3 ms·
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. Extra
by mhd 17y 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 17y agoDo you know of any good nutritional science resources/explanations? I wish I knew where to find a readable overview based on careful research.
- eru 17y agoThere 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 17y agoThat 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 17y agoHe 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 17y agoGary 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...).