3 ms·

From what I'm aware, nutrition science isn't even close to settled. But I agree, that the types of fats are important to consider. Not a single company is docum

From what I'm aware, nutrition science isn't even close to settled. But I agree, that the types of fats are important to consider. Not a single company is documenting the different fatty acid compounds in their products for regulators or consumers to read from what I'm aware. Perhaps that could be a good first step But yes, it is extremely complicated and there are numerous things that aren't being considered when its simplified down to just "high X foods"

LinuxBender 5y ago
For what its worth, if you find anyone claiming to have settled some aspect of science, be weary of them. That gets into the realm of scientism [1] vs science. Science by its very nature is never really settled. The best we can do is look at the positive and negative outcomes of things and make a best effort to do the better things and constantly try to improve. This is one of the reasons that such generalizations Google are likely being paid or coerced to enforce are extremely dangerous. They set a settled precedence and law is much slower to evolve than science. The infamous food pyramid exemplifies this dark pattern and is one of the reasons that a large number of people in first world countries have either metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes or full blown type 2 diabetes and upwards of 70% of them are unaware of this until it is too late. Here is some discussion of the CDC reports [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTWJOi3bCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTWJOi3bCo [video]
- netizen-936824 5y ago
  How about classical physics? For the most part we can use those models with a great degree of success. I would consider this sort of progress to be converging on "settled" whereas we do not have any real model that can be used to predict the outcomes of varying the chemical constituents of a diet, besides the thermodynamics of CICO.

LinuxBender 5y ago

For what its worth, if you find anyone claiming to have settled some aspect of science, be weary of them. That gets into the realm of scientism [1] vs science. Science by its very nature is never really settled. The best we can do is look at the positive and negative outcomes of things and make a best effort to do the better things and constantly try to improve. This is one of the reasons that such generalizations Google are likely being paid or coerced to enforce are extremely dangerous. They set a settled precedence and law is much slower to evolve than science. The infamous food pyramid exemplifies this dark pattern and is one of the reasons that a large number of people in first world countries have either metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes or full blown type 2 diabetes and upwards of 70% of them are unaware of this until it is too late. Here is some discussion of the CDC reports [2] [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism [2] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTWJOi3bCo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LTWJOi3bCo [video]

netizen-936824 5y ago
How about classical physics? For the most part we can use those models with a great degree of success. I would consider this sort of progress to be converging on "settled" whereas we do not have any real model that can be used to predict the outcomes of varying the chemical constituents of a diet, besides the thermodynamics of CICO.