4 ms·

#1 is credibly debated. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from cellular and molecular biology, not nutritional science. Nutritional science is roughly concerne

#1 is credibly debated. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from cellular and molecular biology, not nutritional science. Nutritional science is roughly concerned with the question, "what constitutes a healthy diet?", and it has failed to produce even partial answers at every turn.

paulddraper 3y ago
> #1 is credibly debated Please cite your source. Just one source of many: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3580 https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3580 (2015) (I was concerned you'd say that's so obvious it doesn't count, not the opposite...) > 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from cellular and molecular biology, not nutritional science. These have all have nutritional studies. For example, #7 dates back to the late 19th century, decades before molecular biology.
- omginternets 3y ago
  The obvious counter-example comes from the intermittent fasting literature, wherein adipose tissue loss occurs even when the net calories consumed in the IF diet are higher than in the ordinary diet. Another vastly replicated result you can find quite easily: low-glycemic-index diets and ketogenic diets can produce weight loss despite caloric excess. And lastly, a reasoning from first principles reveals a prima facie credible flaw in the caloric balance hypothesis: the body is not a closed system, ergo the law of conservation of energy does not apply. More vulgarly: you can do things like "work up an appetite" or "shit excess food". Google Scholar is positively littered with relevant literature, so I'm somewhat surprised by your skepticism. Good key words to enter are: "carbohydrate-insulin model" vs "energy balance model". The carbohydrate-insulin model is also credibly debated, of course, but the question of whether this is the right alternative is distinct from the question of whether the energy-balance model is correct. In no specific order, here is a pair of completely arbitrary papers, intended only to show that relevant papers can be found with minimal effort: - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0026049565901149 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604... - https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/5/1243/6522166 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/5/1243/6522166 I'm not objecting to the energy-balance model, which may well be correct in an important way. I am merely pointing out that nutritional science has not managed to reach consensus on this fundamental issue. >These have all have nutritional studies. The nutritional studies did not produce these initial findings. Without pointing to specific papers, it's hard to be very precise, but I would be willing to bet that these are either dietary studies building off of biological first principles, or replication-checks in broader studies. Both are totally fair practices, but can't be considered as an indication that nutritional science is a fruitful field.
  - paulddraper 3y ago
    Um, yes, calorie intake is obviously not the *ONLY* factor. If you run 20 more miles every day and eat 100 more calories, I suspect you won't gain weight. The banality of your arguments speaks for itself.
    - omginternets 3y ago
      You clearly don’t even understand the arguments.

paulddraper 3y ago

> #1 is credibly debated Please cite your source. Just one source of many: https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3580 https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3580 (2015) (I was concerned you'd say that's so obvious it doesn't count, not the opposite...) > 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 come from cellular and molecular biology, not nutritional science. These have all have nutritional studies. For example, #7 dates back to the late 19th century, decades before molecular biology.

omginternets 3y ago
The obvious counter-example comes from the intermittent fasting literature, wherein adipose tissue loss occurs even when the net calories consumed in the IF diet are higher than in the ordinary diet. Another vastly replicated result you can find quite easily: low-glycemic-index diets and ketogenic diets can produce weight loss despite caloric excess. And lastly, a reasoning from first principles reveals a prima facie credible flaw in the caloric balance hypothesis: the body is not a closed system, ergo the law of conservation of energy does not apply. More vulgarly: you can do things like "work up an appetite" or "shit excess food". Google Scholar is positively littered with relevant literature, so I'm somewhat surprised by your skepticism. Good key words to enter are: "carbohydrate-insulin model" vs "energy balance model". The carbohydrate-insulin model is also credibly debated, of course, but the question of whether this is the right alternative is distinct from the question of whether the energy-balance model is correct. In no specific order, here is a pair of completely arbitrary papers, intended only to show that relevant papers can be found with minimal effort: - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0026049565901149 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/002604... - https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/5/1243/6522166 https://academic.oup.com/ajcn/article/115/5/1243/6522166 I'm not objecting to the energy-balance model, which may well be correct in an important way. I am merely pointing out that nutritional science has not managed to reach consensus on this fundamental issue. >These have all have nutritional studies. The nutritional studies did not produce these initial findings. Without pointing to specific papers, it's hard to be very precise, but I would be willing to bet that these are either dietary studies building off of biological first principles, or replication-checks in broader studies. Both are totally fair practices, but can't be considered as an indication that nutritional science is a fruitful field.
- paulddraper 3y ago
  Um, yes, calorie intake is obviously not the *ONLY* factor. If you run 20 more miles every day and eat 100 more calories, I suspect you won't gain weight. The banality of your arguments speaks for itself.
  - omginternets 3y ago
    You clearly don’t even understand the arguments.