Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The complications of nutrition science

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 86 posts

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#31

Post by oilywater »

qwtel wrote: post #3

Via negativa: Avoid what is most likely bad (food processed by industry, sodas, excess sugar, excess salt, trans fat and food blogs). Beyond that there isn't too much you can do.

If one wants to embark on a moral argument present in the theory of evolution, where no organism is more special than the other, then you'd probably avoid consumption of food coming from animals, or you'd be setting yourself up to some contradiction in the brain. :D

Or, if one wants to embark on a moral argument that humans are special and that life is worth conserving. Then, you'd probably also want to not include animal products, due to high pollution implicitly killing off humans, and animal agriculture being one of the causes of global warming.

Or, if one feels he's compassionate, good, then murder is not the way, or maybe humane murder is? Is there such a thing as humane murder?

Or, one wants to embark on a moral argument that in this universe that is so vast, it's entirely meaningless to ponder over ethics, and morality, and that you just want to maximize your utility function, which includes enjoying the flavor of baked flesh, cooked embryos and sweet vomit. Then, it doesn't matter at all what you eat, if you feel great.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#32

Post by axlprose »

MCRed wrote: post #17
jernfrost wrote: post #14

Learning about diets and food is also terribly difficult because the internet and books are so full of people who are so dead certain about their pseudo science. There is so much emotion attached to food that getting an objective rational opinion on anything food related is next to impossible. Personally I like the Soylent creators take on it. He seems extremely focused on figuring out the objective truths and ignore…

There are diet specific versions of soylent, now: https://www.thebairs.net/product-category/ketochow/ here is the recipe: https://diy.soylent.com/recipes/keto-chow-104-master-rich-ch... Its true that its hard not to sound like an evangelist when you've lost weight-- but it's not pseudo science when there are studies that support the hypothesis (of course a lot of diets are fad diets and are pseudo science). The thing…

You know the dogma is bad when even an innocent comment like this gets downvoted.

While I think the term 'pseudoscience' gets thrown around way too loosely these days, it's no secret that the science surrounding nutrition is a convoluted mess, with various peer reviewed studies showing seemingly conflicting results.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#33

Post by Almaviva »

danieltillett wrote: post #25
themagician wrote: post #2

I just wish people would stop acting like food was "designed" for us.

Actually it is more the other way around. The last 6-8000 years or so we have been genetically adapting to our historically poor diet. The average peasant has been eating nothing much more than a very limited range of grains and most of us have become pretty well adapted to this diet. This is one of the ironies of the palo diet craze.

8000 years is basically an eye blink, for evolution and natural selection to select a whole population (through death and differences in reproduction) with those who are thoroughly well adapted.

Yes, humans might be better off for it than we were 8000 years ago, but that's necessarily not saying much.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#34

Post by oilywater »

Tycho wrote: post #18

Three thoughts 1. As Taleb has often argued, you dont need to fully understand a problem, all the interaction effects etc., in order to understand that nature has already solved it. Eat what your ancestors ate. 2. Could it be that the people who go into food science are basically rejects from more respected disciplines? 3. People seem to widely hold beliefs about diet which are patently illogical. For instance everyo…

Our ancestors at one point in time had a diet consisting 60-80% of animal flesh. Do you think that this is what nature solved? I mean, technology has given us a way to rise above the evolution.

We do not have claws, or teeth that could pierce an elephant, lion, gazelle. It doesn't seem that nature solved anything. Or us, drinking cows milk? Did nature solve the digestion of human to consume milk of another mammal? Was this a thing in past. I do not think so.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#35

Post by danielharan »

Tycho wrote: post #18

Three thoughts 1. As Taleb has often argued, you dont need to fully understand a problem, all the interaction effects etc., in order to understand that nature has already solved it. Eat what your ancestors ate. 2. Could it be that the people who go into food science are basically rejects from more respected disciplines? 3. People seem to widely hold beliefs about diet which are patently illogical. For instance everyo…

For 3, there's evidence that very low carb diets will improve insulin response. Over time it seems plausible that your body will respond differently to food if your hormones stay out of balance, storing more of it as fat.

How we store energy also depends on what exercise we get and its timing. Carb back-loading supposedly doesn't have the same insulin response because the energy is used to replace sugar (can't remember exact name, too lazy to look it up, sorry) in muscles instead of storing it as fat.

The OP also links to a study that looked at several factors including microbiome. Genetically identical twins could have different response to the same foods. I'm pretty sure our microbiomes are very different than those of our ancestors, so we probably won't get the same results.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#36

Post by throwaway2343 »

MCRed wrote: post #13
deegles wrote: post #9

There is a really low bar for human nutrition in the short term. Depending on body fat, a person can go many weeks without eating anything , so a juice "cleanse" will seem to work, low-carb will seem to work, high-carb low-fat will seem to work too, vegan, paleo, etc. Nutritional deficiencies might not develop for years!

Low carb for 8 months, so I think I'm beyond the short term measure. My bloodwork is better now than before. I can't imagine what nutrition I'm being deficient in, and the things that are potential issues I already take supplements (and since there's not a lot of risk in vitamins I take more than I probably need and for more types of vitamins than I need.) Of course this is anecdote and it gets to the key problem the…

What did this person do to deserve to be downvoted? They're trying to contribute to the conversation and you're being rude.

Sincerely, a lurker's voice.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#37

Post by danielharan »

MCRed wrote: post #11

The only proof I have is an anecdote but it is consistent with my research-- and I've lost 100 pounds in 8 months as a result. The biggest problem is we have rejected science from food to begin with. We have government spending billions pushing a diet designed to create obesity (which is very high in carbs, effectively sugar, and low in fat.) Likely there are at least two types of people biochemically- those who are…

Fish oils are NOT trans fats. Omega 3 is a polyunsaturated fat, while trans fats are those we artificially saturated.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#39

Post by jjoonathan »

stevebmark wrote: post #8

This was fully covered in "In Defense of Food" - good intro read for nutrition. Read that, not Vox, which is rife with strange opinions, like "overeating" being the cause of modern disease? You damn nutritional science then come up with your own solution to everyone's problem, not based in evidence? Neat. It's oversimplifying to say the only studies nutritional science can use are observational ones. There are plenty…

Isn't "In Defense of Food" the one that tries to alter the definition of "food" until it no longer encompasses many of the unhealthy things we eat? (EDIT: yes, yes it is.)

I originally dismissed it without a second thought because I associate that sort of puerile silliness with... well, things other than science. But now you're saying it gives a solid overview of nutrition science and I can't help but wonder.

> Vox is not a good start

Yeah, but why is "In Defense of Food" a good start? The author is a professor of journalism and the wiki page links to an opinion piece by a professor of nutrition titled "'In Defense of Food' is short on science," which is precisely what I'd expect from a professor of journalism and from someone who tries to redefine what food means. Which puts me back in square 1 of not knowing where to start.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#40

Post by whitie »

qwtel wrote: post #3

Via negativa: Avoid what is most likely bad (food processed by industry, sodas, excess sugar, excess salt, trans fat and food blogs). Beyond that there isn't too much you can do.

We should be able to do better than that. If there are indications that some foods are burdensome to health, then there should be indications that some foods are beneficial. It is just taking us forever to separate the facts from the persuasions.

Anecdotally, the spices Tumeric and Cumin seem to be great tonics for my particular metabolism/diet/lifestyle.

Post reply on HN