4 ms·

> pills, etc, have approximately zero affect on any metric of interest. On the contrary. Artificially large doses of antioxidants disrupt signaling systems, pr

> pills, etc, have approximately zero affect on any metric of interest. On the contrary. Artificially large doses of antioxidants disrupt signaling systems, preventing exercise recovery and wound healing. They are simply not a good idea. However, the parent comment is mistaken in thinking that we don't understand nutrition reasonably well, and might 'miss' something in artificially cultured meat.

crazygringo 6y ago
Can you explain how I'm mistaken? The science of nutrition is still in its infancy, with very basic questions still unanswered, and we're very, very far from having catalogued all the nutrients in meat and vegetables and understanding their effects on our body. I mean, even with macro nutrients, just look at the flip-flopping and debates over the past few decades on saturated fats, trans fats, carbs vs fats, etc. Then when you get to micronutrients, we don't even know what we don't know. You can see the other comment I made on how, for example, we know chicken soup helps fight colds, but don't have the slightest idea what compound is responsible. Will lab-grown chicken do the same?
- hansvm 6y ago
  > The science of nutrition is still in its infancy, with very basic questions still unanswered, and we're very, very far from having catalogued all the nutrients in meat and vegetables and understanding their effects on our body. Even calling those compounds "nutrients" in the first place is a bit circular. If something hasn't had enough of an effect on any of our observations to warrant further investigation, or else if all the evidence points to it being largely inert, then it probably isn't much of a nutrient. We've almost certainly missed a thing or two here or there, but pointing to a list of compounds in meat that aren't in a nutrition book and assuming those must be nutrients of some kind doesn't seem like a productive activity. > I mean, even with macro nutrients, just look at the flip-flopping and debates over the past few decades on saturated fats, trans fats, carbs vs fats, etc. Then when you get to micronutrients, we don't even know what we don't know. The implication seems to be that macronutrients should be easier to reason about, so if we don't know much about them then we can't know much about micronutrients. In practice though, macronutrient composition doesn't matter much and doesn't have strong effects, whereas many micronutrients are easily testable. The flip-flopping hasn't been one of a vast scientific consensus, but rather small amounts of scientific research and a vast marketing machine. > You can see the other comment I made on how, for example, we know chicken soup helps fight colds, but don't have the slightest idea what compound is responsible. Will lab-grown chicken do the same? That seems like a moving goalpost (or a misunderstanding on my part as to what your position is). Is "a reasonable understanding of nutrition" a large enough body of knowledge to tailor a body composition to one's favourite activities and keep it healthy for its normal lifespan barring medical events (aging, cancer, colds, loss of limb), or is it a perfect understanding of every interaction things we can consume might have with our body or any other organisms we're hosting? Mildly off-topic: We know that chicken soup probably eases cold symptoms, and so do hot water and hot tea. Even assuming a compound is medicinally responsible in the first place doesn't seem like a great starting point.
  - crazygringo 6y ago
    So you seem to be essentially saying, you think we know pretty much everything already, so it's not productive to continue checking? Both sides of that are completely false. We have gigantic gaps in basic nutrition knowledge, and the idea that we have a strong idea of all existing important correlations is similarly completely and utterly incorrect. The idea that flip-flopping is due to a "vast marketing machine" is also completely disingenuous. I'm not talking about pop science articles, I'm talking about disagreement between scientists. I seriously don't know where people get this idea that human nutrition is this advanced science where we know most of the answers. I can only assume it's wishful thinking? It would be nice if we did... but we really don't. And there's a good reason for it, which is that it's incredibly difficult to ethically perform decades-long controlled experiments with nutrition in people to provide definitive scientific answers, for the obvious reasons.
    - hansvm 6y ago
      > So you seem to be essentially saying, you think we know pretty much everything already Not in the slightest. I've explicitly said we have "a reasonable understanding of nutrition" and not even vaguely implied that we know everything. Am I misunderstanding you that poorly too, and is that why we seem to be in such disagreement?
hansvm 6y ago
> On the contrary. Artificially large doses of antioxidants disrupt signaling systems, preventing exercise recovery and wound healing. They are simply not a good idea. TIL. That's fantastic.

crazygringo 6y ago

Can you explain how I'm mistaken? The science of nutrition is still in its infancy, with very basic questions still unanswered, and we're very, very far from having catalogued all the nutrients in meat and vegetables and understanding their effects on our body. I mean, even with macro nutrients, just look at the flip-flopping and debates over the past few decades on saturated fats, trans fats, carbs vs fats, etc. Then when you get to micronutrients, we don't even know what we don't know. You can see the other comment I made on how, for example, we know chicken soup helps fight colds, but don't have the slightest idea what compound is responsible. Will lab-grown chicken do the same?

hansvm 6y ago
> The science of nutrition is still in its infancy, with very basic questions still unanswered, and we're very, very far from having catalogued all the nutrients in meat and vegetables and understanding their effects on our body. Even calling those compounds "nutrients" in the first place is a bit circular. If something hasn't had enough of an effect on any of our observations to warrant further investigation, or else if all the evidence points to it being largely inert, then it probably isn't much of a nutrient. We've almost certainly missed a thing or two here or there, but pointing to a list of compounds in meat that aren't in a nutrition book and assuming those must be nutrients of some kind doesn't seem like a productive activity. > I mean, even with macro nutrients, just look at the flip-flopping and debates over the past few decades on saturated fats, trans fats, carbs vs fats, etc. Then when you get to micronutrients, we don't even know what we don't know. The implication seems to be that macronutrients should be easier to reason about, so if we don't know much about them then we can't know much about micronutrients. In practice though, macronutrient composition doesn't matter much and doesn't have strong effects, whereas many micronutrients are easily testable. The flip-flopping hasn't been one of a vast scientific consensus, but rather small amounts of scientific research and a vast marketing machine. > You can see the other comment I made on how, for example, we know chicken soup helps fight colds, but don't have the slightest idea what compound is responsible. Will lab-grown chicken do the same? That seems like a moving goalpost (or a misunderstanding on my part as to what your position is). Is "a reasonable understanding of nutrition" a large enough body of knowledge to tailor a body composition to one's favourite activities and keep it healthy for its normal lifespan barring medical events (aging, cancer, colds, loss of limb), or is it a perfect understanding of every interaction things we can consume might have with our body or any other organisms we're hosting? Mildly off-topic: We know that chicken soup probably eases cold symptoms, and so do hot water and hot tea. Even assuming a compound is medicinally responsible in the first place doesn't seem like a great starting point.
- crazygringo 6y ago
  So you seem to be essentially saying, you think we know pretty much everything already, so it's not productive to continue checking? Both sides of that are completely false. We have gigantic gaps in basic nutrition knowledge, and the idea that we have a strong idea of all existing important correlations is similarly completely and utterly incorrect. The idea that flip-flopping is due to a "vast marketing machine" is also completely disingenuous. I'm not talking about pop science articles, I'm talking about disagreement between scientists. I seriously don't know where people get this idea that human nutrition is this advanced science where we know most of the answers. I can only assume it's wishful thinking? It would be nice if we did... but we really don't. And there's a good reason for it, which is that it's incredibly difficult to ethically perform decades-long controlled experiments with nutrition in people to provide definitive scientific answers, for the obvious reasons.
  - hansvm 6y ago
    > So you seem to be essentially saying, you think we know pretty much everything already Not in the slightest. I've explicitly said we have "a reasonable understanding of nutrition" and not even vaguely implied that we know everything. Am I misunderstanding you that poorly too, and is that why we seem to be in such disagreement?

hansvm 6y ago

> On the contrary. Artificially large doses of antioxidants disrupt signaling systems, preventing exercise recovery and wound healing. They are simply not a good idea. TIL. That's fantastic.