3 ms·

This article sums up modern medicine, and tech, rather well. Let’s boil things down to common molecules, rather than viewing the world as holistic. Your body n

This article sums up modern medicine, and tech, rather well. Let’s boil things down to common molecules, rather than viewing the world as holistic. Your body needs food. Not soylent with a “cancer beating booster pack.” Eating Kale, Spinach, or Lettuce won't have different “cancer beating” scores. Just eat leafy fucking vegetables.

throwaway3627 7y ago
Actually, that's complete wrong and ignorant naturalistic fallacy. There's anti-nutrients: - raw spinach contains oxalate which can cause kidney stones and interferes with calcium absorption - raw kidney beans contain chemicals which clump red blood cells together - omega-6's and -9's aren't as good for you compared to -3's and -7's - soybeans contain estrogen-like molecules - hopefully not 5-HT2B or hERG ant/agonists - whatever compounds we don't yet know about There's anti-nutrients depends on your genes and gender: - men shouldn't eat large quantities of chia seeds because of the increased risks of certain cancers - certain vitamins decrease risks for certain diseases while increasing risks for others. There are molecules which aren't found in nature that are generally superior: - metformin - the only (so far) phase IV clinical trial as a "life extension" molecule that actually seems to work Ideally, in the future, each person can have relatively neutral substrate plant ingredients genetically-modified to tailor an intentional diet to their age, gender, activity, genetics, epigenetics and microbiome.
astazangasta 7y ago
Exactly this; also, as a computational biologist I cringe at the stacking of dubious models that produced this "mapping". First is the "interactome", a terrible way to model biology, which is used to predict drug interactions, a highly dubious proposition, which is used to identify similarly-acting molecules in foods, again highly dubious - this isn't even GIGO, it's GIGIGIGO. And at the end of the day, none of this crummy methodology is going to result in any wisdom superior to "eat more kale". It's unfortunate that this is the prism certain investigators have trapped themselves in.

throwaway3627 7y ago

Actually, that's complete wrong and ignorant naturalistic fallacy. There's anti-nutrients: - raw spinach contains oxalate which can cause kidney stones and interferes with calcium absorption - raw kidney beans contain chemicals which clump red blood cells together - omega-6's and -9's aren't as good for you compared to -3's and -7's - soybeans contain estrogen-like molecules - hopefully not 5-HT2B or hERG ant/agonists - whatever compounds we don't yet know about There's anti-nutrients depends on your genes and gender: - men shouldn't eat large quantities of chia seeds because of the increased risks of certain cancers - certain vitamins decrease risks for certain diseases while increasing risks for others. There are molecules which aren't found in nature that are generally superior: - metformin - the only (so far) phase IV clinical trial as a "life extension" molecule that actually seems to work Ideally, in the future, each person can have relatively neutral substrate plant ingredients genetically-modified to tailor an intentional diet to their age, gender, activity, genetics, epigenetics and microbiome.

astazangasta 7y ago

Exactly this; also, as a computational biologist I cringe at the stacking of dubious models that produced this "mapping". First is the "interactome", a terrible way to model biology, which is used to predict drug interactions, a highly dubious proposition, which is used to identify similarly-acting molecules in foods, again highly dubious - this isn't even GIGO, it's GIGIGIGO. And at the end of the day, none of this crummy methodology is going to result in any wisdom superior to "eat more kale". It's unfortunate that this is the prism certain investigators have trapped themselves in.