4 ms·
You are basically ignoring an entire dimension of food taste, enjoyment, and satisfaction by saying complexity is not tastiness. Plus you are ignoring the fact
by kelipso 2y ago
You are basically ignoring an entire dimension of food taste, enjoyment, and satisfaction by saying complexity is not tastiness. Plus you are ignoring the fact that nutrition includes micronutrient profile. Then you are concluding that high calorie food has high nutrition and tasty foods are foods that you want to eat more of. No offense but this is like a child's view of food, or maybe some kind of food addict view of food. There is a lot more to nutrition and taste than your current definition of it.
- arghwhat 2y agoYou are ignoring that I am in fact including both macro and micro nutrient profile (if you exceed any individual parameter, you have consumed too much nutrition) and that I am using the widest possible definition of food taste that would include any type of pleasurable food experience - merely implying that complexity alone itself is not tastiness. Complex taste profiles can be tasty, but sometimes they are merely interesting. The focus on too much is important. No food has everything you need (other than engineered Soylent-like foods), and we rely on composing a healthy diet by using foods whose profiles augment each other. The weaker the nutrition of a food item, the more room you have to augment your diet to obtain the needed balance. If you are already close to any limit, your options for augmentation to cover the remaining needs without reaching an excess is heavily reduced. If a single food item already exceeds any limit, there is no way to construct a healthy diet with it. If your way of dealing with disagreement is to call opposing views childish, then it is safe to say that you are not mature enough to hold a discussion on the matter.