Do they found how to factor out air, water, climate and bacteria or realized that a body continuously adapts to behavioral patterns and environmental conditions? Or that what happens in Vegas stays in Vegas, and naive studies on already overweight US student subjects does not replicate anywhere in less developed world?
The complications of nutrition science
61–70 of 86 posts
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If low carb is working so well for you, why are you adding more carbs? Seems like people rave about ketonic diets but don't want to be on it for the long term.
It flies in the face of modern food culture, and it's a difficult decision socially. I think this drives a lot of people. That, and they're unable to remove their associations of "how normal people eat" and they feel a lust to consume sugars / complex carbohydrates again. However, the ones that don't start eating more have much better results long-term. You can't get fat again if you don't go back to eating that which got you fat in the first place.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#63The 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…
Nothing is certain of course but I tend to believe your line of reasoning based on the stuff I've read. I think we really should reduce carbo hydrate intake for the stuff we eat we should use more of the whole grain stuff: whole wheat, brown rice etc. White flower and rice is terrible and we should really try to stop eating it. More chick peas, beans etc instead. But I also think it is important that while pushing mo…
As some words of encouragement, it gets way easier. You stop craving the stuff once you stop eating it for a while.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 c…
> incomplete understanding
The first act of ratio (reason) is to assert its own limits. Many things are outside the scope of science, for example no science will ever explain why a novel or a painting is good, why someone love another. From the catastrophic results of nutrition-as-science (things like USRDA), I would bet that the most important part of nutrition is outside the scope of science. Eating food is only marginally the matter of pouring x or y or z into one's body. Just as reading a book is nothing like pouring one by one a long string of words in our memory.
We are no robots, after all.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#65Via 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.
So avoid all animal products, then? Trans fat are found in all of them.
This is the third time in a month (that I've noticed) that noondip has repeated this falsehood knowing that it is false.
TL;DR: dairy products have small amounts of naturally-occurring transfat that have no established adverse effects, while meats have essentially none.
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10858482 for the previous example of refutation (and it has a link to the one before that, as well as references). The one reference he posts there refers to dairy, not meat.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
Source for that?
Effects of Ruminant trans Fatty Acids on Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer: A Comprehensive Review of Epidemiological, Clinical, and Mechanistic Studies (Adv Nutr July 2011 Adv Nutr vol. 2: 332-354, 2011
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
If low carb is working so well for you, why are you adding more carbs? Seems like people rave about ketonic diets but don't want to be on it for the long term.
One potential pitfall of improper long-term keto dieting is microbiome damage. If one isn't eating greens and such at all[0], the lack of other plant fiber could starve certain beneficial microorganisms to small enough populations as to become ineffective.
Having learned this, I now have a big-ass salad daily, generally, and I take a probiotic supplement. (Organic spinach is just $2/bag at Trader Joe's!)
[0] e.g. if one subsisted on mostly processed food before keto, if they don't add some appropriate carbs (even ones they didn't previously eat with any frequency), the microbiome will suffer... and it is difficult to repair without carefully culled fecal transplants.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.)
The lactase gene has not spread through the human population as only a small percentage of the human population drinks milk as an adult. The human population is full of genes that have only partly spread through the population - it is actually a huge problem when studying human genetics since as a species we violate most of the assumptions of population genetics.
Humans are actually very well adapted to walking on two legs, what we are not well adapted to is the birthing problems caused by the massive increase in brain size and the rotation of the pelvis required to accomodate walking upright.
Yes I know all logs are proportional, but I thought I should be precise or else someone would ask which log ;)
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
If low carb is working so well for you, why are you adding more carbs? Seems like people rave about ketonic diets but don't want to be on it for the long term.
It flies in the face of modern food culture, and it's a difficult decision socially. I think this drives a lot of people. That, and they're unable to remove their associations of "how normal people eat" and they feel a lust to consume sugars / complex carbohydrates again. However, the ones that don't start eating more have much better results long-term. You can't get fat again if you don't go back to eating that whic…
it's a difficult decision socially
Generally, however, after a few months of showing continued positive results, the skepticism turns more to curiosity... and you find people coming to you for dietary advice and reference material.
[0] some restaurants will work with you on this, and it never hurts to ask. For example, I've eaten at multiple diners where they would make a larger omelet in lieu of potatoes and toast.
Re: The complications of nutrition science
#70Via 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.
Tumeric and Cumin