8 ms·

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize

The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad, the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that, and people will forget the meat rush of the 2010s and move onto something else that's equally retarded. Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. There's one piece of advice that holds for a long time, and that's to eat a diverse diet and exercise within reasonable extends. Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it.

dalbasal 9y ago
Nutrition isn't a solved problem This is very true, and a fact that we have trouble digesting, pardon the pun. This jumping around between completely contradictory nutritional prescriptions is nuts. Then a moderate minded person comes in and hedges their bets with an impossibke compromise (reduce both fat and carbs). Meanwhile disproven myths like nutricional cholesterol still affect people's eating habits. It just does not seem possible to doctors, health nuts and everyone else that we just dont know much about nutrition. It seems like we should and that our best theories should be reasonably certain, but they just aren't.
gerardnll 9y ago
That's because people expect the food industry to solve the same nutrition problems they put you into. Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to affect your mood.). Nutrition is hard nowadays because we have a supermarket full of bad nutrition value. We wouldn't be that fat without ultraprocessed food or fast food chains. Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. That's not a balanced diet and I'm sure it will take a toll on your body. I've gone from 82kg (20% fat) to 75-76kg (17,88% fat) in 6 months, taking it easy, without doing exercise, just lowering my daily intake of calories and mostly avoiding ultraprocessed foods. I enjoy weekends by having great meals at restaurants or at home. Of course I also take a chocolate bar or another other sweet ultraprocessed food, because drugs (sugar) are hard to keep away. Now I exercise an hour twice a week and I expect to keep loosing fat and gaining muscle, I don't want to hurry, I'm trying to create a lifestyle not something I'll keep doing intermittenly. I don't take any suplement as I want to make progress by my own effort and in a natural and healthy way as if my daily life was more physical.
- Jedi72 9y ago
  Found the 24 yr old male
- ElatedOwl 9y ago
  >Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. It seems you're implying high protein intake is bad for you - any evidence supporting this? More protein (up to .72g protein/lb of body weight) does increase lean mass gain in individuals resistance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222 It's a bit silly imo to say people putting in the work and eating sufficient protein want "fast and unrealistic" results.
  - gerardnll 9y ago
    The objective of that study is only checking "if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength." nothing else. Taking protein shakes could affect negatively other parts of your body. And nobody talks about the quality of that protein. Why do we want real food? Let's all eat Soylent. I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. Just stop wanting unreal bodies that are only achieved by supplementation.
    - ElatedOwl 9y ago
      >I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. What constitutes high protein intake, and at what point is it detrimental? Should our macro breakdown be 33%/33%/33%? How does increased calorie expenditure play into this? The study I referenced says I should eat 130g protein (520 cal) for best gains. My TDEE (on days I don't run) is 2500, putting me at roughly 20% protein. If I do run I've got an extra ~500 cals, how should those calories be allotted?
croon 9y ago
> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. That isn't a fad though, that is progress. > Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE. > the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that No they won't. "Healthy carbs" will be a part of moderate diets for a long time, but sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words. There will always be fads, but let's not pretend that blaming fats decades ago was the same as blaming sugars now. Also notice that it's explicitly sugars, not carbs. Breakthroughs always lead to regular people overcompensating when swinging over, so you get things like your mentioned "meat rush", and people eating bearnaise sauce and pork belly with their bacon wrapped broccoli or whatever. But let's not portray the underlying studies that led to this swing as merely fads. It's progress, and while it's not solved, it's a lot better than just 10 years ago. Edit: I was reminded of this article "The Relativity of Wrong" [1] by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR: An analogy is the flat earth. We went from thinking the earth was flat into thinking it was round, which isn't correct either since it's an oblate spheroid. But we can all agree that "round" is a lot "more correct" than flat. [1] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm
- watwut 9y ago
  It is not so much progress, as fixing of bad science and bad interpretation of science. The overcorrections and pendulum are not necessities, they are result of bad science and its reporting.
  - croon 9y ago
    Could you elaborate on "bad science" and what could be done differently? Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and just say it's bad science because it's not perfect (welcome to science), but it's not constructive and it was the thing I argued against in my original post. So yes, it is better, therefor it is progress.
narag 9y ago
Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. "Problem" can refer to something you need to think to solve or to something you also need to do something to solve. General effects of different diets in health is known because before gobalization, every country had its own. The real problem is how to deal with food production for billions, with different cultures and with huge companies using their money to manipulate science.
KozmoNau7 9y ago
"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is still the best and most succinct advice I have heard.
iamt2 9y ago
> Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it. For typical genetics, this is true. However, I've yet to find any sources that show prevention and/or reversal of Type 2 that holds over 5+ years that includes a significant (>20g) of net daily carbs from fruit, grain and/or starches. I'm not alone, but in a definite minority of people who control their Type 2 through only diet and exercise, not even metformin, but all of our diets, while varied, have one characteristic in common: we restrict net carbs to various degrees, many at 20-50g net daily. If you know how Type 2 diabetics like myself can keep our condition reversed while adding grains, starches and fruits in greater quantities, then please shoot a pointer my way. My plants intake these days is limited to very low carb green leafy vegetables like Romaine hearts.
- jerf 9y ago
  As I've been trying to reconcile both the behavior of my own body and all the data that has been coming at us over the past couple of decades, one of the things that I've wondered is whether a crap, sugar-filled diet can do permanent damage that can never be undone, making the body especially prone to take carbs and behave badly with them. My idea here is that perhaps some of the issue here is that people like you (and to a non-clinical extent, me) who may have had a very bad diet in the past kick our bodies into this "mode", for lack of a better word, we find we have to watch our carbs relatively closely. Or perhaps for some people, their genetics simply start them there. Meanwhile, people who never got to that point are saying "It's no big deal, I eat a lot more carbs a day and never get fat." It may still be the case that when you get down to it, the sugar and the white bread aren't doing them any favors, but they never overwhelmed their body's ability to deal with it. I think one of the perils of medical studies is that it's really easy to run a study like "How Important Is It To Eat Beets 5 Times A Day" and get back a statistical result that it's a 3% detriment or something, without noticing that the 3% detriment is that two people had a horrible reaction and everybody else had no reaction. As an individual, the 3% isn't really interesting, because that number doesn't correspond to the result that anybody had; the question is, are you in the set of people who had an extreme reaction or not? I wish I had time to study this question concretely; how many studies are presenting their results using Gaussian-based statistics when the underlying data is fundamentally bi-modal ("it worked really well for a few people and didn't do anything to most"), thus causing potentially useful treatments to get statistically fuzzed out of existence?
cup-of-tea 9y ago
More generally I think it's a tendancy for many people to only support binary decision making. This is why many democracies end up with two party systems and everything is just good or bad. So when it comes to food: fat bad, sugar bad, fibre good, etc. Of course, when you actually observe a healthy population such as that of France or Italy, they break all of these stupidly simple rules. It seems to be that the most important factor of all is simply total calorific input. No, not input minus output, just input. If you consume fewer calories you will live longer and be at lower risk for many diseases. Of course, that does not mean "calories bad", though.
- watwut 9y ago
  > This is why many democracies end up with two party systems Are two party systems really worldwide phenomenom enough to claim it is people issue? I thought it is consequence of American constitution or appears in counties with constitutions based on American one.
  - ZeroGravitas 9y ago
    It's a global phenomenon wherever people use first-past-the-post voting methods, it's pretty inevitable from there according to Duverger's law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
  - cup-of-tea 9y ago
    I'm not sure and if there is an underlying problem it is certainly exacerbated by the first past the post voting system that is used in the US and UK. But in any case I certainly see the principle in politics all over the world, in particular pigeonholing every person into "right" or "left", for example.
walshemj 9y ago
Yes! a while back I had a consolation with a NHS specialist renal dietician and asked about lo salt versions of food /condiments. They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  Low fat "light" products generally add sugar or various combinations of binders, in order to mimic the original consistency and taste. They are universally all crap, when compared to the originals.
- BeetleB 9y ago
  >They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads I'm eternally annoyed by statements like these: Low salt diet is bad because it is replaced by things worse than salt. Low sugar diet is bad because artificial sweeteners are worse. Low fat diet is bad because replacing them with carbs is worse. Gluten free diets are bad because the substitutes are full of artificial, weight gaining stuff. Butter alternatives/margarine are bad because their replaced by unhealthy low fat spreads (e.g. full of partially hydrogenated oils until recently). All of these statements are wrong. You can always get any of these without the harmful substitutes. People who want to eat healthy can do any of the above diets without the worse alternatives. I myself went on a low sodium diet once, and I did not buy stuff with junk in them to substitute. Not even KCl. You can get healthy butter alternatives. These arguments usually show a giant leap in the logical process. These are false dichotomies. Yet way too many people I know believe these arguments. My guess is: Most of them are accepting of the arguments because it is convenience - not because the claims are true. It gives them a license to continue on unhealthy diets.
  - walshemj 9y ago
    Yes but if a professional who deals with renal patients says it as mine did ? I am going to take their advice over Jamie Oliver et al? I actually reduced salt by using other spices
shaki-dora 9y ago
"Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much" is the timeless advice of Michael Pollan: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... It's my go-to essay on dietary science, and still holds up extremely well ten years after it first came out.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
will_brown 9y ago
>The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. I would argue nutrition is a solved problem but certainly I will acknowledge that is controversial. What is not controversial though is that Type 2 diabeties, which used to be called adult onset diabetes, wasn’t diagnosed in children 30 years ago and now over 1 million have it, and 100% of those cases are preventable through diet (many cases even reversible through diet and exercise).
autokad 9y ago
> "The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman " No no no no. the industry reacted to government intervention (bad intervention, as usual). the industry didnt want to change what it was selling, they said the food would taste bad if we removed the fats. but the government always gets what it wants. and bogeyman policy is how things work. hey look, a boogeyman, fund my "research". then you can write books, hold paid talks/conferences, get hugely paid government positions, etc.
mtgx 9y ago
I think we already know that "low-carb and high-protein" doesn't work. You also need high (or moderate) fat. Low-fat protein is also highly insulogenic. High insulogenic foods = insulin resistance which leads to obesity, metabolic syndrom, diabetes, and likely Alzheimer, heart disease, and so on. The higher the amount of fat taken with protein, the less insulogenic the food is. Also, it seems Vitamin K2 exists almost exclusively in saturated fat, and Vitamin K2 is what protects you from atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, and heart attacks, too. There are many other vitamins and minerals stored in fat, too, possibly because fat is the body's "reserves" which means more just than "high-density calories". After all, the body needs vitamins and minerals, too, to survive. And if it can't get them while not eating, then it makes sense that they should be stored somewhere (they are stored in the liver, too, but the liver is more of a short/medium term storage). However, you also have to keep in mind that fat stores toxins, and in our high-pollution modern world, it may not be a good idea to eat too much fat, or at least you should be watch out where you're getting your food from.

dalbasal 9y ago

Nutrition isn't a solved problem This is very true, and a fact that we have trouble digesting, pardon the pun. This jumping around between completely contradictory nutritional prescriptions is nuts. Then a moderate minded person comes in and hedges their bets with an impossibke compromise (reduce both fat and carbs). Meanwhile disproven myths like nutricional cholesterol still affect people's eating habits. It just does not seem possible to doctors, health nuts and everyone else that we just dont know much about nutrition. It seems like we should and that our best theories should be reasonably certain, but they just aren't.

gerardnll 9y ago

That's because people expect the food industry to solve the same nutrition problems they put you into. Nutrition is solved if you take veggies, fish, meat, etc. Whole foods, not ultraprocessed. And make exercise. But that doesn't give them money and does not attach you to ultraprocessed foods like a drug (yes, simple sugars found in ultraprocessed foods keep you attached at them like a drug. It has been proved to affect your mood.). Nutrition is hard nowadays because we have a supermarket full of bad nutrition value. We wouldn't be that fat without ultraprocessed food or fast food chains. Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. That's not a balanced diet and I'm sure it will take a toll on your body. I've gone from 82kg (20% fat) to 75-76kg (17,88% fat) in 6 months, taking it easy, without doing exercise, just lowering my daily intake of calories and mostly avoiding ultraprocessed foods. I enjoy weekends by having great meals at restaurants or at home. Of course I also take a chocolate bar or another other sweet ultraprocessed food, because drugs (sugar) are hard to keep away. Now I exercise an hour twice a week and I expect to keep loosing fat and gaining muscle, I don't want to hurry, I'm trying to create a lifestyle not something I'll keep doing intermittenly. I don't take any suplement as I want to make progress by my own effort and in a natural and healthy way as if my daily life was more physical.

Jedi72 9y ago
Found the 24 yr old male
ElatedOwl 9y ago
>Also, it's your choice if you just eat eggs or take protein shakes because you want to look like Arnold. You want fast and unrealistic results without working hard. It seems you're implying high protein intake is bad for you - any evidence supporting this? More protein (up to .72g protein/lb of body weight) does increase lean mass gain in individuals resistance training. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28698222 It's a bit silly imo to say people putting in the work and eating sufficient protein want "fast and unrealistic" results.
- gerardnll 9y ago
  The objective of that study is only checking "if dietary protein supplementation augments resistance exercise training (RET)-induced gains in muscle mass and strength." nothing else. Taking protein shakes could affect negatively other parts of your body. And nobody talks about the quality of that protein. Why do we want real food? Let's all eat Soylent. I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. Just stop wanting unreal bodies that are only achieved by supplementation.
  - ElatedOwl 9y ago
    >I believe high protein intake is as bad as high fat intake, high calories intake, and high everything else. What constitutes high protein intake, and at what point is it detrimental? Should our macro breakdown be 33%/33%/33%? How does increased calorie expenditure play into this? The study I referenced says I should eat 130g protein (520 cal) for best gains. My TDEE (on days I don't run) is 2500, putting me at roughly 20% protein. If I do run I've got an extra ~500 cals, how should those calories be allotted?

croon 9y ago

> The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. That isn't a fad though, that is progress. > Soon, people will realize that getting 90% of your caloric intake from protein powders is bad This is obviously already true. You would get protein poisoning very quickly long before you hit your TDEE. > the industry will get ahold of the new trend, and they'll start going back to "healthy carbs" or something stupid like that No they won't. "Healthy carbs" will be a part of moderate diets for a long time, but sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words. There will always be fads, but let's not pretend that blaming fats decades ago was the same as blaming sugars now. Also notice that it's explicitly sugars, not carbs. Breakthroughs always lead to regular people overcompensating when swinging over, so you get things like your mentioned "meat rush", and people eating bearnaise sauce and pork belly with their bacon wrapped broccoli or whatever. But let's not portray the underlying studies that led to this swing as merely fads. It's progress, and while it's not solved, it's a lot better than just 10 years ago. Edit: I was reminded of this article "The Relativity of Wrong" [1] by Isaac Asimov. TL;DR: An analogy is the flat earth. We went from thinking the earth was flat into thinking it was round, which isn't correct either since it's an oblate spheroid. But we can all agree that "round" is a lot "more correct" than flat. [1] http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm http://chem.tufts.edu/answersinscience/relativityofwrong.htm

watwut 9y ago
It is not so much progress, as fixing of bad science and bad interpretation of science. The overcorrections and pendulum are not necessities, they are result of bad science and its reporting.
- croon 9y ago
  Could you elaborate on "bad science" and what could be done differently? Diet/nutrition studies are inherently difficult because they're almost by necessity self-reported, expensive, takes a lot of time to see effects, and for best effect would need continuous supervision over subjects, which is infeasible over those time spans. It's easy to throw your hands in the air and just say it's bad science because it's not perfect (welcome to science), but it's not constructive and it was the thing I argued against in my original post. So yes, it is better, therefor it is progress.

narag 9y ago

Nutrition isn't a solved problem and it won't be for many decades. "Problem" can refer to something you need to think to solve or to something you also need to do something to solve. General effects of different diets in health is known because before gobalization, every country had its own. The real problem is how to deal with food production for billions, with different cultures and with huge companies using their money to manipulate science.

KozmoNau7 9y ago

"Eat food, not too much, mostly plants" is still the best and most succinct advice I have heard.

iamt2 9y ago

> Interpretations vary, but giving up on fruit or grain and starch is obviously not part of it. For typical genetics, this is true. However, I've yet to find any sources that show prevention and/or reversal of Type 2 that holds over 5+ years that includes a significant (>20g) of net daily carbs from fruit, grain and/or starches. I'm not alone, but in a definite minority of people who control their Type 2 through only diet and exercise, not even metformin, but all of our diets, while varied, have one characteristic in common: we restrict net carbs to various degrees, many at 20-50g net daily. If you know how Type 2 diabetics like myself can keep our condition reversed while adding grains, starches and fruits in greater quantities, then please shoot a pointer my way. My plants intake these days is limited to very low carb green leafy vegetables like Romaine hearts.

jerf 9y ago
As I've been trying to reconcile both the behavior of my own body and all the data that has been coming at us over the past couple of decades, one of the things that I've wondered is whether a crap, sugar-filled diet can do permanent damage that can never be undone, making the body especially prone to take carbs and behave badly with them. My idea here is that perhaps some of the issue here is that people like you (and to a non-clinical extent, me) who may have had a very bad diet in the past kick our bodies into this "mode", for lack of a better word, we find we have to watch our carbs relatively closely. Or perhaps for some people, their genetics simply start them there. Meanwhile, people who never got to that point are saying "It's no big deal, I eat a lot more carbs a day and never get fat." It may still be the case that when you get down to it, the sugar and the white bread aren't doing them any favors, but they never overwhelmed their body's ability to deal with it. I think one of the perils of medical studies is that it's really easy to run a study like "How Important Is It To Eat Beets 5 Times A Day" and get back a statistical result that it's a 3% detriment or something, without noticing that the 3% detriment is that two people had a horrible reaction and everybody else had no reaction. As an individual, the 3% isn't really interesting, because that number doesn't correspond to the result that anybody had; the question is, are you in the set of people who had an extreme reaction or not? I wish I had time to study this question concretely; how many studies are presenting their results using Gaussian-based statistics when the underlying data is fundamentally bi-modal ("it worked really well for a few people and didn't do anything to most"), thus causing potentially useful treatments to get statistically fuzzed out of existence?

cup-of-tea 9y ago

More generally I think it's a tendancy for many people to only support binary decision making. This is why many democracies end up with two party systems and everything is just good or bad. So when it comes to food: fat bad, sugar bad, fibre good, etc. Of course, when you actually observe a healthy population such as that of France or Italy, they break all of these stupidly simple rules. It seems to be that the most important factor of all is simply total calorific input. No, not input minus output, just input. If you consume fewer calories you will live longer and be at lower risk for many diseases. Of course, that does not mean "calories bad", though.

watwut 9y ago
> This is why many democracies end up with two party systems Are two party systems really worldwide phenomenom enough to claim it is people issue? I thought it is consequence of American constitution or appears in counties with constitutions based on American one.
- ZeroGravitas 9y ago
  It's a global phenomenon wherever people use first-past-the-post voting methods, it's pretty inevitable from there according to Duverger's law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
- cup-of-tea 9y ago
  I'm not sure and if there is an underlying problem it is certainly exacerbated by the first past the post voting system that is used in the US and UK. But in any case I certainly see the principle in politics all over the world, in particular pigeonholing every person into "right" or "left", for example.

walshemj 9y ago

Yes! a while back I had a consolation with a NHS specialist renal dietician and asked about lo salt versions of food /condiments. They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads

KozmoNau7 9y ago
Low fat "light" products generally add sugar or various combinations of binders, in order to mimic the original consistency and taste. They are universally all crap, when compared to the originals.
BeetleB 9y ago
>They sniffed and said the low salt movement has been very well marketed but what they don't tell you is the "shit" they put in to food to replace the salt - which is actually worse than salt - same with these low fat spreads I'm eternally annoyed by statements like these: Low salt diet is bad because it is replaced by things worse than salt. Low sugar diet is bad because artificial sweeteners are worse. Low fat diet is bad because replacing them with carbs is worse. Gluten free diets are bad because the substitutes are full of artificial, weight gaining stuff. Butter alternatives/margarine are bad because their replaced by unhealthy low fat spreads (e.g. full of partially hydrogenated oils until recently). All of these statements are wrong. You can always get any of these without the harmful substitutes. People who want to eat healthy can do any of the above diets without the worse alternatives. I myself went on a low sodium diet once, and I did not buy stuff with junk in them to substitute. Not even KCl. You can get healthy butter alternatives. These arguments usually show a giant leap in the logical process. These are false dichotomies. Yet way too many people I know believe these arguments. My guess is: Most of them are accepting of the arguments because it is convenience - not because the claims are true. It gives them a license to continue on unhealthy diets.
- walshemj 9y ago
  Yes but if a professional who deals with renal patients says it as mine did ? I am going to take their advice over Jamie Oliver et al? I actually reduced salt by using other spices

shaki-dora 9y ago

"Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much" is the timeless advice of Michael Pollan: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.... It's my go-to essay on dietary science, and still holds up extremely well ten years after it first came out.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

will_brown 9y ago

>The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman used to be fat, now it's sugar. I would argue nutrition is a solved problem but certainly I will acknowledge that is controversial. What is not controversial though is that Type 2 diabeties, which used to be called adult onset diabetes, wasn’t diagnosed in children 30 years ago and now over 1 million have it, and 100% of those cases are preventable through diet (many cases even reversible through diet and exercise).

autokad 9y ago

> "The industry maliciously amplifies our innate tendency to find a "one-fits-all" solution. The bogeyman " No no no no. the industry reacted to government intervention (bad intervention, as usual). the industry didnt want to change what it was selling, they said the food would taste bad if we removed the fats. but the government always gets what it wants. and bogeyman policy is how things work. hey look, a boogeyman, fund my "research". then you can write books, hold paid talks/conferences, get hugely paid government positions, etc.

mtgx 9y ago

I think we already know that "low-carb and high-protein" doesn't work. You also need high (or moderate) fat. Low-fat protein is also highly insulogenic. High insulogenic foods = insulin resistance which leads to obesity, metabolic syndrom, diabetes, and likely Alzheimer, heart disease, and so on. The higher the amount of fat taken with protein, the less insulogenic the food is. Also, it seems Vitamin K2 exists almost exclusively in saturated fat, and Vitamin K2 is what protects you from atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, and heart attacks, too. There are many other vitamins and minerals stored in fat, too, possibly because fat is the body's "reserves" which means more just than "high-density calories". After all, the body needs vitamins and minerals, too, to survive. And if it can't get them while not eating, then it makes sense that they should be stored somewhere (they are stored in the liver, too, but the liver is more of a short/medium term storage). However, you also have to keep in mind that fat stores toxins, and in our high-pollution modern world, it may not be a good idea to eat too much fat, or at least you should be watch out where you're getting your food from.