we teach you will be wrong in four years, the problem is we don't know which half" When I was in medical school we were just emerging from the 'fat is bad', towards what I see now as a more 'carbs are bad' (this is a dumb oversimplification but I think sums up the trends). Thumbing through my 2001 copy of 'Harrison's Internal Medicine' there is just a 40 page section on nutrition (out of 2600 pages), and most of that is on various forms of malnourishment (rickets, scurvy, etc...) The biggest problem with studying what is good nutrition is that it is really hard to control what people eat in a randomized study and there are so many confounders when you try to look at retrospective studies on healthy populations (for example, 7th Day Adventists live longer, is it because of the diet, or because of community, etc...?)