5 ms·

Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think about: if th

Nutrition Science is a huge mess even though it is a core part of human health. As in, it is a total disaster. Here's something depressing to think about: if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. Anyway, recently I wanted to look into whether or not eggs are good for you because those same Keto supporters make noise about how eggs no longer affect (bad?) cholesterol levels and therefore won't contribute to heart disease. You'd think it would be clear. Nope. It's about 50-50 split judging by various links (from seemingly reputable doctors and nutritionists). Even those docs that pay lip service to the changing attitudes towards eggs, don't know what a safe amount is and caution about eating more than X per day or week ... though not because of any specific studies, but just as a precaution. A simple question like "Can I eat 3 eggs for breakfast everyday" has no consensus answer. What the fuck.

miguelrochefort 8y ago
What's the solution? Should we heavily invest in Quantified Self as a society? I'm sure we have the technology to make it worthwhile, but I'm not sure most people would be willing to do so due to privacy concerns.
jarfil 8y ago
Nutrition is, for the most part, not science at all. Studies are not just financed by obvious interests in the result, but also they use really poor population samples with horrible falsability and repeatability issues. The fact that we still don't have a fully functional human body model to test theories on, doesn't help either.
- nonbel 8y ago
  "The fact that we still don't have a fully functional human body model to test theories on, doesn't help either." What does this mean?
  - barry-cotter 8y ago
    Model as in model organism, like fruit flies in genetics, or mice in biology. Lacking a model organism means we can’t do much in the way of experiments and that means we learn much slower.
    - nonbel 8y ago
      They said "we still don't have a fully functional human body model", as if one was pending or expected to be developed already.
      - mmirate 8y ago
        Well, I think he/she explained rather well the reason why - and the extent to which - such a thing would be useful. That plus knowing the amount of effort expended in the rest of the field of medical research today ... it is indeed surprising that nobody has bothered to even try to produce a human body model. The feat probably wouldn't even require genetic engineering. (Then again, the amount of rote concepts in biology has steered me clear away from studying it beyond a single required high-school class, so what do I know.) My best guess is that there must be some kind of fear, among that field's practitioners, that some stupid politicians (gah, redundancy!) would take one look at the project and throw a hissy fit or worse.
        nonbel 8y ago
        >"knowing the amount of effort expended in the rest of the field of medical research today ... it is indeed surprising that nobody has bothered to even try to produce a human body model. The feat probably wouldn't even require genetic engineering." You seem to think that effort should translate into understanding. Nature doesn't work this way. In my opinion, most effort in biomed has been wasted due to poorly designed studies, which is due to NHST (null hypothesis significance testing; ie, testing a null hypothesis rather than the research hypothesis), and all the BS that procedure entails. So the real reason no one is trying to develop "a fully functional human body model" is that such a model is not even visible on the horizon for a single cell, or even sub-cellular organelle.
nicoburns 8y ago
> mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis This seems unlikely given that mainstream nutrition science is the same in most of the western world, but the obesity levels are far more severe in the US. From what I hear from friends who have travelled to the US (from the UK), standard portion sizes can be over twice as over on your side of the pond. And it can be very difficult to travel anywhere without a car. Seems to me this might have the bigger effect. That said nutrition science really is a mess. Hopefully we'll work it out one day :)
- scottLobster 8y ago
  I think the issue stems from a holdover great depression mentality. Growing up I was taught to "clean my plate" and disciplined when I failed to do so, as wasting even a small amount of food was apparently some sort of cardinal sin despite my family being quite well off. I was also taught that eating large portions was a sign of health, an "active metabolism" (whatever the hell that is). Whenever I said I was done people would ask me if I was sure and offer me more. I was educated enough to figure things out in adulthood, but you raise a poorly educated populace on that mentality while making the least healthy food cheap and delicious, and shocker we have an obesity epidemic. :P
  - robmaister 8y ago
    That's certainly part of it, but I also think part of it is due to the economics of running a restaurant. Margins are getting thinner and thinner as people don't want to pay more for the same food (despite this being how inflation works), so one strategy is to charge more and offer larger portions. The cost of a larger portion is minimal relative to the higher price (especially in dishes that are made in large batches anyways). So the restaurant is happy to be getting enough to cover all their costs (and hopefully a little extra), and the customer leaves happy despite paying more. The downsides in the long-term are that (1) as time goes on and currency inflates, portion sizes get larger and (2) people get used to larger portion sizes and the same meal has less value to the customer over time. I don't have any data to back this up, but I do believe this sort of feedback loop plays a role in obesity.
  - 8y ago
CommieBobDole 8y ago
Well, there's the problem that most of the effects are pretty small - most of the really dramatic effects have already been discovered. So it's not a matter of "People who eat X every day develop intestinal lesions and die within 18 months", it's more like "People who eat X every day have a lifetime increase in the incidence of toe cancer from .016 to .02". Combine that with the fact that these effects take years or decades to show themselves, it makes for an area of science with very few hard answers.
edanm 8y ago
> if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. I am kind of under the impression that this is generally accepted, at least partially, by pretty much everyone these days, not just Keto people. As in, the move to remove fats entirely and replace them with carbs is considered today to have been a bad idea, even if no one quite agrees just how bad or just what a better idea is. Is that not more-or-less consensus today?
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > As in, the move to remove fats entirely and replace them with carbs is considered today to have been a bad idea The move to reduce fats may or may not have been backed by “mainstream nutrition science”, but replacing them with carbs never was.
  - edanm 8y ago
    I'm not sure if replace is correct or not. But eating carbs was certainly emphasized, eg search Google for food pyramids from the 1970s, their "eat most"categories are usually vegetables and carbs.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      But were those food pyramids ever grounded in science? There's a difference between “the science was wrong” and “government recommendations served an interest group without being well grounded in science.”
      - edanm 8y ago
        Oh, if that's your point, then you may very well be right. (I thought you meant it wasn't the recommendation). I think that the recommendations either were based on science, or at least weren't really disputed until about 10-15 years ago. Then again, what I think I know about this mostly comes from hearing people talk about the issue, e.g. in interviews, forums, etc. But I haven't really read any of the source material on this (either modern-day or older) so I really have no idea if it's at all true.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis Mainstream nutrition fads clearly were. A big part of of those fads were about lay generalization of what science supported for very specific diseases as general advice. Another big part was commercial propaganda from food vendors.
- macspoofing 8y ago
  Was it commercial propaganda that villified fats? Because fats being correlated with heart disease was a scientific fact for decades.

miguelrochefort 8y ago

What's the solution? Should we heavily invest in Quantified Self as a society? I'm sure we have the technology to make it worthwhile, but I'm not sure most people would be willing to do so due to privacy concerns.

jarfil 8y ago

Nutrition is, for the most part, not science at all. Studies are not just financed by obvious interests in the result, but also they use really poor population samples with horrible falsability and repeatability issues. The fact that we still don't have a fully functional human body model to test theories on, doesn't help either.

nonbel 8y ago
"The fact that we still don't have a fully functional human body model to test theories on, doesn't help either." What does this mean?
- barry-cotter 8y ago
  Model as in model organism, like fruit flies in genetics, or mice in biology. Lacking a model organism means we can’t do much in the way of experiments and that means we learn much slower.
  - nonbel 8y ago
    They said "we still don't have a fully functional human body model", as if one was pending or expected to be developed already.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Well, I think he/she explained rather well the reason why - and the extent to which - such a thing would be useful. That plus knowing the amount of effort expended in the rest of the field of medical research today ... it is indeed surprising that nobody has bothered to even try to produce a human body model. The feat probably wouldn't even require genetic engineering. (Then again, the amount of rote concepts in biology has steered me clear away from studying it beyond a single required high-school class, so what do I know.) My best guess is that there must be some kind of fear, among that field's practitioners, that some stupid politicians (gah, redundancy!) would take one look at the project and throw a hissy fit or worse.
      - nonbel 8y ago
        >"knowing the amount of effort expended in the rest of the field of medical research today ... it is indeed surprising that nobody has bothered to even try to produce a human body model. The feat probably wouldn't even require genetic engineering." You seem to think that effort should translate into understanding. Nature doesn't work this way. In my opinion, most effort in biomed has been wasted due to poorly designed studies, which is due to NHST (null hypothesis significance testing; ie, testing a null hypothesis rather than the research hypothesis), and all the BS that procedure entails. So the real reason no one is trying to develop "a fully functional human body model" is that such a model is not even visible on the horizon for a single cell, or even sub-cellular organelle.

nicoburns 8y ago

> mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis This seems unlikely given that mainstream nutrition science is the same in most of the western world, but the obesity levels are far more severe in the US. From what I hear from friends who have travelled to the US (from the UK), standard portion sizes can be over twice as over on your side of the pond. And it can be very difficult to travel anywhere without a car. Seems to me this might have the bigger effect. That said nutrition science really is a mess. Hopefully we'll work it out one day :)

scottLobster 8y ago
I think the issue stems from a holdover great depression mentality. Growing up I was taught to "clean my plate" and disciplined when I failed to do so, as wasting even a small amount of food was apparently some sort of cardinal sin despite my family being quite well off. I was also taught that eating large portions was a sign of health, an "active metabolism" (whatever the hell that is). Whenever I said I was done people would ask me if I was sure and offer me more. I was educated enough to figure things out in adulthood, but you raise a poorly educated populace on that mentality while making the least healthy food cheap and delicious, and shocker we have an obesity epidemic. :P
- robmaister 8y ago
  That's certainly part of it, but I also think part of it is due to the economics of running a restaurant. Margins are getting thinner and thinner as people don't want to pay more for the same food (despite this being how inflation works), so one strategy is to charge more and offer larger portions. The cost of a larger portion is minimal relative to the higher price (especially in dishes that are made in large batches anyways). So the restaurant is happy to be getting enough to cover all their costs (and hopefully a little extra), and the customer leaves happy despite paying more. The downsides in the long-term are that (1) as time goes on and currency inflates, portion sizes get larger and (2) people get used to larger portion sizes and the same meal has less value to the customer over time. I don't have any data to back this up, but I do believe this sort of feedback loop plays a role in obesity.
- 8y ago

CommieBobDole 8y ago

Well, there's the problem that most of the effects are pretty small - most of the really dramatic effects have already been discovered. So it's not a matter of "People who eat X every day develop intestinal lesions and die within 18 months", it's more like "People who eat X every day have a lifetime increase in the incidence of toe cancer from .016 to .02". Combine that with the fact that these effects take years or decades to show themselves, it makes for an area of science with very few hard answers.

edanm 8y ago

> if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis and resulted in countless premature deaths and major suffering over the last few decades. I am kind of under the impression that this is generally accepted, at least partially, by pretty much everyone these days, not just Keto people. As in, the move to remove fats entirely and replace them with carbs is considered today to have been a bad idea, even if no one quite agrees just how bad or just what a better idea is. Is that not more-or-less consensus today?

dragonwriter 8y ago
> As in, the move to remove fats entirely and replace them with carbs is considered today to have been a bad idea The move to reduce fats may or may not have been backed by “mainstream nutrition science”, but replacing them with carbs never was.
- edanm 8y ago
  I'm not sure if replace is correct or not. But eating carbs was certainly emphasized, eg search Google for food pyramids from the 1970s, their "eat most"categories are usually vegetables and carbs.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    But were those food pyramids ever grounded in science? There's a difference between “the science was wrong” and “government recommendations served an interest group without being well grounded in science.”
    - edanm 8y ago
      Oh, if that's your point, then you may very well be right. (I thought you meant it wasn't the recommendation). I think that the recommendations either were based on science, or at least weren't really disputed until about 10-15 years ago. Then again, what I think I know about this mostly comes from hearing people talk about the issue, e.g. in interviews, forums, etc. But I haven't really read any of the source material on this (either modern-day or older) so I really have no idea if it's at all true.

dragonwriter 8y ago

> if the Keto people are correct, mainstream nutrition science was a key contributor to American obesity crisis Mainstream nutrition fads clearly were. A big part of of those fads were about lay generalization of what science supported for very specific diseases as general advice. Another big part was commercial propaganda from food vendors.

macspoofing 8y ago
Was it commercial propaganda that villified fats? Because fats being correlated with heart disease was a scientific fact for decades.