The complications of nutrition science • Hacker News Board

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#51

Post by lnufnu » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:50 AM UTC

danblick wrote: post #26

This article seems to suggest science is hopeless when we can't conduct randomized controlled trials. I don't think that's fair: the methods used in econometrics for learning from quasi-experiments (e.g. natural experiments, regression discontinuity) seem like they would be perfectly good for studying nutrition too.

I really have respect for the work of Weston A. Price. Although his work seems to be discounted and too fringe for a lot of people, I have learned a lot through his Foundation about nutrition as well as practices like culturing foods, soaking grains, making broth.

He was a dentist who started looking into the relationship between diet and teeth in the early 1900s. He decided to do a series of ethnographic nutrition studies in villages in Switzerland, Gaelic communities in the Outer Hebrides, Eskimos and Indians of North America, Melanesian and Polynesian South Sea Islanders, African tribes, Australian Aborigines, New Zealand Maori and the Indians of South America during the 1930s and find out what common denominators they had in their diets that contributed to their great teeth and good health. He published these in his book, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration.

I'm not exactly sure why his studies are neglected, but I agree that it's possible to learn about nutrition using other methods.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#52

Post by gbog » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:51 AM UTC

fallous wrote: post #46

joe_the_user wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is it strange to think that over-eating is could be considered problem? One might better phrase it as "today, many humans have the ability to consume as much as they wish of many kinds of foods, a situation somewhat unique to evolutionary history and many problems seem to stem from this". I think a fair portion of nutrition experts think this. I don't know if it's a majority but as the article mentions, consensus…

I don't disagree with your critique of the parent's preferred "source," but "over-eating" has a certain hand-waving component as well (IMO at least.) If you eat 10 pounds of celery, there is no doubt that the vast majority of people would consider that over-eating but the negative health effects would at best be an abundance of fiber I suspect.

> 10 pounds of celery > an abundance of fiber

You seem to be misinformed. 10 pounds of celery is most probably a very bad idea. There is no such thing as "good food" if you push it to the limits and eat too much of it. Celery has a lot of active component, just smell this taste and you will know. It is mainly good but as an addition to a normal meal's main component, which is traditionally white rice or noodles in the East, bread or potato in the West.

Among these I would guess the best is rice. But even rice you cannot eat 50 pounds of eat without harm.

I think the main issue here is that food is not science, and should not be the subject of science. Some chemical reactions are, but not nutrition. Nutrition is a cultural thing, much more connected to health, well-being and social living than to chemical reactions, milligrams of whatever and parameters of our bodies.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#53

Post by noondip » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 3:59 AM UTC

lnufnu wrote: post #47

noondip wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So avoid all animal products, then? Trans fat are found in all of them.

Naturally occurring trans fats (vaccenic acid and conjugated linoleic acid) occur in trace amounts in animal products. They also have been shown to possibly be beneficial for LDL and triglycerides, while hydrogenated oil is harmful.

Source for that? The top result for me was the following review.

> Published data suggest that all fatty acids with a double bond in the trans configuration [produced either by industrial hydrogenation or by biohydrogenation in the rumens of cows and sheep] raise the ratio of plasma LDL to HDL cholesterol.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20209147

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#54

Post by noondip » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:06 AM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #50

noondip wrote: post #28

I've really enjoyed learning about nutrition science through http://nutritionfacts.org , especially in videos about the conflict of interest present in modern research.

Conflicts of interest like the one that Michal Greger has himself, as an employee of the Humane Society? He literally gets paid to put an MD stamp of approval on anything vegan and attempting to discredit anything that is not vegan. Have you actually critically read anything from this bullshit factory? https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-il...

Here, take a look at this - http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2013/02/harriet-halls-critique...

I'm simply satisfied with the format studies are presented in his videos (they are always directly cited). I often read them for myself and usually agree with the conclusion, but not always.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#55

Post by stevebmark » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:16 AM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #39

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 i…

It's a good start because it's an unbiased, well researched book that's not alarmist / linkbait like "Why (almost) everything you know about food is wrong."

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#56

Post by fallous » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:18 AM UTC

gbog wrote: post #52

fallous wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your critique of the parent's preferred "source," but "over-eating" has a certain hand-waving component as well (IMO at least.) If you eat 10 pounds of celery, there is no doubt that the vast majority of people would consider that over-eating but the negative health effects would at best be an abundance of fiber I suspect.

> 10 pounds of celery > an abundance of fiber You seem to be misinformed. 10 pounds of celery is most probably a very bad idea. There is no such thing as "good food" if you push it to the limits and eat too much of it. Celery has a lot of active component, just smell this taste and you will know. It is mainly good but as an addition to a normal meal's main component, which is traditionally white rice or noodles in th…

10 pounds of celery would result in 40g (or thereabouts) of sugar intake, 4 liters or so of water, and round about the US RDA of vitamins A, B1, B2, B3, B6, B9, C, E and the minerals calcium, iron, magnesium, phosophorous, potassium, sodium, and zinc.

Granted, the consumption of vitamin K would be noticeably above the USRDA, although we're also not accounting for the reduction in hypertension observed in those that consume celery juice.

Food and nutrition may not be a science, but that is a result of incomplete understanding rather than some special magic that culture exerts on biochemistry.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#57

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:27 AM UTC

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…

[deleted]

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#58

Post by lkbm » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 4:32 AM UTC

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…

> 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.

Alas, my ancestors ate stuff they could catch by spending the day hunting and foraging. Very few of them spent their days sitting in front of a computer.

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#59

Post by Almaviva » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 5:11 AM UTC

danieltillett wrote: post #41

Almaviva wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

3000 years is more than enough in humans. The lactase persistence mutation in Europeans basically went from 0% of the population to near 100% in Northern Europeans in 3000 years. This was totally due to a change in diet when adults started drinking animal milk. Evolution speed is proportional to the population size as the rate of new genes appearing is directly proportional to the number of individuals while the spee…

There's a difference between some evolution and being totally ideally adapted. Even lactase persistence hasn't spread though the whole human population.

Heck, we haven't even totally adapted to walking on two legs yet.

(Side note, you don't need to say log10, all logs are proportional to each other by definition.)

Re: The complications of nutrition science

#60

Post by Tycho » Mon, Jan 18, 2016, 5:14 AM UTC

lkbm wrote: post #58

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…

> 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. Alas, my ancestors ate stuff they could catch by spending the day hunting and foraging. Very few of them spent their days sitting in front of a computer.

Not sure what your point is?