4 ms·

This has gotten a lot of upvotes in a very short time, so it must be ringing true with a lot of readers. I'd encourage some healthy skepticism. 1) It is reall

This has gotten a lot of upvotes in a very short time, so it must be ringing true with a lot of readers. I'd encourage some healthy skepticism. 1) It is really tempting to try to understand ourselves based on the assumed lives of our evolutionary ancestors, but the fact is we know almost nothing about their lives, and conclusions we draw from what we can guess are unlikely to be accurate. 2) There is not one citation in this entire article. This is all opinion, no matter how true it sounds. 3) He offers medical advice based solely on his personal experience. Sleep apnea may not be the same to all people.

mattmaroon 16y ago
But it's on the internet. It must be true. Also, it has pictures, some of which are attractive females. I'm sold!
mhd 16y ago
With all that "paleo diet" rage, raw-foodians etc, I think that pop evolutionary biology is the new pop psychology. Nutritional science is friggin' hard. Extrapolating from biological reactions has to take a huge load of variables into account and empirical studies have to monitor a huge bunch of people over a long period of time -- and all of them are lying.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  Do you know of any good nutritional science resources/explanations? I wish I knew where to find a readable overview based on careful research.
  - eru 16y ago
    There was an article on HN about the subject a while ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....) that was quite interesting and modest.
    - dmm 16y ago
      That article is as much BS as the rest. Take the first line: > Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Why should I eat "mostly plants"? He hands out a bunch of advice and never bothers to lay out a basis for his opinions.
      - count 16y ago
        He spent 4 books laying out the basis for his opinions, along with citations, medical research, and the like. That article is just a summary of a long body of work by Pollan.
  - yanowitz 16y ago
    Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories is quite good (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...).

mattmaroon 16y ago

But it's on the internet. It must be true. Also, it has pictures, some of which are attractive females. I'm sold!

mhd 16y ago

With all that "paleo diet" rage, raw-foodians etc, I think that pop evolutionary biology is the new pop psychology. Nutritional science is friggin' hard. Extrapolating from biological reactions has to take a huge load of variables into account and empirical studies have to monitor a huge bunch of people over a long period of time -- and all of them are lying.

jacobolus 16y ago
Do you know of any good nutritional science resources/explanations? I wish I knew where to find a readable overview based on careful research.
- eru 16y ago
  There was an article on HN about the subject a while ago (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....) that was quite interesting and modest.
  - dmm 16y ago
    That article is as much BS as the rest. Take the first line: > Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. Why should I eat "mostly plants"? He hands out a bunch of advice and never bothers to lay out a basis for his opinions.
    - count 16y ago
      He spent 4 books laying out the basis for his opinions, along with citations, medical research, and the like. That article is just a summary of a long body of work by Pollan.
- yanowitz 16y ago
  Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories is quite good (http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462 http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Scienc...).