5 ms·

In my lifetime experts have been wrong about so much when it comes to food and nutrition I just can’t take any of them seriously. So I try to imagine what kept

In my lifetime experts have been wrong about so much when it comes to food and nutrition I just can’t take any of them seriously. So I try to imagine what kept humans alive for 300k+ years. Then you realize humans live in incredibly diverse environments and manage to survive on whatever they can find. So we can pretty much survive eating almost anything. There are plenty of people who live long enough to know their grandchildren while eating the most disgusting toxic foods. Thus the only guide I can trust is, how does this food make me feel when I eat it? Coca cola makes me spike then feel like shit, eggs make me feel happy and satiated, bacon and avocado too. Fried chicken makes me feel grimy and sluggish as does pasta and beer. Leafy greens make me feel amazing and make my stool less disgusting. I can only imagine this is all that earlier humans had to go on and so I choose to listen to my body.

21 9y ago
This is one of the reason of the obesity epidemic. Our body loves sugar which was very hard to come by, but which now is cheap and abundant. Also keep in mind that up to 200 years ago average life span was ~35, so cancer didn't really had time to develop.
- quiq 9y ago
  Low average life span had a lot more to do with high infant mortality rate. It wasn't that most people were dead by 40, just that a lot more were dead by 5. If you made it through adolescence gray hair was totally within reach.
  - nielsbot 9y ago
    I'd like to read more about this.. Source? Is there a historical histogram, over time, of lifespan somewhere?
    - Amezarak 9y ago
      Something that made it to HN recently was this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. That infant mortality was sky-high prior to the 20th century is pretty well known - I can't think of a good, detailed source for that off the top of my head. But what I can tell you, on the subject of longevity in general, is to do the following: - Look back through the genealogical record, for you personally. "People old enough to have kids" is a good sort-of proxy for life expectancy minus infant mortality. I personally found that my ancestors regularly lived into their 70s and 80s. Very few of my ancestors died younger than 70, going back to the 1600s. - Another good example is to look at history. Pick up Livy, for example, or someone along those lines, and see how often someone dies of non-violent causes before they've entered old age. It's pretty uncommon. When it did happen, it was usually because of a horrific plague that killed people left and right. Basically, historically, people generally (we're talking about a huge expanse of time and different cultures here) lived pretty healthy lives. They were much more active than we were, ate fewer processed foods, and often ate very healthy foods. People didn't smoke and didn't eat much sugar. There also wasn't a lot of industry spewing carcinogens and endocrine distributors everywhere. If you lived in a peaceful area and time, in relatively sanitary condition, your odds were very good that you'd live long into old age. Even if you lived in a nasty city (and I'd call Victorian England pretty nasty) your odds weren't bad. Where things fell apart was in war and plague. And as discussed in the paper above, when people did die in old age, they tended to pretty quickly of infection-related causes. Life expectancy has probably risen and fallen over time, depending on different historical and cultural factors. The popular model of "it's just been getting better and better over time" is not at all correct - it's no coincidence most charts begin in ~1900. The Victorian England paper is a good basis for reflection because it's clear that the medical technology of that time was not dramatically different than that available a few hundred years or even two thousand years earlier, and neither was their diet or lifestyle extraordinary, even if it was good.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
KhanMahGretsch 9y ago
I'm a little confused as to why you're being down-voted, save your audacity in being cautious about nutritional "experts" having a poor track-record in their dissemination of advice. Mere decades ago, the statement that a high-protein/high-fat diet is optimal would fly in the face of expert-opinion. It is not so many years ago that using trans-fat laden vegetable oil was considered "healthier" than using rendered fat. You have stated in a common-sense way that ingesting huge quantities of sugar and trans-fats make you feel terrible, and ingesting leafy greens make you feel physically well; not that one should simply eat what their cravings tell them to. As sensitivities to certain foods can manifest themselves in different ways on an individual level, recommending that people pay close attention to the impact that certain foods have on their energy-levels, mood, and performance is sound advice.
- ryanmarsh 9y ago
  My comments are usually[0] down voted within a minute or two of being posted. There is no correlation between my comment's final upvote count and the initial downvote. The initial downvotes are, as near as I can tell, a constant. My only guess is I upset someone along the way and I'm getting brigaded. I hold some controversial opinions (to HN) and I comment without fear, so this is understandable. 0: It might happen for every post but I don't hover on my posts hitting refresh.
mnm1 9y ago
Most people who made it past early childhood could definitely survive to see grandkids as early as 25 or 30 years old. I'd prefer to live into my 80s however and to do that with a high probability of success requires a little more knowledge than our ancestors had, imo.

21 9y ago

This is one of the reason of the obesity epidemic. Our body loves sugar which was very hard to come by, but which now is cheap and abundant. Also keep in mind that up to 200 years ago average life span was ~35, so cancer didn't really had time to develop.

quiq 9y ago
Low average life span had a lot more to do with high infant mortality rate. It wasn't that most people were dead by 40, just that a lot more were dead by 5. If you made it through adolescence gray hair was totally within reach.
- nielsbot 9y ago
  I'd like to read more about this.. Source? Is there a historical histogram, over time, of lifespan somewhere?
  - Amezarak 9y ago
    Something that made it to HN recently was this paper. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2672390/ > Analysis of the mid-Victorian period in the U.K. reveals that life expectancy at age 5 was as good or better than exists today, and the incidence of degenerative disease was 10% of ours. Their levels of physical activity and hence calorific intakes were approximately twice ours. They had relatively little access to alcohol and tobacco; and due to their correspondingly high intake of fruits, whole grains, oily fish and vegetables, they consumed levels of micro- and phytonutrients at approximately ten times the levels considered normal today. That infant mortality was sky-high prior to the 20th century is pretty well known - I can't think of a good, detailed source for that off the top of my head. But what I can tell you, on the subject of longevity in general, is to do the following: - Look back through the genealogical record, for you personally. "People old enough to have kids" is a good sort-of proxy for life expectancy minus infant mortality. I personally found that my ancestors regularly lived into their 70s and 80s. Very few of my ancestors died younger than 70, going back to the 1600s. - Another good example is to look at history. Pick up Livy, for example, or someone along those lines, and see how often someone dies of non-violent causes before they've entered old age. It's pretty uncommon. When it did happen, it was usually because of a horrific plague that killed people left and right. Basically, historically, people generally (we're talking about a huge expanse of time and different cultures here) lived pretty healthy lives. They were much more active than we were, ate fewer processed foods, and often ate very healthy foods. People didn't smoke and didn't eat much sugar. There also wasn't a lot of industry spewing carcinogens and endocrine distributors everywhere. If you lived in a peaceful area and time, in relatively sanitary condition, your odds were very good that you'd live long into old age. Even if you lived in a nasty city (and I'd call Victorian England pretty nasty) your odds weren't bad. Where things fell apart was in war and plague. And as discussed in the paper above, when people did die in old age, they tended to pretty quickly of infection-related causes. Life expectancy has probably risen and fallen over time, depending on different historical and cultural factors. The popular model of "it's just been getting better and better over time" is not at all correct - it's no coincidence most charts begin in ~1900. The Victorian England paper is a good basis for reflection because it's clear that the medical technology of that time was not dramatically different than that available a few hundred years or even two thousand years earlier, and neither was their diet or lifestyle extraordinary, even if it was good.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

KhanMahGretsch 9y ago

I'm a little confused as to why you're being down-voted, save your audacity in being cautious about nutritional "experts" having a poor track-record in their dissemination of advice. Mere decades ago, the statement that a high-protein/high-fat diet is optimal would fly in the face of expert-opinion. It is not so many years ago that using trans-fat laden vegetable oil was considered "healthier" than using rendered fat. You have stated in a common-sense way that ingesting huge quantities of sugar and trans-fats make you feel terrible, and ingesting leafy greens make you feel physically well; not that one should simply eat what their cravings tell them to. As sensitivities to certain foods can manifest themselves in different ways on an individual level, recommending that people pay close attention to the impact that certain foods have on their energy-levels, mood, and performance is sound advice.

ryanmarsh 9y ago
My comments are usually[0] down voted within a minute or two of being posted. There is no correlation between my comment's final upvote count and the initial downvote. The initial downvotes are, as near as I can tell, a constant. My only guess is I upset someone along the way and I'm getting brigaded. I hold some controversial opinions (to HN) and I comment without fear, so this is understandable. 0: It might happen for every post but I don't hover on my posts hitting refresh.

mnm1 9y ago

Most people who made it past early childhood could definitely survive to see grandkids as early as 25 or 30 years old. I'd prefer to live into my 80s however and to do that with a high probability of success requires a little more knowledge than our ancestors had, imo.