5 ms·
Alternatively, I think the idea that outside some extremely broad parameters (not eating a diet lacking essential vitamins, under-eating to the point of malnour
by 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 agoif you're deficient in any of the vitamins or minerals you will develop clinical symptoms. seems pretty believable to me.
- simplicio 3y agoHence 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 agookay 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 agoThe amount of most vitamins and minerals you need are easily found in virtually any diet, including eating every day at McDonald's.
- majkinetor 3y agoNot 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 agoReplacing nutrition science with some quackery is not any better - even quackery supported by one of the fathers of modern medicine. The metabolism of vitamin C in particular is pretty well understood, and no magical benefits of getting huge doses has ever been proven to have any of the claimed positive effects (despite many prominent supporters' efforts, including Mr Pauling).