3 ms·

When diet & nutrient comes in to discussion even level-headed people seems to get very heated and emotional. I hypothesize that it is because: 1. there seems t

When diet & nutrient comes in to discussion even level-headed people seems to get very heated and emotional. I hypothesize that it is because: 1. there seems to not be any hard scientific consensus 2. diet is very integrated to culture, and therefore saying "diet X is good/bad" is often taken as a personal/tribal attack. 3. There's always special-interest groups that *heavily* benefit from any preferential diet. (Farmer, stores, marketing group you name it) And they often do have strong influence to actually push through an agenda (see any overarching farmer subsidies/regulation in any country) The first two being a reason it get heated, and the last one being the one adding the fuel. Prefacing any dietary statement with "for me, X works..." with a story might be better than anecdata "I've heard it works.."

chunky1994 5y ago
While I agree with the larger sentiment, there is a rather substantial amount of diet and nutrition science with the core being quite an agreed upon set of foundational principles. If I were to summarize: 1. We derive energy from three major macronutrients (protein, fat and carbohydrates) 2. Our body has certain macronutrients it cannot synthesize and NEEDS for healthy functioning (essential fatty acids and essential amino acids) 3. Our bodies are largely energy efficient (by which I mean the processes to produce energy are readily actionable with average hormone levels of insulin/ghrelin/leptin etc.) when consuming carbohydrates, but can turn to other nutrient sources when they are not to be found. 4. Our body composition can be manipulated by manipulating our energy expenditure either via manipulating the caloric content of food or via the preferential production of body tissue from horomonal influence (this is why muscle mass increases when using testosterone even if caloric intake is kept constant but above a certain macronutrient threshold). 5.There are a certain set of micronutrients we need on a continuous basis (the exact amounts of which are up for debate but the ranges seem to be reasonably agreed upon). 6. Our diet influences our gut fauna and this further influences how much nutritional value we get from our diet, it is quite a symbiotic cycle. 7. Barring certain specific horomonal imbalance diseases, everyone's body largely abides by the above principles, (i.e as special as everyone thinks they are, they're probably more average than not when it comes their metabolism).
- reedjosh 5y ago
  Okay, but in the grand scheme of things that's like 'Well, we know the earth is round.' One thing that should be agreed upon, but isn't, is that carbohydrates are not necessary in the same way alcohol is not. While carbohydrates are an easily available source of energy, one can be perfectly healthy eating a diet with purely incidental carbohydrate intake.
  - saiya-jin 5y ago
    I think when walking on the street of place like US (or UK, Australia etc.) its pretty damn obvious that many folks didn't accept that 'earth is round' in nutrition world, based on their weight and self-inflicted diseases stemming from it. I'd say globally we can add on average 10 years of good quality life to every single person if they understood the points above and acted accordingly. This and some form of healthy regular exercise and one is basically maximizing his lifespan in best currently available way. Increased happiness level is just a nice by-product.
- guerby 5y ago
  On 3. note that carbohydrates are the only of the three macronutient we don't need to eat at all (see eskimo). Also we're very very good at fasting (using our fat store): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast 382 days without eating and no issue at all.
  - aix1 5y ago
    In case anyone else is wondering how this is possible, he did consume vitamins, electrolytes and yeast (for essential amino acids). (According to the linked Wikipedia article.)
  - fpoling 5y ago
    Milk contains carbohydrates and even Eskimo children need it.
    - 5y ago
BuckRogers 5y ago
I think we do have the answers to all three of your points. It’s the Mediterranean diet. I don’t live in the Mediterranean, and I don’t eat their diet. But I’m pretty sure any honest person that knows much of anything at all would admit that it’s the best in the world based on outcomes. I certainly would like to switch and I am a guy and the midwestern US.
- dpflug 5y ago
  You'd think, but there has been some criticism: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/13/619619302/errors-trigger-retraction-of-study-on-mediterranean-diets-heart-benefits https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/13/6196193... https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.313348 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.31334...
Gatsky 5y ago
Regarding 1, it is also worth noting that we may not ever achieve truth here, at least not in our lifetimes. "What should I eat so I have less risk of vascular disease and cancer, delay decrepitude as long as possible, and have good to excellent ongoing physical and mental function?" This question is almost impossible to answer. The basic problem is to experiment on oneself, you need to use surrogate markers of ill health, and you never know if you are on the right track for what matters. A recent example are drugs which improve the measured HDL value (good cholesterol), but fail to reduce cardiovascular events. Randomised trials on the other hand give us average effects in certain populations, but how this relates to the individual is always unclear. This is why people are still arguing what some randomised trials mean 20 years later (like the Lyon diet study, which is uninterpretable anyway due to woeful dropout). RCTs with diet are terribly difficult, prolonged and expensive to conduct. Considering all this, my approach is to just try and eat less, hence mitigating the downside of dietary induced problems. A good way to eat less is to eat more non-starchy vegetables, which are mostly micronutrients embedded in paper. There are also a few surrogate markers with strong evidence it is worth measuring in a serial fashion and trying to improve eg LDL, glucose tolerance, CRP. Coronary calcium scoring with CT is also worth doing if you are 40+ and have been eating like shit most of your life or have bad genetics for heart disease.
globular-toast 5y ago
> When diet & nutrient comes in to discussion even level-headed people seems to get very heated and emotional. I mean, the title of the article, even on HN, is "How ancient people fell in love with [carbs]". Like they were going to the supermarket and choosing the food they "love". For me, when it comes to deciding what diet is right, I just look at my relatives who lived for a long time. In all cases they ate "standard"/traditional foods as regular meals. There is a distinct lack of "diets", supplements and other fads. They didn't eat so much that they got fat, but they also didn't strictly limit their intake to maintain a ripped physique or whatever. It's quite simple really.

chunky1994 5y ago

While I agree with the larger sentiment, there is a rather substantial amount of diet and nutrition science with the core being quite an agreed upon set of foundational principles. If I were to summarize: 1. We derive energy from three major macronutrients (protein, fat and carbohydrates) 2. Our body has certain macronutrients it cannot synthesize and NEEDS for healthy functioning (essential fatty acids and essential amino acids) 3. Our bodies are largely energy efficient (by which I mean the processes to produce energy are readily actionable with average hormone levels of insulin/ghrelin/leptin etc.) when consuming carbohydrates, but can turn to other nutrient sources when they are not to be found. 4. Our body composition can be manipulated by manipulating our energy expenditure either via manipulating the caloric content of food or via the preferential production of body tissue from horomonal influence (this is why muscle mass increases when using testosterone even if caloric intake is kept constant but above a certain macronutrient threshold). 5.There are a certain set of micronutrients we need on a continuous basis (the exact amounts of which are up for debate but the ranges seem to be reasonably agreed upon). 6. Our diet influences our gut fauna and this further influences how much nutritional value we get from our diet, it is quite a symbiotic cycle. 7. Barring certain specific horomonal imbalance diseases, everyone's body largely abides by the above principles, (i.e as special as everyone thinks they are, they're probably more average than not when it comes their metabolism).

reedjosh 5y ago
Okay, but in the grand scheme of things that's like 'Well, we know the earth is round.' One thing that should be agreed upon, but isn't, is that carbohydrates are not necessary in the same way alcohol is not. While carbohydrates are an easily available source of energy, one can be perfectly healthy eating a diet with purely incidental carbohydrate intake.
- saiya-jin 5y ago
  I think when walking on the street of place like US (or UK, Australia etc.) its pretty damn obvious that many folks didn't accept that 'earth is round' in nutrition world, based on their weight and self-inflicted diseases stemming from it. I'd say globally we can add on average 10 years of good quality life to every single person if they understood the points above and acted accordingly. This and some form of healthy regular exercise and one is basically maximizing his lifespan in best currently available way. Increased happiness level is just a nice by-product.
guerby 5y ago
On 3. note that carbohydrates are the only of the three macronutient we don't need to eat at all (see eskimo). Also we're very very good at fasting (using our fat store): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Barbieri%27s_fast 382 days without eating and no issue at all.
- aix1 5y ago
  In case anyone else is wondering how this is possible, he did consume vitamins, electrolytes and yeast (for essential amino acids). (According to the linked Wikipedia article.)
- fpoling 5y ago
  Milk contains carbohydrates and even Eskimo children need it.
  - 5y ago

BuckRogers 5y ago

I think we do have the answers to all three of your points. It’s the Mediterranean diet. I don’t live in the Mediterranean, and I don’t eat their diet. But I’m pretty sure any honest person that knows much of anything at all would admit that it’s the best in the world based on outcomes. I certainly would like to switch and I am a guy and the midwestern US.

dpflug 5y ago
You'd think, but there has been some criticism: https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/13/619619302/errors-trigger-retraction-of-study-on-mediterranean-diets-heart-benefits https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/06/13/6196193... https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.313348 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.31334...

Gatsky 5y ago

Regarding 1, it is also worth noting that we may not ever achieve truth here, at least not in our lifetimes. "What should I eat so I have less risk of vascular disease and cancer, delay decrepitude as long as possible, and have good to excellent ongoing physical and mental function?" This question is almost impossible to answer. The basic problem is to experiment on oneself, you need to use surrogate markers of ill health, and you never know if you are on the right track for what matters. A recent example are drugs which improve the measured HDL value (good cholesterol), but fail to reduce cardiovascular events. Randomised trials on the other hand give us average effects in certain populations, but how this relates to the individual is always unclear. This is why people are still arguing what some randomised trials mean 20 years later (like the Lyon diet study, which is uninterpretable anyway due to woeful dropout). RCTs with diet are terribly difficult, prolonged and expensive to conduct. Considering all this, my approach is to just try and eat less, hence mitigating the downside of dietary induced problems. A good way to eat less is to eat more non-starchy vegetables, which are mostly micronutrients embedded in paper. There are also a few surrogate markers with strong evidence it is worth measuring in a serial fashion and trying to improve eg LDL, glucose tolerance, CRP. Coronary calcium scoring with CT is also worth doing if you are 40+ and have been eating like shit most of your life or have bad genetics for heart disease.

globular-toast 5y ago

> When diet & nutrient comes in to discussion even level-headed people seems to get very heated and emotional. I mean, the title of the article, even on HN, is "How ancient people fell in love with [carbs]". Like they were going to the supermarket and choosing the food they "love". For me, when it comes to deciding what diet is right, I just look at my relatives who lived for a long time. In all cases they ate "standard"/traditional foods as regular meals. There is a distinct lack of "diets", supplements and other fads. They didn't eat so much that they got fat, but they also didn't strictly limit their intake to maintain a ripped physique or whatever. It's quite simple really.