3 ms·

Worse still is casually lumping together all different types of fat as simply "fat". Different types of fat have different nutritional effects and should be co

Worse still is casually lumping together all different types of fat as simply "fat". Different types of fat have different nutritional effects and should be considered as different nutrients.

colechristensen 9y ago
Still thinking in the wrong way. The health of a diet can only be considered as a whole, not bit individual contributors. "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works.
- ethbro 9y ago
  > "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Overly reductionist statement and as inaccurate as what you're arguing against. There are absolutely foods we know to be bad for humans.
  - vikiomega9 9y ago
    I think this is meant to be read as a catch-all statement as opposed to considering other factors (lifestyle, mental state etc)
  - throwaway7645 9y ago
    I think you're being excessively critical here like a compiler :) You're not wrong, but I definitely understood the parent comment's point.
    - ethbro 9y ago
      I'd be more inclined to grant linguistic leeway if the parent themselves hadn't jumped on someone else's turn of phrase. Nutrition science has figured out some things to a high probability. It's still unsure and mystified by others. Don't throw the former out because the latter exists.
      - throwaway7645 9y ago
        Fair enough and good point
  - thwarted 9y ago
    Maybe the first step is to stop referring to things that are absolutely bad for humans as "food".
- delhanty 9y ago
  >"Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Your oversimplifying what I said. As it happens, I generally favor a holistic approach to nutrition too.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    You're right, but I tend to think oversimplifying in the opposite direction to the trends of the last half century or so is warranted. The biggest problem I'd say we're facing today is people categorizing food into good and bad buckets, even if there is some truth to it.

Worse still is casually lumping together all different types of fat as simply "fat". Different types of fat have different nutritional effects and should be considered as different nutrients.

colechristensen 9y ago

Still thinking in the wrong way. The health of a diet can only be considered as a whole, not bit individual contributors. "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works.

ethbro 9y ago
> "Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Overly reductionist statement and as inaccurate as what you're arguing against. There are absolutely foods we know to be bad for humans.
- vikiomega9 9y ago
  I think this is meant to be read as a catch-all statement as opposed to considering other factors (lifestyle, mental state etc)
- throwaway7645 9y ago
  I think you're being excessively critical here like a compiler :) You're not wrong, but I definitely understood the parent comment's point.
  - ethbro 9y ago
    I'd be more inclined to grant linguistic leeway if the parent themselves hadn't jumped on someone else's turn of phrase. Nutrition science has figured out some things to a high probability. It's still unsure and mystified by others. Don't throw the former out because the latter exists.
    - throwaway7645 9y ago
      Fair enough and good point
- thwarted 9y ago
  Maybe the first step is to stop referring to things that are absolutely bad for humans as "food".
delhanty 9y ago
>"Food A is good for me and Food B is bad for me" is not how health works. Your oversimplifying what I said. As it happens, I generally favor a holistic approach to nutrition too.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  You're right, but I tend to think oversimplifying in the opposite direction to the trends of the last half century or so is warranted. The biggest problem I'd say we're facing today is people categorizing food into good and bad buckets, even if there is some truth to it.