4 ms·

"Nutrition has made no progress. It has discovered no stable facts. Everything nutritionists have said, they have said the opposite ten or twenty years later (i

by veave 3y ago

"Nutrition has made no progress. It has discovered no stable facts. Everything nutritionists have said, they have said the opposite ten or twenty years later (if not much sooner). They literally know nothing. After a century of countless experiments, the most common, most basic problem they’ve addressed—the optimal ratio of fat, protein, and carbohydrate—is completely unsolved. If they can’t figure that out, anything more sophisticated seems hopeless."

tsimionescu 3y ago
While I fully agree withtthe gist of this quote, I think one major point is wrong: the idea of an optimal ratio between the macronutrient is probably bullshit in itself. In fact, the idea of categorizing food into such simple categories (three macronutrients + vitamins and minerals) at all seems wrong. Fiber plays a major role, different fats and different carbs have widely different effects, probably different proteins too. Note: the source of the quote for anyone curious to read more: https://metarationality.com/nutrition https://metarationality.com/nutrition
- carlmr 3y ago
  Aside from macronutrients being too broad to be entirely meaningful. The underlying assumption that there is an optimal ratio already seems naïve. Humans probably have wildly different nutrition needs depending on how physically active they are, how hot it is in their part of the globe, which foods are available in their area, their gut microbiome, etc.
  - simplicio 3y ago
    Alternatively, I think the idea that outside some extremely broad parameters (not eating a diet lacking essential vitamins, under-eating to the point of malnourishment or over-eating to the point of severe obesity, etc) there are no particular nutritional needs is under-examined. Nutritional Science seems based on the idea that relatively minor tweaks to diet can influence health outcomes. After several decades of failing to find what those tweaks might be, it always seems strange to me that people don't seem to consider that they might just not exist, and that the human body is fine with whatever food it gets, within some broad range.
    - Madmallard 3y ago
      if you're deficient in any of the vitamins or minerals you will develop clinical symptoms. seems pretty believable to me.
      - simplicio 3y ago
        Hence my including "a diet lacking essential vitamins". But nutritional science figured out stuff like "preventing scurvy" pretty well several decades (or in some cases, centuries) ago. It's further attempts to refine diet to promote health that don't seem to have really led to any really actionable results, to the point that it seems worth considering that it might just not be possible.
        Madmallard 3y ago
        okay well eating lots of fruits and vegetables and some meats is a natural step from essential vitamins and minerals actually. If you don't eat meat, it will be hard to get iron and B12 and carnitine and some other things. It will also be harder to get enough calories.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        The amount of most vitamins and minerals you need are easily found in virtually any diet, including eating every day at McDonald's.
        majkinetor 3y ago
        Not something proponents of Orthomolecular medicine would agree on. That entire branch exists soly becuase of failure of standard medicine to use required doses. Ignoring those researchers doesn't make entire thing untrue. As an example, vitamin C level for optimal health is vastly higher then vitamin C levels needed to prevent scurvy (which is total meltdown of the organism).
        tsimionescu 3y ago
  - wizofaus 3y ago
    Except we continue to see population-wide trends in health that are surely linked to changes in average diet over the last 100 years or so. But it's certainly possible it's far less to do with ratios of simple/complex carbs, protein & fat than widely seems to be believed and indeed linked more to either micronutrients (or lack thereof), or worse, industrial chemicals that have made their way into the food chain. Either way, even accepting variation between individuals, it's surely worth understanding better what general principles can guide how to advise on what diet and food industry changes are necessary to address public health concerns.
    - hutzlibu 3y ago
      You surely can say some things about "average". But someone working physical still has greatly different food needs, than someone only working in an office and being a couch potato afterwards. Or for example I usually avoid sausage and fat meat as it is heavy on the stomach and weight. But the last days I have been in the mountains, walking over ice and snow. Fat meat was excellent, because with the cold, I burned lots of energy.
  - fuzzfactor 3y ago
    >Humans probably have wildly different nutrition needs depending Also might have something to do with how many tens of millennia some peoples' isolated ancestors spent surviving on relatively limited local items available or cultivated, compared to what is now considered mainstream. In my case I lowered my metabolism considerably so I could thrive in Texas without air conditioning in the summer. When everyone else was complaining about the heat this week, all I could do is remind them "it's not even summer yet". Definitely was not as much progress during the first decade.
- jonsen 3y ago
  Thanks. Noteworthy: Since we don’t actually know anything about nutrition, it’s impossible to know whether the new engineered food products are unhealthy.
  - Certhas 3y ago
    That's just a rhetorical slight of hand though: "We don't understand how the body metabolizes what it ingests, and what is healthy and what isn't! Every theory is wrong and has been overthrown! Therefore it's impossible to say whether eating this arsenic pill will be bad for you!" My impression is that there is pretty solid evidence that eating highly processed foods correlates with worse health outcomes.
    - tsimionescu 3y ago
      > My impression is that there is pretty solid evidence that eating highly processed foods correlates with worse health outcomes. That is the conclusion of the Nutrition piece as well. But, crucially, it's important to recognize that we don't really know why that is, and we don't know many of the particulars. To take just two examples: - Even our distant hominid ancestors had discovered fire and were using it to heat food, so it seems very unlikely that eating raw food would be significantly better for us than eating cooked food (by evolutionary arguments) - Cutting food is often not even considered processing, and yet it's something which has a clear negative effect on our teeth at the very least (and is a much much more recent innovation than cooking) So yeah, don't eat a Mars bar or a Chicken McNugget if you can at all help it - and gods help you if you like Spam. But beyond the worst of these foods, the story is actually quite unclear. Edit: the specific quote about the exact point you're making: > One of the trial new messages being tested by the nutrition establishment is “avoid processed food,” which has the big advantage (for their future credibility) that no one is likely to adopt it. Cooking has become an unacceptable hassle.[9] > [9] Disclosure: I do avoid processed food, and most of what I eat I cook from scratch. This is not advice.
      - mirko22 3y ago
        It’s not cos it’s processed but cos it is usually low on fat high on sugar. Not everything that is processed is poisonous, and most “fresh” food today is full of chemicals or lacking in nutrients, so most food you would eat is not that healthy.
- emadda 3y ago
  Those categories cannot be “wrong” as they are based on the types of molecules. I think what you mean is they are not meaningful to guide health decisions as they are too broad and can be further subdivided into more specific categories.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    Yes, I don't mean that proteins (or fats or carbs) don't exist, or that they are not a meaningful class of substances.
DrBazza 3y ago
In the UK, at least, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dieticians, on the other hand, are officially qualified and registered.
- mozman 3y ago
  It's the same in the USA
- gberger 3y ago
  Wow, that is odd. Shouldn't it have been the other way around? Anyone can create a diet (everyone has _a_ diet!), but you need to study nutrition to understand it.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  The article is about the science of (human) nutrition, which dietitians practice. Dietitians are actually good experts on certain medical aspects of food, but know as little as anyone else about what constitutes a generally healthy diet.
Attummm 3y ago
Obesity, longevity, and hormonal research are actually aligned on many points. Nutritional science, which is primarily built upon epidemiology, has caused a lot of confusion as seen in the article, and this is the reason that the quote exists. However, other sciences do use mechanisms of action. So, it's not hopeless; any emergent system that is as flexible as the human body will be really complex, with balances, counterbalances, and even counter-counterbalances. It's built to survive almost any climate and adapt to changes in climate within a short time span. Be aware that bodybuilders have been using different metabolic states since the time of Vince Gironda, around the 1960s. The human body is made for many ranges, contexts, and different diets. So searching the best diet won't yield much.

by veave 3y ago

tsimionescu 3y ago

While I fully agree withtthe gist of this quote, I think one major point is wrong: the idea of an optimal ratio between the macronutrient is probably bullshit in itself. In fact, the idea of categorizing food into such simple categories (three macronutrients + vitamins and minerals) at all seems wrong. Fiber plays a major role, different fats and different carbs have widely different effects, probably different proteins too. Note: the source of the quote for anyone curious to read more: https://metarationality.com/nutrition https://metarationality.com/nutrition

carlmr 3y ago
Aside from macronutrients being too broad to be entirely meaningful. The underlying assumption that there is an optimal ratio already seems naïve. Humans probably have wildly different nutrition needs depending on how physically active they are, how hot it is in their part of the globe, which foods are available in their area, their gut microbiome, etc.
- simplicio 3y ago
  Alternatively, I think the idea that outside some extremely broad parameters (not eating a diet lacking essential vitamins, under-eating to the point of malnourishment or over-eating to the point of severe obesity, etc) there are no particular nutritional needs is under-examined. Nutritional Science seems based on the idea that relatively minor tweaks to diet can influence health outcomes. After several decades of failing to find what those tweaks might be, it always seems strange to me that people don't seem to consider that they might just not exist, and that the human body is fine with whatever food it gets, within some broad range.
  - Madmallard 3y ago
    if you're deficient in any of the vitamins or minerals you will develop clinical symptoms. seems pretty believable to me.
    - simplicio 3y ago
      Hence my including "a diet lacking essential vitamins". But nutritional science figured out stuff like "preventing scurvy" pretty well several decades (or in some cases, centuries) ago. It's further attempts to refine diet to promote health that don't seem to have really led to any really actionable results, to the point that it seems worth considering that it might just not be possible.
      - Madmallard 3y ago
        okay well eating lots of fruits and vegetables and some meats is a natural step from essential vitamins and minerals actually. If you don't eat meat, it will be hard to get iron and B12 and carnitine and some other things. It will also be harder to get enough calories.
        tsimionescu 3y ago
        The amount of most vitamins and minerals you need are easily found in virtually any diet, including eating every day at McDonald's.
      - majkinetor 3y ago
        Not something proponents of Orthomolecular medicine would agree on. That entire branch exists soly becuase of failure of standard medicine to use required doses. Ignoring those researchers doesn't make entire thing untrue. As an example, vitamin C level for optimal health is vastly higher then vitamin C levels needed to prevent scurvy (which is total meltdown of the organism).
        tsimionescu 3y ago
- wizofaus 3y ago
  Except we continue to see population-wide trends in health that are surely linked to changes in average diet over the last 100 years or so. But it's certainly possible it's far less to do with ratios of simple/complex carbs, protein & fat than widely seems to be believed and indeed linked more to either micronutrients (or lack thereof), or worse, industrial chemicals that have made their way into the food chain. Either way, even accepting variation between individuals, it's surely worth understanding better what general principles can guide how to advise on what diet and food industry changes are necessary to address public health concerns.
  - hutzlibu 3y ago
    You surely can say some things about "average". But someone working physical still has greatly different food needs, than someone only working in an office and being a couch potato afterwards. Or for example I usually avoid sausage and fat meat as it is heavy on the stomach and weight. But the last days I have been in the mountains, walking over ice and snow. Fat meat was excellent, because with the cold, I burned lots of energy.
- fuzzfactor 3y ago
  >Humans probably have wildly different nutrition needs depending Also might have something to do with how many tens of millennia some peoples' isolated ancestors spent surviving on relatively limited local items available or cultivated, compared to what is now considered mainstream. In my case I lowered my metabolism considerably so I could thrive in Texas without air conditioning in the summer. When everyone else was complaining about the heat this week, all I could do is remind them "it's not even summer yet". Definitely was not as much progress during the first decade.
jonsen 3y ago
Thanks. Noteworthy: Since we don’t actually know anything about nutrition, it’s impossible to know whether the new engineered food products are unhealthy.
- Certhas 3y ago
  That's just a rhetorical slight of hand though: "We don't understand how the body metabolizes what it ingests, and what is healthy and what isn't! Every theory is wrong and has been overthrown! Therefore it's impossible to say whether eating this arsenic pill will be bad for you!" My impression is that there is pretty solid evidence that eating highly processed foods correlates with worse health outcomes.
  - tsimionescu 3y ago
    > My impression is that there is pretty solid evidence that eating highly processed foods correlates with worse health outcomes. That is the conclusion of the Nutrition piece as well. But, crucially, it's important to recognize that we don't really know why that is, and we don't know many of the particulars. To take just two examples: - Even our distant hominid ancestors had discovered fire and were using it to heat food, so it seems very unlikely that eating raw food would be significantly better for us than eating cooked food (by evolutionary arguments) - Cutting food is often not even considered processing, and yet it's something which has a clear negative effect on our teeth at the very least (and is a much much more recent innovation than cooking) So yeah, don't eat a Mars bar or a Chicken McNugget if you can at all help it - and gods help you if you like Spam. But beyond the worst of these foods, the story is actually quite unclear. Edit: the specific quote about the exact point you're making: > One of the trial new messages being tested by the nutrition establishment is “avoid processed food,” which has the big advantage (for their future credibility) that no one is likely to adopt it. Cooking has become an unacceptable hassle.[9] > [9] Disclosure: I do avoid processed food, and most of what I eat I cook from scratch. This is not advice.
    - mirko22 3y ago
      It’s not cos it’s processed but cos it is usually low on fat high on sugar. Not everything that is processed is poisonous, and most “fresh” food today is full of chemicals or lacking in nutrients, so most food you would eat is not that healthy.
emadda 3y ago
Those categories cannot be “wrong” as they are based on the types of molecules. I think what you mean is they are not meaningful to guide health decisions as they are too broad and can be further subdivided into more specific categories.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Yes, I don't mean that proteins (or fats or carbs) don't exist, or that they are not a meaningful class of substances.

DrBazza 3y ago

In the UK, at least, anyone can call themselves a nutritionist. Dieticians, on the other hand, are officially qualified and registered.

mozman 3y ago
It's the same in the USA
gberger 3y ago
Wow, that is odd. Shouldn't it have been the other way around? Anyone can create a diet (everyone has _a_ diet!), but you need to study nutrition to understand it.
tsimionescu 3y ago
The article is about the science of (human) nutrition, which dietitians practice. Dietitians are actually good experts on certain medical aspects of food, but know as little as anyone else about what constitutes a generally healthy diet.

Attummm 3y ago

Obesity, longevity, and hormonal research are actually aligned on many points. Nutritional science, which is primarily built upon epidemiology, has caused a lot of confusion as seen in the article, and this is the reason that the quote exists. However, other sciences do use mechanisms of action. So, it's not hopeless; any emergent system that is as flexible as the human body will be really complex, with balances, counterbalances, and even counter-counterbalances. It's built to survive almost any climate and adapt to changes in climate within a short time span. Be aware that bodybuilders have been using different metabolic states since the time of Vince Gironda, around the 1960s. The human body is made for many ranges, contexts, and different diets. So searching the best diet won't yield much.