501–510 of 516 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The naturalistic fallacy is only relevant when dealing with ethics.
No it isn't. "Good" is not a strictly ethical question. In this case, someone is wrongly pretending that whatever is "natural" to eat is also "healthy" to eat, and thus "good".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's awesome to run into you on HN. I'm building travel plans based on your blog postings!
Nice! You'll find my side project, http://wikioverland.org extremely useful. If you need anything at all, please don't hesitate to contact me!
I'll definitely get in touch!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The diet of the Inuit was widely believed to be impossible for some time (and probably still is) because no one thought it was possible they could subsist solely on fish meat. When put to the test by a pair of scientists who replicated the diet though, they found few ill-effects - except at one point where they were hitting a nutritional deficiency, but corrected it by putting semi-rotten fish product (which is a dis…
I would like to know more ... I know a bit about Inuit and their diet - I've read "My Life with the Eskimo" by Vilhjalmur Stefansson http://www.amazon.com/Life-Eskimo-New-Vilhjalmur-Stefansson/... Stefansson and another explorer, Andersson, participated in an experiment where they did not eat anything but meat for a year - and remained in excellent health http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com.au/2009/09/two-brave-m..…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>It's quite possible to develop chronic conditions, that are not apparent at first, and only manifest themselves after years of nutritional deficiency. Oh, well that is certainly a reasonable basis to pretend a very complete diet is dangerous and lacking. Oh wait, no that is a completely nonsensical basis.
The author himself shows a little more humility: "You’re exactly right. This is a risk, an experiment. " -rob [1] . I find it incredible that you will not concede any significant difference between D3 and D2 or between K1 and K2 groups. When the facts show the opposite. [2] Have you actually read the book on K2 and the evidence that it reduces arterial calcification? You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss…
But that is not what you claimed. You didn't say "this carries some risk", you said he is out of his depth, doesn't know what he is doing, and will pay the price. You are the arrogant one.
>You act like it's perfectly reasonable to dismiss studies
You are the one doing that, not me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did you even read that link? That does not apply to things like protein powder, or meal replacement drinks like this discussion is about. >Others make their supplements in unsanitary factories That's equally true of all sorts of food.
> That's equally true of all sorts of food. No, it isn't, thanks to the FDA.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Extraordinary claims, extraordinary proof, or GTFO." > "I see this guy's protocol as nothing but poisonous in the long run." You place a burden of evidence on him that you yourself in this very post violated on a number of occasions. You CANNOT call his diet poisonous simply because you disagree with it. You admitted it yourself: > "Current research is showing that we are only just beginning to gain understanding…
The burden of evidence should be on the person claiming to have a miracle drink. The burdon of evidence should be even greater when it's a non-natural source, as Nassim Taleb argues in Antifragile, "The "non-natural" has to prove its harmlessness." If you don't take this viewpoint, you end up with cigarettes, transfat and radium jewelry.
I'd be really curious to learn how his teeth and gums are doing. If you can find a way to eat without ever having food touch your teeth or gums, I'd imagine you'd have incredible oral health. Thoughts?
What no fibers and structure? Problems with the digestion system, teeth and gums will occur that way. So, even if it was healthy, it would lack fibers and structure that cleanup our digestion system and make our jaw, teeth and gums stronger. Chewing your food thoroughly also exercises your teeth and stimulates the vitality of the socket and gums which hold the teeth in the jaw. We know that activity that causes muscl…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First, we don't know what the components of a healthy diet are. We thought we did decades ago, but were blissfully unaware of micronutrients (and, as I understand it, infant formula from around this time made a bunch of babies have developmental disorders as a result). Second, we're quickly realizing that nutrition is significantly more than the sum of its parts. Nutrients taken together as opposed to separately can…
Is there any reason to think that "separately" is the preferred way? As for not knowing the components of a healthy diet, that objection applies equally to taking in food the normal way, so I really don't see the relevance. If we don't know enough to build a proper slurry that contains everything, then we don't know enough to build a proper normal diet that contains everything.
Additionally, we have only the faintest idea how this might affect gut bacteria, which is an enormous component of both our digestive system as well as immune system. Without giving them our "table scraps", what happens to them?
ED sufferers also report euphoria, and a keen focus on key metrics such as weight loss and exercise allows them to ignore negative health effects.
I would suggest this guy's experience is textbook typical of very low calorie diets (VLCD). That doesn't mean it will be healthy in the long-term - according to wikipedia, he might expect gallstones.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That's equally true of all sorts of food. No, it isn't, thanks to the FDA.
Oh I see, the FDA has magic powers that make all food products perfectly safe, which is why we never have problems with food born illness right? But that magically doesn't apply to a certain class of food products you want to pretend are different even though the FDA says they are not different and applies the exact same standards to them.
You have no idea how bad food was prior to the FDA.