7 ms·

What interests you specifically? I've never read a nutrition textbook front-to-back but I spend a good portion of my time reading research and opinions on nutri

What interests you specifically? I've never read a nutrition textbook front-to-back but I spend a good portion of my time reading research and opinions on nutrition. I think I've cobbled together a pretty good education on the topic over the past decade. I'm sad to say 99% of what I've read has been hack science, stupidly obvious or minute in importance. It's almost troubling to me how far you can go just following Michael Pollan's old chestnut: eat (real) food, not too much, mostly plants. Barring any intolerances that right there will get you to near-optimal nutrition for general health in 8 words. EDIT: Being guilty of not reading the article before posting, I just noticed my message ties nicely with the content. If you want to look good inside and out, eat food your grand-grandparents would recognise in amounts that wouldn't shock them.

wolverine876 5y ago
In this case, I'm not interested in (further) gradual accumulation of knowledge; I want authoritative fundamentals of nutrition, probably starting with how the body processes food. In my experience, in many cases the latter more efficient (less time, much more knowledge, much more accurate) if I have time to do it. For something as central as nutrition, I will prioritize it.
- CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
  You might enjoy the crash course youtube channel. I found the pace and depth just about right for my own taste. Episode on metabolism and nutrition: https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U
  - wolverine876 5y ago
    Why do you trust them?
    - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
      I guess I trust that they have no particular agenda besides explaining rather non-controversial topics. So I trust them as much as I would trust, say, a high-school textbook
      - wolverine876 5y ago
        OT: It's interesting to me why people trust things on the Internet, when everyone knows the Internet is drowning in BS. We know, yet we keep ingesting it. If you think about what goes into a high school textbook, including the expert reviews before one is recommended (IIRC, Richard Feynman served on a review panel for school textbooks), AFAIK there's no comparison. I feel like I live in a bizarro-world sometimes. I seem to be the only one who cares.
        CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
        There is the context of the learner also. You asked about quickly getting up to speed in the basics. To me that means a level of understand where you just recognise the extent of your ignorance but have a decent enough mental model and vernacular to know how to ask the right questions. The model is going to be simplistic anyway, but as long as its recognised as such theres just so much damage particular misinformation can do. Compared to a group of enthusiasts who actually believe their simplistic model to be more or less complete enough. There is no shortage of such models when it comes to nutrition.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your suggestion; I appreciate it. I was just going off on a tangent. Back on that tangent: > have a decent enough mental model and vernacular to know how to ask the right questions I think people greatly overestimate themselves. A lack of expertise can result in very confused mental models and the wrong questions. IME in domains in which I have expertise, places like Reddit are filled with people with the wrong models, asking the wrong questions, and others answering based on the same wrong models. In their echo chamber, it looks right. Not different, I suspect, from any non-scientific theories, such as those before modern science. My understanding of nutrition isn't much different than many in this thread (though others clearly know more than I do); I just evaluate our understanding as much less accurate than many others do.
- barathr 5y ago
  This is still a subject of ongoing debate, and little has stood the test of time. Take for example work by anthropologists such as Herman Pontzer that find that hunter gatherers do far more physical activity than Americans yet burn the same number of calories each day.
  - naasking 5y ago
    You're overcomplicating this. The fundamentals of nutrition are simple, and are as follows in decreasing priority order: 1. Calories: too few and you die, too many and you gain weight, get sick and die early. 2. Macronutrients: too few and you will get sick and possibly die, too much doesn't matter so much as long as calories are under control. 3. Micronutrients: too few and you will live, you just might be a bit sickly (brittle bones, scurvy, anemia, etc). Too much of some micronutrients can be toxic, but most you'll just excrete in various ways. That's it for the basics. There are some recommendations around fiber and other things to lower your risk of various age-related diseases, but if you just keep your calories in the right range and ensure you get the necessary macronutrients and micronutrients, then you know everything you'll likely ever need to know, barring any medical conditions that require specific diets.

wolverine876 5y ago

In this case, I'm not interested in (further) gradual accumulation of knowledge; I want authoritative fundamentals of nutrition, probably starting with how the body processes food. In my experience, in many cases the latter more efficient (less time, much more knowledge, much more accurate) if I have time to do it. For something as central as nutrition, I will prioritize it.

CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
You might enjoy the crash course youtube channel. I found the pace and depth just about right for my own taste. Episode on metabolism and nutrition: https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U https://youtu.be/fR3NxCR9z2U
- wolverine876 5y ago
  Why do you trust them?
  - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
    I guess I trust that they have no particular agenda besides explaining rather non-controversial topics. So I trust them as much as I would trust, say, a high-school textbook
    - wolverine876 5y ago
      OT: It's interesting to me why people trust things on the Internet, when everyone knows the Internet is drowning in BS. We know, yet we keep ingesting it. If you think about what goes into a high school textbook, including the expert reviews before one is recommended (IIRC, Richard Feynman served on a review panel for school textbooks), AFAIK there's no comparison. I feel like I live in a bizarro-world sometimes. I seem to be the only one who cares.
      - CuriousSkeptic 5y ago
        There is the context of the learner also. You asked about quickly getting up to speed in the basics. To me that means a level of understand where you just recognise the extent of your ignorance but have a decent enough mental model and vernacular to know how to ask the right questions. The model is going to be simplistic anyway, but as long as its recognised as such theres just so much damage particular misinformation can do. Compared to a group of enthusiasts who actually believe their simplistic model to be more or less complete enough. There is no shortage of such models when it comes to nutrition.
        wolverine876 5y ago
        To be clear, I wasn't criticizing your suggestion; I appreciate it. I was just going off on a tangent. Back on that tangent: > have a decent enough mental model and vernacular to know how to ask the right questions I think people greatly overestimate themselves. A lack of expertise can result in very confused mental models and the wrong questions. IME in domains in which I have expertise, places like Reddit are filled with people with the wrong models, asking the wrong questions, and others answering based on the same wrong models. In their echo chamber, it looks right. Not different, I suspect, from any non-scientific theories, such as those before modern science. My understanding of nutrition isn't much different than many in this thread (though others clearly know more than I do); I just evaluate our understanding as much less accurate than many others do.
barathr 5y ago
This is still a subject of ongoing debate, and little has stood the test of time. Take for example work by anthropologists such as Herman Pontzer that find that hunter gatherers do far more physical activity than Americans yet burn the same number of calories each day.
- naasking 5y ago
  You're overcomplicating this. The fundamentals of nutrition are simple, and are as follows in decreasing priority order: 1. Calories: too few and you die, too many and you gain weight, get sick and die early. 2. Macronutrients: too few and you will get sick and possibly die, too much doesn't matter so much as long as calories are under control. 3. Micronutrients: too few and you will live, you just might be a bit sickly (brittle bones, scurvy, anemia, etc). Too much of some micronutrients can be toxic, but most you'll just excrete in various ways. That's it for the basics. There are some recommendations around fiber and other things to lower your risk of various age-related diseases, but if you just keep your calories in the right range and ensure you get the necessary macronutrients and micronutrients, then you know everything you'll likely ever need to know, barring any medical conditions that require specific diets.