5 ms·

> 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://biochemica

by 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.

macawfish 9y ago
This is spot on. These are chaotic systems we're talking about, in our very bodies. Not only that, these systems are literally embedded in our very senses. In many very real ways, they are the medium of our senses. Because of this, I strongly disagree with the following statement: > We’re pretty darn sure no one else knows anything about nutrition, either. Please don’t listen to “alternative” nutrition quacks. We’ve been there, and we know. The reasoning goes like this: "if we can't figure this stuff out, no on can!" That's sheer hubris. These kinds of systems are sometimes best tackled with idiosyncratic methods. Well, that's false. The reality is that everybody knows about nutrition, otherwise they would die. Nutrition is an evolutionary, messy, irrational art-science. It's just important to understand that everyone's body is a unique, multifaceted universe of sorts. What two people have in common, nutritionally, could be totally off for a third person. "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." Yet there are dancers who perform spectacular 3 person pieces all the time. Go figure! That should be "impossible" but it's not. Because life is infinitely more nuanced and wondrous than closed-minded "scientists" want (you) to believe.
- AstralStorm 9y ago
  Obviously the quacks cannot figure things either. Otherwise they would have actionable evidence of good statiatical quality. Scientific method (esp. RCTs) provides actionable evidence. Just be careful whom you call a quack... dietetics has way too many facets that are being analysed at the time. We also have science that works quite well on unknown systems - epidemiology and statistics. While it is not good enough to figure out causes, correlations are good enough in typical cases to be actionable. The strongest one we have is "eating plenty of greens and raw vegetables will make you look like other healthy people". I haven't seem any contravening evidence to this very not ground-breaking conclusion. The problem is that it flies in the face of 70 years of dietary recommendation (which was grains) and in the face of all the industry (because it is not shelf stable). Exercise so far while improving health in the elderly has not been linked to persistent weight loss. I could be more specific about thresholds there as well. (In terms of volume.) Butt what good does it do? These are fuzzy thresholds. Them we have evidence that high fat diets are effective at weight loss (about the same as low fat diets) but some that they have no other health effects that are not really explained by weight change. Thus the diets are not specifically recommended, one over another. Even the high fat diets resulted in caloric restriction. The long term analysis gives slight but existent increase in all cause mortality that is not explained by CVD mortality nor cancer. Thus we do not know the cause. Quacks like to tell that they know the causes. Or other that any kind of diet is somewhat effective so the right placebo in weight studies is regular weight monitoring. Not no diet. And a lot of evidence that people cannot really self regulate to health with bad substrates.
  - macawfish 9y ago
    > Just be careful who you call quacks... I just really don't care for the term. It's derogatory. Since when did a derogatory term have anything to do with science? I've studied science all my life, and I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather be personally called a quack pseudo-scientist than ever find myself calling other people quacks for having the courage to stick with unconventional or marginalized ideas. Here in the U.S., anti-fluoridation activists have been labelled "quacks" for years. But the evidence keeps flowing in that too many fluorine ions in your body can cause trouble, especially if you're a developing embryo or child. It even seems that the evidence has been actionable, since in 2015, the DHHS cut the maximum recommended water fluoridation level in half. The DHHS maximum limit is now 0.7 mg/L, but the EPA's "enforceable standard" is 4.0 mg/L. ? But anti-fluoridation activists activists are still being called "quacks" to this day.

by gHosts 9y ago

macawfish 9y ago

This is spot on. These are chaotic systems we're talking about, in our very bodies. Not only that, these systems are literally embedded in our very senses. In many very real ways, they are the medium of our senses. Because of this, I strongly disagree with the following statement: > We’re pretty darn sure no one else knows anything about nutrition, either. Please don’t listen to “alternative” nutrition quacks. We’ve been there, and we know. The reasoning goes like this: "if we can't figure this stuff out, no on can!" That's sheer hubris. These kinds of systems are sometimes best tackled with idiosyncratic methods. Well, that's false. The reality is that everybody knows about nutrition, otherwise they would die. Nutrition is an evolutionary, messy, irrational art-science. It's just important to understand that everyone's body is a unique, multifaceted universe of sorts. What two people have in common, nutritionally, could be totally off for a third person. "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." Yet there are dancers who perform spectacular 3 person pieces all the time. Go figure! That should be "impossible" but it's not. Because life is infinitely more nuanced and wondrous than closed-minded "scientists" want (you) to believe.

AstralStorm 9y ago
Obviously the quacks cannot figure things either. Otherwise they would have actionable evidence of good statiatical quality. Scientific method (esp. RCTs) provides actionable evidence. Just be careful whom you call a quack... dietetics has way too many facets that are being analysed at the time. We also have science that works quite well on unknown systems - epidemiology and statistics. While it is not good enough to figure out causes, correlations are good enough in typical cases to be actionable. The strongest one we have is "eating plenty of greens and raw vegetables will make you look like other healthy people". I haven't seem any contravening evidence to this very not ground-breaking conclusion. The problem is that it flies in the face of 70 years of dietary recommendation (which was grains) and in the face of all the industry (because it is not shelf stable). Exercise so far while improving health in the elderly has not been linked to persistent weight loss. I could be more specific about thresholds there as well. (In terms of volume.) Butt what good does it do? These are fuzzy thresholds. Them we have evidence that high fat diets are effective at weight loss (about the same as low fat diets) but some that they have no other health effects that are not really explained by weight change. Thus the diets are not specifically recommended, one over another. Even the high fat diets resulted in caloric restriction. The long term analysis gives slight but existent increase in all cause mortality that is not explained by CVD mortality nor cancer. Thus we do not know the cause. Quacks like to tell that they know the causes. Or other that any kind of diet is somewhat effective so the right placebo in weight studies is regular weight monitoring. Not no diet. And a lot of evidence that people cannot really self regulate to health with bad substrates.
- macawfish 9y ago
  > Just be careful who you call quacks... I just really don't care for the term. It's derogatory. Since when did a derogatory term have anything to do with science? I've studied science all my life, and I've come to the conclusion that I'd rather be personally called a quack pseudo-scientist than ever find myself calling other people quacks for having the courage to stick with unconventional or marginalized ideas. Here in the U.S., anti-fluoridation activists have been labelled "quacks" for years. But the evidence keeps flowing in that too many fluorine ions in your body can cause trouble, especially if you're a developing embryo or child. It even seems that the evidence has been actionable, since in 2015, the DHHS cut the maximum recommended water fluoridation level in half. The DHHS maximum limit is now 0.7 mg/L, but the EPA's "enforceable standard" is 4.0 mg/L. ? But anti-fluoridation activists activists are still being called "quacks" to this day.