5 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. That isn't a fad thoug

by 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.
  - watwut 9y ago
    > 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. That would be good science. The bad science is to look at bunch of conflicted studies on difficult complicated system and then claim "here is the culprit follow my absolute advice". Bad science is projecting confidence when you have no scientific reason to be confident, because it is good for your career and status. Bad interpretation of science is believing the most confident yapping person around, instead of believing scientists that talk in probabilities and are cautious. Which, is my understanding of what happened here.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
manmal 9y ago
I largely agree with you.. sugar has been shown extensively as being downright bad for insulin levels, microbiome, hormone levels in general, and lots of other issues. White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread, if you manage to keep your blood sugar level. [1]: http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html
- croon 9y ago
  That's a very good point, and you're right. My comment about white flour wasn't intended to suggest replacement with an alternative flour, but to indicate that its effect on blood sugar is almost the same as sugar. Mix it with oil to make a tortilla and its glycemic index lowers to half. I don't live by it because it's delicious, but I would instead say don't eat bread, there's fiber to be had in vegetables.
- JCFalkenberg 9y ago
  'One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread...'. A. By what metrics are you measuring 'easier on the body'. B. What corn bread and what white bread? I'm somewhat skeptical of this as a generic claim, though since it will very much depend on the recipe used (for both kinds of bread), it's certainly probable in many cases.
ForRealsies 9y ago
> sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words. People forget. Or are influenced to forget. In the 1800s it was common sense that bread and grain led to weight gain. Lobbyists and non-so-reputable doctors changed the entire narrative. This grain centric food pyramid lasted until 2005. A reputable study != permanent influence
nwah1 9y ago
Isomaltulose is a component of the drink Soylent. It is a disaccharide that was specifically chosen for its health properties. Table sugar is also a disaccharide
- IntronExon 9y ago
  IIRC wasn’t there a recent study which showed Isomaltulose and some similar disaccharides have negative effects on the gut flora? I think it was in the context of C. Diff infections, but I could be wrong.
- croon 9y ago
  1) Are you arguing that Soylent picked it solely on health properties and not for its relative health properties when choosing a sweetening agent (necessary evil for some foods)? 2) Is disaccharide a relevant classifier? Water is a hydrogen calcogenide, as is hydrosulfuric acid. That doesn't mean they're comparable as a food item. It was likely chosen as a substitute for sucrose (table sugar) for being comparatively good (less bad): > It is particularly suitable as a non-cariogenic sucrose replacement and is favorable in products for diabetics and prediabetic dispositions. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387299 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387299
  - nwah1 9y ago
    Fats and proteins, like all food, is slowly killing you, in the same way that life is killing you via aging. Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar. And there's such a wide variety of fatty acids and aminos that it is quite hard to generalize. Isomaltulose is probably far better than most fatty acids. And excess protein converts to sugar, too.
    - croon 9y ago
      > Fats and proteins, like all food, is slowly killing you, in the same way that life is killing you via aging. That's a terrible comparison. Gas is the fuel for your car, which will at some point break down to a point where you will trash it. By no definition is the gas destroying that car in the way that gas mixed with sawdust will. > Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar. You will die in a week without food. Some food will keep you alive longer than others. Fats and protein will do that better than sugar and protein, on aggregate. We can discuss more narrow categories within those, but it's moving goal posts from what I responded to.
mancerayder 9y ago
> 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. First off, do you need a study for that? I'd hate to sound insensitive, but perhaps common sense is a new Darwinism? There's a slew of shortcuts that will cut our lives short. And for the record I eat a huge amount of protein everyday. At least 1 to 1.2 g / kg of bodyweight. I'm not at risk of protein poisoning (per another commenter) since I consume a large amount of water, fiber as well, and the sources are lean meats rather than powders. Although I admit a weakness in the knees for Quest flavored protein chips. All that said, I'll need a lot more than that to kill me. Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. If people don't even have time to eat due to their jobs, I'd argue they've got a potentially worse lifestyle threat to their health.
- croon 9y ago
  You replied to me, but your questions and comments seem directed at GP? And actually your protein intake is closer to the low end. You could safely and probably beneficially go up to 1.3-1.6g/kg [1] [2]. It's as important to muscle gain as it is to fat loss. Athletes actually require less since they're better at utilizing intake. You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I wrote, but just a comment on your last paragraph: > Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. I think avoiding something "processed" is a terribly blunt tool, which will likely end up not serving you. What does processed even mean? I usually buy pre-washed potatoes because I'm lazy, those are processed. As is my cheese, as is my chili sauce, my peeled nuts, and most if not all my spices. I don't think we're there yet with Soylent and similar meal replacements, but I don't doubt that we in the future will have meal replacements with much better macros, better taste and fun texture, as well as lab grown meats and meat substitutes that taste better. Processed doesn't mean inherently bad, and there's nothing definitive saying that processed through photosynthesis is better than on a molecular level processed through a series of tubes in the other kind of plant. The only thing making "processed" foods bad are businesses cutting corners on cost with the only goal of delivering something palatable, not something healthy. That isn't a process problem, but a market problem. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26797090 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26797090 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

by croon 9y ago

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.
- watwut 9y ago
  > 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. That would be good science. The bad science is to look at bunch of conflicted studies on difficult complicated system and then claim "here is the culprit follow my absolute advice". Bad science is projecting confidence when you have no scientific reason to be confident, because it is good for your career and status. Bad interpretation of science is believing the most confident yapping person around, instead of believing scientists that talk in probabilities and are cautious. Which, is my understanding of what happened here.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

manmal 9y ago

I largely agree with you.. sugar has been shown extensively as being downright bad for insulin levels, microbiome, hormone levels in general, and lots of other issues. White flour (in moderation, and always mixed with fat or protein) can be beneficial though as it’s low in lectins (which damage the gut lining and organs like the kidneys and the brain [1]). One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread, if you manage to keep your blood sugar level. [1]: http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html http://www.krispin.com/lectin.html

croon 9y ago
That's a very good point, and you're right. My comment about white flour wasn't intended to suggest replacement with an alternative flour, but to indicate that its effect on blood sugar is almost the same as sugar. Mix it with oil to make a tortilla and its glycemic index lowers to half. I don't live by it because it's delicious, but I would instead say don't eat bread, there's fiber to be had in vegetables.
JCFalkenberg 9y ago
'One (!) slice of white bread is easier on the body than one slice of full corn bread...'. A. By what metrics are you measuring 'easier on the body'. B. What corn bread and what white bread? I'm somewhat skeptical of this as a generic claim, though since it will very much depend on the recipe used (for both kinds of bread), it's certainly probable in many cases.

ForRealsies 9y ago

> sugars or white flour won't come back as your main caloric source through any reputable study. Mark my words. People forget. Or are influenced to forget. In the 1800s it was common sense that bread and grain led to weight gain. Lobbyists and non-so-reputable doctors changed the entire narrative. This grain centric food pyramid lasted until 2005. A reputable study != permanent influence

nwah1 9y ago

Isomaltulose is a component of the drink Soylent. It is a disaccharide that was specifically chosen for its health properties. Table sugar is also a disaccharide

IntronExon 9y ago
IIRC wasn’t there a recent study which showed Isomaltulose and some similar disaccharides have negative effects on the gut flora? I think it was in the context of C. Diff infections, but I could be wrong.
croon 9y ago
1) Are you arguing that Soylent picked it solely on health properties and not for its relative health properties when choosing a sweetening agent (necessary evil for some foods)? 2) Is disaccharide a relevant classifier? Water is a hydrogen calcogenide, as is hydrosulfuric acid. That doesn't mean they're comparable as a food item. It was likely chosen as a substitute for sucrose (table sugar) for being comparatively good (less bad): > It is particularly suitable as a non-cariogenic sucrose replacement and is favorable in products for diabetics and prediabetic dispositions. [1] [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387299 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12387299
- nwah1 9y ago
  Fats and proteins, like all food, is slowly killing you, in the same way that life is killing you via aging. Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar. And there's such a wide variety of fatty acids and aminos that it is quite hard to generalize. Isomaltulose is probably far better than most fatty acids. And excess protein converts to sugar, too.
  - croon 9y ago
    > Fats and proteins, like all food, is slowly killing you, in the same way that life is killing you via aging. That's a terrible comparison. Gas is the fuel for your car, which will at some point break down to a point where you will trash it. By no definition is the gas destroying that car in the way that gas mixed with sawdust will. > Thus, the fats and proteins are likewise, in the best of circumstances, only "less bad" than sugar. You will die in a week without food. Some food will keep you alive longer than others. Fats and protein will do that better than sugar and protein, on aggregate. We can discuss more narrow categories within those, but it's moving goal posts from what I responded to.

mancerayder 9y ago

> 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. First off, do you need a study for that? I'd hate to sound insensitive, but perhaps common sense is a new Darwinism? There's a slew of shortcuts that will cut our lives short. And for the record I eat a huge amount of protein everyday. At least 1 to 1.2 g / kg of bodyweight. I'm not at risk of protein poisoning (per another commenter) since I consume a large amount of water, fiber as well, and the sources are lean meats rather than powders. Although I admit a weakness in the knees for Quest flavored protein chips. All that said, I'll need a lot more than that to kill me. Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. If people don't even have time to eat due to their jobs, I'd argue they've got a potentially worse lifestyle threat to their health.

croon 9y ago
You replied to me, but your questions and comments seem directed at GP? And actually your protein intake is closer to the low end. You could safely and probably beneficially go up to 1.3-1.6g/kg [1] [2]. It's as important to muscle gain as it is to fat loss. Athletes actually require less since they're better at utilizing intake. You don't seem to be disagreeing with anything I wrote, but just a comment on your last paragraph: > Going back, what's common sense is to eat natural foods rather than avoid them. Processed stuff is the real danger, including meal replacement with powders. I think avoiding something "processed" is a terribly blunt tool, which will likely end up not serving you. What does processed even mean? I usually buy pre-washed potatoes because I'm lazy, those are processed. As is my cheese, as is my chili sauce, my peeled nuts, and most if not all my spices. I don't think we're there yet with Soylent and similar meal replacements, but I don't doubt that we in the future will have meal replacements with much better macros, better taste and fun texture, as well as lab grown meats and meat substitutes that taste better. Processed doesn't mean inherently bad, and there's nothing definitive saying that processed through photosynthesis is better than on a molecular level processed through a series of tubes in the other kind of plant. The only thing making "processed" foods bad are businesses cutting corners on cost with the only goal of delivering something palatable, not something healthy. That isn't a process problem, but a market problem. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26797090 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26797090 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425