5 ms·

40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. You can't reliably draw any conclusions from them. You have to use common sense and rules of thumb.

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.
- zeroCalories 2y ago
  My favorite plant is wheat, deep friend in peanut oil, covered in corn(syrup).
- jejeyyy77 2y ago
  is the last one even widely accepted anymore
  - 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
    What's not widely accepted? https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plate/ https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plat...
- cynicalpeace 2y ago
  That's pretty good. Though it should be balanced with avoiding factory made food. I personally think non processed meat is good for you, but that's a minor point compared to ultra processed vs not really processed foods. I once argued with med students that Oreos (which are vegan) are not healthier than a steak. Absolutely crazy and tbh frightening that anyone (let alone med students!) would think Oreos are healthier than a steak. The reasoning of course is that processing and sugar content don't matter as much as any level of saturated fat.
  - rout39574 2y ago
    The avoidance of factory food is part of the point. GP is invoking Michael Pollan from the Omnivore's Dillema, among others. By 'Food', Pollan specifically means to exclude the sorts of chemical-engineered vague nutrient simacrula you're talking about.
- pfdietz 2y ago
  Eating most plant starches would be a terrible diet.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - progbits 2y ago
    It's saying most of your food should be plants, not that most plants should be your food.
- adamredwoods 2y ago
  (Michael Pollan) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...
vixen99 2y ago
Can you please give your reference for that definitive statement. And what are 'nutritional studies'? Why wouldn't they include the research that led to the list of nutrient recommendations issued by USDA and similar publications in the UK, Norway, France, Australia and many other countries. No conclusions from them? I think there are. There is a truly vast literature on subjects nutritional so it's vital to be very specific. Separately, when using the term 'ultraprocessed' we should be precise about the processes used. There are many different ones with undoubtedly different effects to different degrees on the nutrients therein.
- thrawa1235432 2y ago
  The RDA and nutrient recommendations are the bare minimum so you do not die. Vast literature is ad populum fallacy. Also consider that genetic background matters in nutritional matters and well... The populations under study have changed, and that's assuming you have a fairly similar background to a population and not very mixed. And we are not even getting into how these things go down in practice, with heavy industry lobbying and what not... TLDR, you are on your own in terms of optimal nutrition but as another commenter said "eat food, not too much, mostly plants"
  - XajniN 2y ago
    They are not, they are recommended averages. RDA for vitamin C is 60mg, but you can survive without getting sick on 5-15.
    - thrawa1235432 2y ago
      Potato potato. Familiarize yourself with their history and then your opinion might differ
workflowing 2y ago
40-60% - that's a pretty large p-value and reasonable proxy for thumbs and sense.
atombender 2y ago
But some are better than others. The NIH is currently running a study (N=36, expected to complete in 2025) on ultra-processed foods where the participants are sequested as inpatients at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's research facility and strictly monitored 24/7. They can't leave without a chaperone that ensures they're not cheating. They've done prior studies such as this one [2] (N=20) in 2019. In these studies, they switch the person's diet halfway through, in order to see if the effect is real. The participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, but the diets had the same amount of calories total, and the same calorie density. The results are striking; participants eating ultra-processed foods consumed more calories and gained weight while the other group lost weight. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/
- dekhn 2y ago
  Even though I'm a scientist and thoroughly trained in statistics, the idea that we can to sequester 36 people and monitor diet 24/7 and made general conclusions doesn't sound completely right to me. Partly in the technical sense and partly in the "why do the folks working on human health get away with sample sizes that would be laughed about in any other field?"
  - atombender 2y ago
    I don't know enough about medical statistics to say, but I often see small sample sizes in studies where the effect size is expected to be high. That may be the case here.
    - dekhn 2y ago
      the effect size will not be high
    - bluGill 2y ago
      There are too many variables in diet. If they study steak every meal vs rice and beans every meal they can come up with one. However most people are not that one-tracked either way. Sometimes the rich eat rice and beans, sometimes even poor manage to afford steak. For steak, did I mean beef, lamb, goat, pork... - this might or might not matter. There is also chicken, turkey, snake, deer, elk - and dozens more animals people eat which might or might not be healthy. OF each of the above there are different cuts (does it matter?), different fat levels (does it matter?). And that is just meat, how many varieties of beans are there, what about rice? What about all the other things people eat?
nox101 2y ago
"use common sense" lol - the same common sense that people use when confronted with dyhydrogenoxide? the same common sense that people used if asked about sodium chloride? The same common sense about that tomato, mushroom, seaweed extract called MSG?

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

zeroCalories 2y ago
My favorite plant is wheat, deep friend in peanut oil, covered in corn(syrup).
jejeyyy77 2y ago
is the last one even widely accepted anymore
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
  What's not widely accepted? https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plate/ https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plat...
cynicalpeace 2y ago
That's pretty good. Though it should be balanced with avoiding factory made food. I personally think non processed meat is good for you, but that's a minor point compared to ultra processed vs not really processed foods. I once argued with med students that Oreos (which are vegan) are not healthier than a steak. Absolutely crazy and tbh frightening that anyone (let alone med students!) would think Oreos are healthier than a steak. The reasoning of course is that processing and sugar content don't matter as much as any level of saturated fat.
- rout39574 2y ago
  The avoidance of factory food is part of the point. GP is invoking Michael Pollan from the Omnivore's Dillema, among others. By 'Food', Pollan specifically means to exclude the sorts of chemical-engineered vague nutrient simacrula you're talking about.
pfdietz 2y ago
Eating most plant starches would be a terrible diet.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- progbits 2y ago
  It's saying most of your food should be plants, not that most plants should be your food.
adamredwoods 2y ago
(Michael Pollan) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...

vixen99 2y ago

Can you please give your reference for that definitive statement. And what are 'nutritional studies'? Why wouldn't they include the research that led to the list of nutrient recommendations issued by USDA and similar publications in the UK, Norway, France, Australia and many other countries. No conclusions from them? I think there are. There is a truly vast literature on subjects nutritional so it's vital to be very specific. Separately, when using the term 'ultraprocessed' we should be precise about the processes used. There are many different ones with undoubtedly different effects to different degrees on the nutrients therein.

thrawa1235432 2y ago
The RDA and nutrient recommendations are the bare minimum so you do not die. Vast literature is ad populum fallacy. Also consider that genetic background matters in nutritional matters and well... The populations under study have changed, and that's assuming you have a fairly similar background to a population and not very mixed. And we are not even getting into how these things go down in practice, with heavy industry lobbying and what not... TLDR, you are on your own in terms of optimal nutrition but as another commenter said "eat food, not too much, mostly plants"
- XajniN 2y ago
  They are not, they are recommended averages. RDA for vitamin C is 60mg, but you can survive without getting sick on 5-15.
  - thrawa1235432 2y ago
    Potato potato. Familiarize yourself with their history and then your opinion might differ

workflowing 2y ago

40-60% - that's a pretty large p-value and reasonable proxy for thumbs and sense.

atombender 2y ago

But some are better than others. The NIH is currently running a study (N=36, expected to complete in 2025) on ultra-processed foods where the participants are sequested as inpatients at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's research facility and strictly monitored 24/7. They can't leave without a chaperone that ensures they're not cheating. They've done prior studies such as this one [2] (N=20) in 2019. In these studies, they switch the person's diet halfway through, in order to see if the effect is real. The participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, but the diets had the same amount of calories total, and the same calorie density. The results are striking; participants eating ultra-processed foods consumed more calories and gained weight while the other group lost weight. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/30/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f... [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/

dekhn 2y ago
Even though I'm a scientist and thoroughly trained in statistics, the idea that we can to sequester 36 people and monitor diet 24/7 and made general conclusions doesn't sound completely right to me. Partly in the technical sense and partly in the "why do the folks working on human health get away with sample sizes that would be laughed about in any other field?"
- atombender 2y ago
  I don't know enough about medical statistics to say, but I often see small sample sizes in studies where the effect size is expected to be high. That may be the case here.
  - dekhn 2y ago
    the effect size will not be high
  - bluGill 2y ago
    There are too many variables in diet. If they study steak every meal vs rice and beans every meal they can come up with one. However most people are not that one-tracked either way. Sometimes the rich eat rice and beans, sometimes even poor manage to afford steak. For steak, did I mean beef, lamb, goat, pork... - this might or might not matter. There is also chicken, turkey, snake, deer, elk - and dozens more animals people eat which might or might not be healthy. OF each of the above there are different cuts (does it matter?), different fat levels (does it matter?). And that is just meat, how many varieties of beans are there, what about rice? What about all the other things people eat?

nox101 2y ago

"use common sense" lol - the same common sense that people use when confronted with dyhydrogenoxide? the same common sense that people used if asked about sodium chloride? The same common sense about that tomato, mushroom, seaweed extract called MSG?