12 ms·

Nutrition offers its resignation, and the reply

70 points by exolymph 9y ago

purplezooey 9y ago
No, the problem is we don't fund enough nutrition research because the only people who benefit are non-corporations. Your liver does not have a lobbyist. For God's sake the director of the CDC had to resign because she didn't want to jettison her tobacco investments. There's only one political party responsible, and before the right-wing moderators here ban this comment, let's just say we need to pay attention to who we put in charge in this area.
antisthenes 9y ago
A bit too late for April fools, no? Otherwise it's just shameless praise to ignorance. (The good ol' fallacy that if you can't get it 100% correct for everyone, then might as well not even try) The weightlifting crowd seems to have figured out nutrition for themselves just fine. So have millions of fit, active people. Nutritionists may be quackery as a job/profession, but nutrition is still a valid part of biology and a science.
colechristensen 9y ago
Is there a better version of this idea written somewhere I can share? Something with not so much sarcasm and more reason.
- sillysaurus3 9y ago
  I'll trade you an anecdote, for whatever it's worth: One of my earlier memories was learning in school that your daily intake should be mostly grain. But recently, after cutting grain out of my diet completely, I went from 240lbs to 210 with zero exercise. It's weird to realize that pretty much no one knows what's up with nutrition. It's the opposite of data-driven.
  - teej 9y ago
    The food pyramid in the US wasn’t devised by nutritionists. It was designed by the farm lobby. It was published by the Department of Agriculture.
  - nathancahill 9y ago
    It's absolutely data-driven. By food and farm lobbies that do not have your health as their priority.
  - eridius 9y ago
    That doesn't surprise me in the least. Grain is very caloric. Cutting grain out of your diet almost certainly means you're eating fewer calories per day. That said, current nutritional recommendation is 45–65% of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now that doesn't necessarily mean grain, but grain is an easy source.
    - drdrey 9y ago
      Why would cutting grains somehow not trigger hunger until the calories have been replaced?
      - eridius 9y ago
        In general, in the modern world (or at least, in the US) we tend to overeat. We're not just eating to satisfy hunger, we're eating for many reasons. Furthermore, it takes your body some time to react to putting food in your stomach (this is why you eat more if you eat fast than if you take your time). Basically what I'm saying is, eating fewer calories doesn't necessarily mean you're hungry, because putting food into your mouth isn't just a reaction to being hungry, and because we tend to eat more than is necessary to satisfy hunger anyway.
        drdrey 9y ago
        I'm not contesting the other points you bring up, but hunger is the major challenge in calorie-restricted diets.
        eridius 9y ago
        As someone who's currently on a calorie-restricted diet, yes, hunger is a big problem. However, eating fewer calories by cutting out grains is not the same thing as being on a calorie-restricted diet.
        drdrey 9y ago
        Isn't it automatically a calorie-restricted diet if you are eating fewer calories than you normally would? FWIW I also have cut out grains but my weight is very stable, so it seems fair to assume I now just eat more of other things.
  - namelost 9y ago
    In the past, "nutrition" meant "getting enough calories", as in the opposite of malnutrition. Grains are plentiful, cheap calories and so they are "nutritious". Of course if you cut them out of your diet and still eat the same amounts of everything else you will lose weight, that's just thermodynamics!
    - stanleydrew 9y ago
      Well technically you could just gain weight more slowly.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      Exactly. In the past, calorie intake was probably the most important aspect of food nutrition. We live in good times.
  - matwood 9y ago
    > It's weird to realize that pretty much no one knows what's up with nutrition. It's the opposite of data-driven. Did you track your calories? Dropping grains almost certainly means you cut your calories and thus lost weight. Exercise doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The adage 'abs are made in the kitchen, not the gym' rings true.
    - pixl97 9y ago
      Eh, Abs are made in the gym. Fat is made in the kitchen. You can be both skinny and not ripped at the same time.
      - matwood 9y ago
        > You can be both skinny and not ripped at the same time. Of course, the point is there is almost no amount of exercise (8 hours/day in the pool like Phelps maybe) that can make up for a bad diet when it comes to abs. Abs are almost strictly a function of body fat percentage.
  - colechristensen 9y ago
    Yeah, it is just difficult to eat enough calories when you eliminate grains. That doesn't really mean it's better or worse nutrition.
- rjhacks 9y ago
  This article, linked from the one discussed here, seems solid: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698 https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698
YoyoyoPCP 9y ago
My general philosophy about nutrition is simply to listen to my own body. As in: how does this meal that I just ate or drink that I just drank make me feel? I've noticed with certain foods, I have strange feelings after eating them, so I'll tend to stay away from eating them regularly or even at all. I'm not sure if there's any merit to this way of considering my diet, but it feels like the most sensible approach towards deciding what I should or shouldn't eat.
- umanwizard 9y ago
  Smoking cigarettes makes me feel amazing, so I'm not convinced about your approach.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    When you smoke one, yes. How long until you feel worse?
  - oh_sigh 9y ago
    I'm sure they do in the immediate short term, but don't you cough up mucus[1], have a reduced sense of smell[2], yellowed teeth[3] and a smaller penis[4]? That doesn't sound too amazing to me. [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318931.php https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318931.php [2] https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/is-smoking-dragging-you-down#1 https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/is-smoking-... [3] https://www.dentalhealth.org/tell-me-about/topic/sundry/smoking-and-oral-health https://www.dentalhealth.org/tell-me-about/topic/sundry/smok... [4] http://time.com/4408977/erectile-dysfunction-quit-smoking/ http://time.com/4408977/erectile-dysfunction-quit-smoking/
    - setr 9y ago
      Been smoking for about 8 years No to mucus Maybe to reduced smell (doesn't seem significantly worse in practice than anyone else) Maybe to teeth, but I also drink a lot of coffee, and its not very substantially yellow Erectile dysfunction != smaller penis, and afaik, none of the (actually) described effects in the article apply to me, at least enough to have noticed. Also that last article is the only one I checked, and is citing studies composed of 40 (2016 study), and 65 (2012), participants. The first is about fertility, and nothing to do with ED or penis size. And the second study compares 20 successful quitters against 40 not, with apparently 13 people starting with ED, (distribution after the study left unspecified), and only claims that the quitters had larger erections than the smokers. (Not comparing before/after quitting on the same individual; just which group had the larger dicks at the end (their state at the beginning left unspecified). And the ED part is just bad reporting (despite being the article's title), intentionally referring to results that are "statistically insignificant". (13 people with ED; quitters/non-quitter count unspecified; both groups saw similar improvement during the study). I'm assuming you didn't read the studies themselves, so I won't bother I'm also going to assume the rest of your articles are of similar quality In which case, you should probably improve your sources before making claims
ClassAndBurn 9y ago
Nutrition research is really difficult; lack on immediate reactions (digestion and metabolism take time), highly variable results because on stimulus in other parts of the body (including stress) and its being ethically impossible to have a control group (locking people in a room and feed them one this isn't realistic anyways). On the curve of "knowing how much we don't know" we're just realizing this is way harder than anyone expected even a few years ago.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Don't forget different gut bacteria. Different people may well respond to the same food in different ways.
  - ClassAndBurn 9y ago
    Totally. I signed up for the Kickstarter of uBiome years ago who's market line evolved from "We'll figure out a 'normal' biome and help you get there" to "Turns out there is no normal, let's try grouping people" to now something around "OMG this stuff changes constantly! We're going to go science for a few years and get back to you latter with something".
  - drdrey 9y ago
    And intestine length
alfor 9y ago
Look at https://nutritionfacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org it's a doctor that does the digging through research paper and try to find a place to draw the line. Spoiler: The best diet is complete avoidance of process food and animals products. It also correlate highly with the blue zones findings. edit: wow! I was expecting some pushback, but this is still a surprize. Please take a bit of time to look at the actual content before being to critic. Also it's made to be a bit entertaining and simple so it can reach a larger audience.
- didgeoridoo 9y ago
  It also completely ignores any science that goes against vegan orthodoxy. So, take it with a very large grain of salt (and a slice of bacon).
  - BadassFractal 9y ago
    I would like veganism a lot more if so many of its representatives didn't act like it's a cult. The moralizing, in ingroup/outgroup dynamic etc.
  - alfor 9y ago
    Do you have exemples, I think he his genuinely concern by the health of people, but I would like to see some counter arguments.
    - didgeoridoo 9y ago
      Here’s a point-by-point takedown of many of Greger’s antiscientific claims: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes... The fact is, Greger is not a scientist. Science requires honest investigation, and a willingness to update one’s beliefs. Greger is an activist — he has already decided what his beliefs are, and he is selectively choosing to emphasize studies that support his beliefs (while ignoring those that don’t). I wouldn’t have a problem with this if his site was called veganopinions.org. You’re allowed to have beliefs based on morality, not science. But when you corrupt the science to advance your cause, you’ve lost me entirely.
decision_tree 9y ago
See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-... for a bit more serious coverage. OT, it's always surprised me with the diversity of pets people buy that these animals can generally eat the same thing for every meal, while humans can't.
- rjbwork 9y ago
  We could, but food is basically a defining characteristic of human culture. Food comes in such an amazingly varied myriad of flavors, textures, temperatures, methods, spices, etc. I think at this point we've evolved such that for some 99.9...9n% of us, we literally can't eat the same thing every day. It would suck one of the simple joys of life out of our lives.
  - AstralStorm 9y ago
    We do not even know if we feed the pets a healthy diet because nobody cares. Some think they know what constitutes a healthy diet for humans but there is very scarce and conflicting evidence except the grandma advice of "eat your greens". And not with big effect sizes either. Not "be vegan or vegetarian" mind you. The fun part is that humans are likely much more adaptable in terms of diet than other animals.
    - gaius 9y ago
      We do not even know if we feed the pets a healthy diet because nobody cares I think people care more about their pets diet than their own
    - Ma8ee 9y ago
      I think we know a lot more about what to feed animals. There are several reasons for that: It is not considered unethical to do large scale experimental studies on animals. Most domestic animals have much shorter lifespan than humans, so it is possible to study the effect of different diets through a full life cycle. Finally, there are strong economic incentives to produce the meat with desired qualities, the most amount of milk or the highest quality of fur with the most cost effective diet possible. For example pig farmers have known forever that if you want to have fat pigs you feed them grains, and if you desire lean meat you feed them high protein fodder.
maxander 9y ago
The article is a bit hyperbolic. Nutrition is complex and hard-to-study, the research is under various distorting pressures from several industries, and it's been gotten disastrously wrong in the past, but such is science- science is hard. Just because we've gotten it wrong before doesn't invalidate more recent results, and just because there are important uncertainties in our current knowledge doesn't mean we can't quantify and manage that uncertainty. The real issue is, and the author's real point (whether he knows it or not), is that non-scientists don't, and currently mostly can't, know anything about nutrition. To get a decent, self-respecting nutritional fact, you need to trace it back to the studies (to make sure it's not corporate BS,) make sure these studies are relatively recent (so that they're not deformed by the various assumptions and flawed conceptual frameworks that dominated the field a couple decades ago,) and ensure that the researchers and statistics at work are reasonably trustworthy (to make sure it's not some of the bad research that is still being done[1].) This is not something that most people can do, and that's simply to access the limited and uncertain facts we currently have. To the typical highschool graduate trying to make dinner, it's worse than useless. ([1] Which is, again, not unique to nutritional science. Bad papers are published in every field.) More than a lack of knowledge, we have a lack of trustworthy authority. If someone wants to know about chemistry or math, trustworthy sources are easy to find, and their pronouncements can be taken on faith if the student doesn't want to get bogged down in the details. If someone wants to know next week's weather, the available answers will be uncertain and untrustworthy, but everyone at least knows the right people to ask, and has some idea of how to deal with "50% chance of rain." In nutrition, no one knows where to ask, and no one knows how to deal with what information that is available (for instance, raise your hand if you know the glycemic index of your most recent meal.) The answer to this can't be the scientific method; it's a social process. Incidentally, the present nutritional wisdom is probably best summed up by Michael Pollan's "eat food; not too much; mostly plants." From that you'll be fine. (If you want to be really fancy, know the calories-per-serving of the ~10 most common foods you eat; by then you'll be eating healthier than about 95% of Americans, most likely. Know the glycemic index and you're past 99%.)
brandonmenc 9y ago
The only advice that makes sense, and for the past half century or so has been constant, albeit hiding in plain sight under whatever the fads of the day are: Exercise regularly. Avoid extremes in diet - but eat a bit of variety. Get the minimum recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals. Keep your calories and your body fat low. And if you have bad genetics, you're probably just screwed, and no amount of exercise or diet will fix it.
- yvsong 9y ago
  A more fashionable alternative of variety is diversity.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  There is no evidence (known to me) that variety is actually beneficial. (Past the obvious "get known required amounts of vitamins and minerals") There is some evidence that certain kinds of atypical diet are slightly less beneficial in terms of mortality. (Low carbohydrate long term. Cause unknown, not CVD or cancer. Very good review, thoroughly recommended. The key word is "all cause mortality and morbidity") And the varied (in certain ways) Western diet is also shown to be quite bad. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I like to review nutrition papers fairly and thoroughly but have never seen one on this...
  - brandonmenc 9y ago
    In the absence of hard evidence, by avoiding variety, you're probably more likely to miss consuming an essential or beneficial food than you are to eat something that is bad for you in large amounts. Variety in moderation seems to be the only effective proxy to smooth over the constant "used to be good for you - nope, not any more - wait we were wrong it is good" oscillations. I mean a variety of plant and animal sources, and a variety of macronutrients - to cover all the bases. With the exception of trans fats, and possibly red meat, nearly every food seems to be safe in moderate doses, so there's no reason to avoid or load up on anything in particular. And when they find out that something like, for example, oily fish, is beneficial - you can look back and say hey, I ate a bit of that too. I agree that not all forms of variation are good, but variation within what mainstream nutrition science recommends at this point probably mostly is. tl;dr - no one really knows anything, so play the odds.
will_brown 9y ago
An article like this is the same type of disinformation it is railing against. Sure the government backed food pyramid and now food plates are terrible (and there is a conflict of interest), and private studies are often no better. But we don’t know anything about nutrition? What about the Krebs Cycle? I think that is good science right? Cellular health and energy production aren’t exactly controversial. How many people are arguing that inflammation in the body is good or promotes health? Does anyone suggest insulin spikes are good? Unfortunately you can’t name the foods that cause inflammation or insulin spikes...because that’s when there is push back, but we all know what they are and we don’t need to name them, because there is consensus those things are detrimental to health, which should be the focus of nutrition.
- pianom4n 9y ago
  Actually evidence is trending towards saying that inflammation is good for healing, and that taking NSAIDs is counterproductive.
  - will_brown 9y ago
    I don’t think I mentioned inflammation as a natural function of healing nor did I mention NSAIDs vis-a-vis inflammation as a natural healing process of the body. From your context it sounds like you are talking about natural inflammation from things like working out (muscle tears) and NSAIDS interfering with the natural muscle repair. Obviously I am discussing inflammation in the context of diet. Though if I’m mistaken, please link a study that suggests dietary inflammation is good for healing. I’m sure instead you will find articles and studies about dietary inflammation putting the body in a state of chronic inflammation which isn’t going to be beneficial for any healing process.
- gHosts 9y ago
  > What about the Krebs Cycle? So if you look at the [Big Picture of the metabolic pathways in humans](http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1)... what do you have? Fuzzily defined, extraordinarily complex tangle with feed back loops all over the place, some going through that amazing tangle of the brain. If you were to translate this into a mathematical model and look at it from a purely mathematical perspective (even if you omit the parts involving the brain). It's a highly non-linear system of Partial Differential Equation's with many variables and a bunch of fuzzily measured constants. And then you compare it with a really really simple setup like, say, [3 bodies acting under gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem). You know, something almost as simple as it gets. Way way way simpler than the metabolic pathways in humanity. And we know from a purely mathematical point of view.... that except for a very very tiny set of special cases, we haven't clue what will happen with the 3 body problem. So yes, the article is spot on. In terms of individual chemical reactions, we have some ideas. In terms of dietary advice to individuals or populations... We floundering and should admit it.
hn_throwaway_99 9y ago
I just think it's kind of amusing that a large number of comments on this post are (unironic) personal anecdotes arguing as to why their particular diet plan is the best.
nodja 9y ago
Diet/study says that if you do X you will lose weight because of Y. You do X and lose weight. The error is thinking that you lost weight because of Y, and not because of a secondary unlisted effect of doing X. The same applies for certain diets/organisms causing conditions/diseases/etc. i.e. the whole cholesterol back and forth. We've learned lots from nutrition and in general informed people live healthier lives. Just because we don't know exactly what's going on inside our bodies doesn't mean that zero improvement has been made. We'll fuck up once in a while and get some bad advice, but in general we've improved lots.
xupybd 9y ago
The annoying thing is we seem to be getting fatter and no one seems to be able to nail it down.
- pixl97 9y ago
  No, that is nailed down. We eat more calories and we do less. We eat out more and restaurants are economically motivated to sell larger portions because people feel it is a better value. There are more high calorie snack products available in more places for lower prices than ever. Education mostly doesn't work. Most people can consume huge amounts of sweet/fat/salty food, far beyond there caloric needs, even when they know it is bad for them. Maybe the small portion of humanity that can execute portion control inherits the Earth. Maybe we lock down businesses freedom to pettle crap foods to addicts. I'm not sure what the answer is.
macawfish 9y ago
I'm all the way over zealous rationalism.
arionhardison 9y ago
I think the problem here is a lack of tools. PG often says that the smarter people must build tools for the dumber ones. I have never met a smart RDN. They have no tools to do the research into our diet and its impact that is really needed to create a meaningful impact. Full Disclosure: I am currently building these tools.
AstralStorm 9y ago
Indeed the really important question that is slowly being dug in (too slowly in my books) is how a quite strictly testable thing as nutrition science has failed to produce truly actionable results. With at least decently described applicability. Maybe it is because of outside influence, maybe it is due to much to broadly asked question and/or premature generalization. Or following leads without actually testing their veracity, which probably has another cause. Maybe partly ethics preventing us from experimenting on ourselves as a species in a rational way. (Unlike the random uncontrolled irrational experiments we run every second of our life.) Glory, finding or requirement to prescribe action even if we do not know what should be done. Also known as leadership in some circles...
- drdrey 9y ago
  It is strictly testable in principle, but not really in practice. You can't exactly lock up people in a metabolic ward for years to collect long term data.
kevmo 9y ago
I grew up in the Deep South. Most of my family members are morbidly obese and have diabetes. I avoided this by spending hundreds of hours reading and thinking about nutrition. Here are my ground rules for healthy living: 1) Drink a lot of water everyday. 2) Calories are the most important baseline measure that affect your weight. 3) Walking for 20 minutes a day will give you 90% of the exercise you need. Go for a walk after lunch with your colleagues! 4) Don't trust food scientists, including ones that work for the government. They are paid to sell more food. 5) Putting vegetables on pizza doesn't make that pizza healthier. It may make it "less unhealthy". Think in terms like that. 6) The more synthetic a food is (i.e. the more processed it is), the more unhealthy it is. Human evolved to eat a certain way -- remember that. Use olive oil, real butter, etc. Eat whole fat everything. 7) Eat a lot of vegetables. Don't eat a lot of red meat. Yogurt is really good for your gut. 8) If you're going to eat something unhealthy, embrace it! Acknowledge that you are treating yourself. 9) THINK about your diet. Evaluate how you feel. 10) Look at your body in the mirror more than you step on a scale.
- uxcolumbo 9y ago
  Good list, but I'd suggest to leave out dairy, there are better alternatives on many levels. Check out this talk by Dr Neil Barnard https://youtu.be/v_ONFix_e4k https://youtu.be/v_ONFix_e4k
  - KozmoNau7 9y ago
    All of the alternatives to milk, cheese, yoghurt and so on are woefully inadequate in nutrients. Primarily protein (although soy is decent there), but also in vitamins and minerals. Yes, even enriched varieties. 11) Don't trust anything you hear in a TEDx talk.

70 points by exolymph 9y ago

No, the problem is we don't fund enough nutrition research because the only people who benefit are non-corporations. Your liver does not have a lobbyist. For God's sake the director of the CDC had to resign because she didn't want to jettison her tobacco investments. There's only one political party responsible, and before the right-wing moderators here ban this comment, let's just say we need to pay attention to who we put in charge in this area.

antisthenes 9y ago

A bit too late for April fools, no? Otherwise it's just shameless praise to ignorance. (The good ol' fallacy that if you can't get it 100% correct for everyone, then might as well not even try) The weightlifting crowd seems to have figured out nutrition for themselves just fine. So have millions of fit, active people. Nutritionists may be quackery as a job/profession, but nutrition is still a valid part of biology and a science.

colechristensen 9y ago

Is there a better version of this idea written somewhere I can share? Something with not so much sarcasm and more reason.

sillysaurus3 9y ago
I'll trade you an anecdote, for whatever it's worth: One of my earlier memories was learning in school that your daily intake should be mostly grain. But recently, after cutting grain out of my diet completely, I went from 240lbs to 210 with zero exercise. It's weird to realize that pretty much no one knows what's up with nutrition. It's the opposite of data-driven.
- teej 9y ago
  The food pyramid in the US wasn’t devised by nutritionists. It was designed by the farm lobby. It was published by the Department of Agriculture.
- nathancahill 9y ago
  It's absolutely data-driven. By food and farm lobbies that do not have your health as their priority.
- eridius 9y ago
  That doesn't surprise me in the least. Grain is very caloric. Cutting grain out of your diet almost certainly means you're eating fewer calories per day. That said, current nutritional recommendation is 45–65% of your caloric intake should be complex carbohydrates. Now that doesn't necessarily mean grain, but grain is an easy source.
  - drdrey 9y ago
    Why would cutting grains somehow not trigger hunger until the calories have been replaced?
    - eridius 9y ago
      In general, in the modern world (or at least, in the US) we tend to overeat. We're not just eating to satisfy hunger, we're eating for many reasons. Furthermore, it takes your body some time to react to putting food in your stomach (this is why you eat more if you eat fast than if you take your time). Basically what I'm saying is, eating fewer calories doesn't necessarily mean you're hungry, because putting food into your mouth isn't just a reaction to being hungry, and because we tend to eat more than is necessary to satisfy hunger anyway.
      - drdrey 9y ago
        I'm not contesting the other points you bring up, but hunger is the major challenge in calorie-restricted diets.
        eridius 9y ago
        As someone who's currently on a calorie-restricted diet, yes, hunger is a big problem. However, eating fewer calories by cutting out grains is not the same thing as being on a calorie-restricted diet.
        drdrey 9y ago
        Isn't it automatically a calorie-restricted diet if you are eating fewer calories than you normally would? FWIW I also have cut out grains but my weight is very stable, so it seems fair to assume I now just eat more of other things.
- namelost 9y ago
  In the past, "nutrition" meant "getting enough calories", as in the opposite of malnutrition. Grains are plentiful, cheap calories and so they are "nutritious". Of course if you cut them out of your diet and still eat the same amounts of everything else you will lose weight, that's just thermodynamics!
  - stanleydrew 9y ago
    Well technically you could just gain weight more slowly.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    Exactly. In the past, calorie intake was probably the most important aspect of food nutrition. We live in good times.
- matwood 9y ago
  > It's weird to realize that pretty much no one knows what's up with nutrition. It's the opposite of data-driven. Did you track your calories? Dropping grains almost certainly means you cut your calories and thus lost weight. Exercise doesn't burn as many calories as people think. The adage 'abs are made in the kitchen, not the gym' rings true.
  - pixl97 9y ago
    Eh, Abs are made in the gym. Fat is made in the kitchen. You can be both skinny and not ripped at the same time.
    - matwood 9y ago
      > You can be both skinny and not ripped at the same time. Of course, the point is there is almost no amount of exercise (8 hours/day in the pool like Phelps maybe) that can make up for a bad diet when it comes to abs. Abs are almost strictly a function of body fat percentage.
- colechristensen 9y ago
  Yeah, it is just difficult to eat enough calories when you eliminate grains. That doesn't really mean it's better or worse nutrition.
rjhacks 9y ago
This article, linked from the one discussed here, seems solid: https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698 https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698

YoyoyoPCP 9y ago

My general philosophy about nutrition is simply to listen to my own body. As in: how does this meal that I just ate or drink that I just drank make me feel? I've noticed with certain foods, I have strange feelings after eating them, so I'll tend to stay away from eating them regularly or even at all. I'm not sure if there's any merit to this way of considering my diet, but it feels like the most sensible approach towards deciding what I should or shouldn't eat.

umanwizard 9y ago
Smoking cigarettes makes me feel amazing, so I'm not convinced about your approach.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  When you smoke one, yes. How long until you feel worse?
- oh_sigh 9y ago
  I'm sure they do in the immediate short term, but don't you cough up mucus[1], have a reduced sense of smell[2], yellowed teeth[3] and a smaller penis[4]? That doesn't sound too amazing to me. [1] https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318931.php https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318931.php [2] https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/is-smoking-dragging-you-down#1 https://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/features/is-smoking-... [3] https://www.dentalhealth.org/tell-me-about/topic/sundry/smoking-and-oral-health https://www.dentalhealth.org/tell-me-about/topic/sundry/smok... [4] http://time.com/4408977/erectile-dysfunction-quit-smoking/ http://time.com/4408977/erectile-dysfunction-quit-smoking/
  - setr 9y ago
    Been smoking for about 8 years No to mucus Maybe to reduced smell (doesn't seem significantly worse in practice than anyone else) Maybe to teeth, but I also drink a lot of coffee, and its not very substantially yellow Erectile dysfunction != smaller penis, and afaik, none of the (actually) described effects in the article apply to me, at least enough to have noticed. Also that last article is the only one I checked, and is citing studies composed of 40 (2016 study), and 65 (2012), participants. The first is about fertility, and nothing to do with ED or penis size. And the second study compares 20 successful quitters against 40 not, with apparently 13 people starting with ED, (distribution after the study left unspecified), and only claims that the quitters had larger erections than the smokers. (Not comparing before/after quitting on the same individual; just which group had the larger dicks at the end (their state at the beginning left unspecified). And the ED part is just bad reporting (despite being the article's title), intentionally referring to results that are "statistically insignificant". (13 people with ED; quitters/non-quitter count unspecified; both groups saw similar improvement during the study). I'm assuming you didn't read the studies themselves, so I won't bother I'm also going to assume the rest of your articles are of similar quality In which case, you should probably improve your sources before making claims

ClassAndBurn 9y ago

Nutrition research is really difficult; lack on immediate reactions (digestion and metabolism take time), highly variable results because on stimulus in other parts of the body (including stress) and its being ethically impossible to have a control group (locking people in a room and feed them one this isn't realistic anyways). On the curve of "knowing how much we don't know" we're just realizing this is way harder than anyone expected even a few years ago.

AnimalMuppet 9y ago
Don't forget different gut bacteria. Different people may well respond to the same food in different ways.
- ClassAndBurn 9y ago
  Totally. I signed up for the Kickstarter of uBiome years ago who's market line evolved from "We'll figure out a 'normal' biome and help you get there" to "Turns out there is no normal, let's try grouping people" to now something around "OMG this stuff changes constantly! We're going to go science for a few years and get back to you latter with something".
- drdrey 9y ago
  And intestine length

alfor 9y ago

Look at https://nutritionfacts.org https://nutritionfacts.org it's a doctor that does the digging through research paper and try to find a place to draw the line. Spoiler: The best diet is complete avoidance of process food and animals products. It also correlate highly with the blue zones findings. edit: wow! I was expecting some pushback, but this is still a surprize. Please take a bit of time to look at the actual content before being to critic. Also it's made to be a bit entertaining and simple so it can reach a larger audience.

didgeoridoo 9y ago
It also completely ignores any science that goes against vegan orthodoxy. So, take it with a very large grain of salt (and a slice of bacon).
- BadassFractal 9y ago
  I would like veganism a lot more if so many of its representatives didn't act like it's a cult. The moralizing, in ingroup/outgroup dynamic etc.
- alfor 9y ago
  Do you have exemples, I think he his genuinely concern by the health of people, but I would like to see some counter arguments.
  - didgeoridoo 9y ago
    Here’s a point-by-point takedown of many of Greger’s antiscientific claims: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illness-curable-by-veganism/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes... The fact is, Greger is not a scientist. Science requires honest investigation, and a willingness to update one’s beliefs. Greger is an activist — he has already decided what his beliefs are, and he is selectively choosing to emphasize studies that support his beliefs (while ignoring those that don’t). I wouldn’t have a problem with this if his site was called veganopinions.org. You’re allowed to have beliefs based on morality, not science. But when you corrupt the science to advance your cause, you’ve lost me entirely.

decision_tree 9y ago

See http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-read-about-nutrition/ http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you-cant-trust-what-you-... for a bit more serious coverage. OT, it's always surprised me with the diversity of pets people buy that these animals can generally eat the same thing for every meal, while humans can't.

rjbwork 9y ago
We could, but food is basically a defining characteristic of human culture. Food comes in such an amazingly varied myriad of flavors, textures, temperatures, methods, spices, etc. I think at this point we've evolved such that for some 99.9...9n% of us, we literally can't eat the same thing every day. It would suck one of the simple joys of life out of our lives.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  We do not even know if we feed the pets a healthy diet because nobody cares. Some think they know what constitutes a healthy diet for humans but there is very scarce and conflicting evidence except the grandma advice of "eat your greens". And not with big effect sizes either. Not "be vegan or vegetarian" mind you. The fun part is that humans are likely much more adaptable in terms of diet than other animals.
  - gaius 9y ago
    We do not even know if we feed the pets a healthy diet because nobody cares I think people care more about their pets diet than their own
  - Ma8ee 9y ago
    I think we know a lot more about what to feed animals. There are several reasons for that: It is not considered unethical to do large scale experimental studies on animals. Most domestic animals have much shorter lifespan than humans, so it is possible to study the effect of different diets through a full life cycle. Finally, there are strong economic incentives to produce the meat with desired qualities, the most amount of milk or the highest quality of fur with the most cost effective diet possible. For example pig farmers have known forever that if you want to have fat pigs you feed them grains, and if you desire lean meat you feed them high protein fodder.

maxander 9y ago

The article is a bit hyperbolic. Nutrition is complex and hard-to-study, the research is under various distorting pressures from several industries, and it's been gotten disastrously wrong in the past, but such is science- science is hard. Just because we've gotten it wrong before doesn't invalidate more recent results, and just because there are important uncertainties in our current knowledge doesn't mean we can't quantify and manage that uncertainty. The real issue is, and the author's real point (whether he knows it or not), is that non-scientists don't, and currently mostly can't, know anything about nutrition. To get a decent, self-respecting nutritional fact, you need to trace it back to the studies (to make sure it's not corporate BS,) make sure these studies are relatively recent (so that they're not deformed by the various assumptions and flawed conceptual frameworks that dominated the field a couple decades ago,) and ensure that the researchers and statistics at work are reasonably trustworthy (to make sure it's not some of the bad research that is still being done[1].) This is not something that most people can do, and that's simply to access the limited and uncertain facts we currently have. To the typical highschool graduate trying to make dinner, it's worse than useless. ([1] Which is, again, not unique to nutritional science. Bad papers are published in every field.) More than a lack of knowledge, we have a lack of trustworthy authority. If someone wants to know about chemistry or math, trustworthy sources are easy to find, and their pronouncements can be taken on faith if the student doesn't want to get bogged down in the details. If someone wants to know next week's weather, the available answers will be uncertain and untrustworthy, but everyone at least knows the right people to ask, and has some idea of how to deal with "50% chance of rain." In nutrition, no one knows where to ask, and no one knows how to deal with what information that is available (for instance, raise your hand if you know the glycemic index of your most recent meal.) The answer to this can't be the scientific method; it's a social process. Incidentally, the present nutritional wisdom is probably best summed up by Michael Pollan's "eat food; not too much; mostly plants." From that you'll be fine. (If you want to be really fancy, know the calories-per-serving of the ~10 most common foods you eat; by then you'll be eating healthier than about 95% of Americans, most likely. Know the glycemic index and you're past 99%.)

brandonmenc 9y ago

The only advice that makes sense, and for the past half century or so has been constant, albeit hiding in plain sight under whatever the fads of the day are: Exercise regularly. Avoid extremes in diet - but eat a bit of variety. Get the minimum recommended amounts of vitamins and minerals. Keep your calories and your body fat low. And if you have bad genetics, you're probably just screwed, and no amount of exercise or diet will fix it.

yvsong 9y ago
A more fashionable alternative of variety is diversity.
AstralStorm 9y ago
There is no evidence (known to me) that variety is actually beneficial. (Past the obvious "get known required amounts of vitamins and minerals") There is some evidence that certain kinds of atypical diet are slightly less beneficial in terms of mortality. (Low carbohydrate long term. Cause unknown, not CVD or cancer. Very good review, thoroughly recommended. The key word is "all cause mortality and morbidity") And the varied (in certain ways) Western diet is also shown to be quite bad. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I like to review nutrition papers fairly and thoroughly but have never seen one on this...
- brandonmenc 9y ago
  In the absence of hard evidence, by avoiding variety, you're probably more likely to miss consuming an essential or beneficial food than you are to eat something that is bad for you in large amounts. Variety in moderation seems to be the only effective proxy to smooth over the constant "used to be good for you - nope, not any more - wait we were wrong it is good" oscillations. I mean a variety of plant and animal sources, and a variety of macronutrients - to cover all the bases. With the exception of trans fats, and possibly red meat, nearly every food seems to be safe in moderate doses, so there's no reason to avoid or load up on anything in particular. And when they find out that something like, for example, oily fish, is beneficial - you can look back and say hey, I ate a bit of that too. I agree that not all forms of variation are good, but variation within what mainstream nutrition science recommends at this point probably mostly is. tl;dr - no one really knows anything, so play the odds.

will_brown 9y ago

An article like this is the same type of disinformation it is railing against. Sure the government backed food pyramid and now food plates are terrible (and there is a conflict of interest), and private studies are often no better. But we don’t know anything about nutrition? What about the Krebs Cycle? I think that is good science right? Cellular health and energy production aren’t exactly controversial. How many people are arguing that inflammation in the body is good or promotes health? Does anyone suggest insulin spikes are good? Unfortunately you can’t name the foods that cause inflammation or insulin spikes...because that’s when there is push back, but we all know what they are and we don’t need to name them, because there is consensus those things are detrimental to health, which should be the focus of nutrition.

pianom4n 9y ago
Actually evidence is trending towards saying that inflammation is good for healing, and that taking NSAIDs is counterproductive.
- will_brown 9y ago
  I don’t think I mentioned inflammation as a natural function of healing nor did I mention NSAIDs vis-a-vis inflammation as a natural healing process of the body. From your context it sounds like you are talking about natural inflammation from things like working out (muscle tears) and NSAIDS interfering with the natural muscle repair. Obviously I am discussing inflammation in the context of diet. Though if I’m mistaken, please link a study that suggests dietary inflammation is good for healing. I’m sure instead you will find articles and studies about dietary inflammation putting the body in a state of chronic inflammation which isn’t going to be beneficial for any healing process.
gHosts 9y ago
> What about the Krebs Cycle? So if you look at the [Big Picture of the metabolic pathways in humans](http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1 http://biochemical-pathways.com/#/map/1)... what do you have? Fuzzily defined, extraordinarily complex tangle with feed back loops all over the place, some going through that amazing tangle of the brain. If you were to translate this into a mathematical model and look at it from a purely mathematical perspective (even if you omit the parts involving the brain). It's a highly non-linear system of Partial Differential Equation's with many variables and a bunch of fuzzily measured constants. And then you compare it with a really really simple setup like, say, [3 bodies acting under gravity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-body_problem). You know, something almost as simple as it gets. Way way way simpler than the metabolic pathways in humanity. And we know from a purely mathematical point of view.... that except for a very very tiny set of special cases, we haven't clue what will happen with the 3 body problem. So yes, the article is spot on. In terms of individual chemical reactions, we have some ideas. In terms of dietary advice to individuals or populations... We floundering and should admit it.

hn_throwaway_99 9y ago

I just think it's kind of amusing that a large number of comments on this post are (unironic) personal anecdotes arguing as to why their particular diet plan is the best.

nodja 9y ago

Diet/study says that if you do X you will lose weight because of Y. You do X and lose weight. The error is thinking that you lost weight because of Y, and not because of a secondary unlisted effect of doing X. The same applies for certain diets/organisms causing conditions/diseases/etc. i.e. the whole cholesterol back and forth. We've learned lots from nutrition and in general informed people live healthier lives. Just because we don't know exactly what's going on inside our bodies doesn't mean that zero improvement has been made. We'll fuck up once in a while and get some bad advice, but in general we've improved lots.

xupybd 9y ago

The annoying thing is we seem to be getting fatter and no one seems to be able to nail it down.

pixl97 9y ago
No, that is nailed down. We eat more calories and we do less. We eat out more and restaurants are economically motivated to sell larger portions because people feel it is a better value. There are more high calorie snack products available in more places for lower prices than ever. Education mostly doesn't work. Most people can consume huge amounts of sweet/fat/salty food, far beyond there caloric needs, even when they know it is bad for them. Maybe the small portion of humanity that can execute portion control inherits the Earth. Maybe we lock down businesses freedom to pettle crap foods to addicts. I'm not sure what the answer is.

macawfish 9y ago

I'm all the way over zealous rationalism.

arionhardison 9y ago

I think the problem here is a lack of tools. PG often says that the smarter people must build tools for the dumber ones. I have never met a smart RDN. They have no tools to do the research into our diet and its impact that is really needed to create a meaningful impact. Full Disclosure: I am currently building these tools.

AstralStorm 9y ago

Indeed the really important question that is slowly being dug in (too slowly in my books) is how a quite strictly testable thing as nutrition science has failed to produce truly actionable results. With at least decently described applicability. Maybe it is because of outside influence, maybe it is due to much to broadly asked question and/or premature generalization. Or following leads without actually testing their veracity, which probably has another cause. Maybe partly ethics preventing us from experimenting on ourselves as a species in a rational way. (Unlike the random uncontrolled irrational experiments we run every second of our life.) Glory, finding or requirement to prescribe action even if we do not know what should be done. Also known as leadership in some circles...

drdrey 9y ago
It is strictly testable in principle, but not really in practice. You can't exactly lock up people in a metabolic ward for years to collect long term data.

kevmo 9y ago

I grew up in the Deep South. Most of my family members are morbidly obese and have diabetes. I avoided this by spending hundreds of hours reading and thinking about nutrition. Here are my ground rules for healthy living: 1) Drink a lot of water everyday. 2) Calories are the most important baseline measure that affect your weight. 3) Walking for 20 minutes a day will give you 90% of the exercise you need. Go for a walk after lunch with your colleagues! 4) Don't trust food scientists, including ones that work for the government. They are paid to sell more food. 5) Putting vegetables on pizza doesn't make that pizza healthier. It may make it "less unhealthy". Think in terms like that. 6) The more synthetic a food is (i.e. the more processed it is), the more unhealthy it is. Human evolved to eat a certain way -- remember that. Use olive oil, real butter, etc. Eat whole fat everything. 7) Eat a lot of vegetables. Don't eat a lot of red meat. Yogurt is really good for your gut. 8) If you're going to eat something unhealthy, embrace it! Acknowledge that you are treating yourself. 9) THINK about your diet. Evaluate how you feel. 10) Look at your body in the mirror more than you step on a scale.

uxcolumbo 9y ago
Good list, but I'd suggest to leave out dairy, there are better alternatives on many levels. Check out this talk by Dr Neil Barnard https://youtu.be/v_ONFix_e4k https://youtu.be/v_ONFix_e4k
- KozmoNau7 9y ago
  All of the alternatives to milk, cheese, yoghurt and so on are woefully inadequate in nutrients. Primarily protein (although soy is decent there), but also in vitamins and minerals. Yes, even enriched varieties. 11) Don't trust anything you hear in a TEDx talk.