3 ms·

"It's shocking how little we know about how food affects the body. That's why I follow this trendy diet based on assumptions about how food affects the body."

atlgator 3y ago
In the last 70 years, the human diet has become polluted with chemicals and shifted to refined carbs, concurrent with the rise of heart disease and diabetes. And I'm the one following the "trend" by eliminating those things? Not sure you know what that word means.
sethammons 3y ago
how is that a trendy diet? It looks like what we assume people have mostly eaten for the last 100k years.
- shuntress 3y ago
  It's the blanket disapproval of anything arbitrarily deemed "impure". Genetically modified crops are as safe as any other food. Balancing intake & output (of calories) is the only practical reason to avoid carbs and dairy (obviously it should go without saying but I'll say it anyways: unless you have lactose intolerance or celiac or some other condition). Hormones, antibiotics, and "mold toxins" are not what's bad about industrial-scale livestock farming.
  - sethammons 3y ago
    we honestly just don't know. We believe genetically modified crops are as safe and our current understanding of food science suggests that is likely true. There are huge swaths of people who are changing up the food they eat and reflecting on how they feel that is not captured in any way that is accepted by modern food science. Not even calories in / out is well understood because your body changes how it takes in, processes, and uses the calories it gets. It is a dynamic system. I have personally weighed and measured my food for extended periods and I lost weight eating more calories while maintaining the same exercise routine. In "That Sugar Film," the filmmaker keeps the calories the same but changes the source to more sugar and they got a fatty liver and extra belly fat. If you watch "my 600lb life", some people gain weight because they reduce their calorie intake too much and their body goes into a "starvation mode" and starts capturing calories as additional fat. The type of food you put in matters and we don't have a good grasp on all the ways our bodies handle it. What we do know is that we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it.
    - shuntress 3y ago
      I agree with you that it is complex. Certainly we agree that Calories are just rough abstraction to simplify a complex system in a way that is manageable for day-to-day use. What I am saying is that a blanket rejection of anything arbitrarily deemed to be "impure" is not good. > we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it So, in other words, "Reject modernity, embrace tradition"
      - sethammons 3y ago
        > "Reject modernity, embrace tradition" I think it is a safe default Btw thanks for the exchange

atlgator 3y ago

In the last 70 years, the human diet has become polluted with chemicals and shifted to refined carbs, concurrent with the rise of heart disease and diabetes. And I'm the one following the "trend" by eliminating those things? Not sure you know what that word means.

sethammons 3y ago

how is that a trendy diet? It looks like what we assume people have mostly eaten for the last 100k years.

shuntress 3y ago
It's the blanket disapproval of anything arbitrarily deemed "impure". Genetically modified crops are as safe as any other food. Balancing intake & output (of calories) is the only practical reason to avoid carbs and dairy (obviously it should go without saying but I'll say it anyways: unless you have lactose intolerance or celiac or some other condition). Hormones, antibiotics, and "mold toxins" are not what's bad about industrial-scale livestock farming.
- sethammons 3y ago
  we honestly just don't know. We believe genetically modified crops are as safe and our current understanding of food science suggests that is likely true. There are huge swaths of people who are changing up the food they eat and reflecting on how they feel that is not captured in any way that is accepted by modern food science. Not even calories in / out is well understood because your body changes how it takes in, processes, and uses the calories it gets. It is a dynamic system. I have personally weighed and measured my food for extended periods and I lost weight eating more calories while maintaining the same exercise routine. In "That Sugar Film," the filmmaker keeps the calories the same but changes the source to more sugar and they got a fatty liver and extra belly fat. If you watch "my 600lb life", some people gain weight because they reduce their calorie intake too much and their body goes into a "starvation mode" and starts capturing calories as additional fat. The type of food you put in matters and we don't have a good grasp on all the ways our bodies handle it. What we do know is that we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it.
  - shuntress 3y ago
    I agree with you that it is complex. Certainly we agree that Calories are just rough abstraction to simplify a complex system in a way that is manageable for day-to-day use. What I am saying is that a blanket rejection of anything arbitrarily deemed to be "impure" is not good. > we are eating things now that historically we have not and that alone is a good reason to be suspect of it So, in other words, "Reject modernity, embrace tradition"
    - sethammons 3y ago
      > "Reject modernity, embrace tradition" I think it is a safe default Btw thanks for the exchange