7 ms·

Nutrition Science Initiative launched

40 points by Hagelin 14y ago

boothead 14y ago
If the independence from industry and focus on the scientific method can be truly maintained then this can only be a good thing. One comment, the board of directors seem pretty top heavy with "big pharma" and VC/private equity types, which I find a bit hard to reconcile with the non-profit and independence aims of nusi. Surely the whole thrust of an organization like this is to promote health and this must be fundamentally against the interests of drug companies. I'd certainly be interested to hear what the board of directors hope to achive.
- tokenizer 14y ago
  As someone who has recently learned of a ketosis diet and a low carb approach to this problem, it was pretty interesting when during this talk, http://youtu.be/FSeSTq-N4U4?t=32m10s http://youtu.be/FSeSTq-N4U4?t=32m10s, when he mentions the diabetes booklet given out by a pharmaceutical company which recommends low sugar foods. While this seems like a good approach, the doctor in the video explains how this is counter intuitive to combat diabetes, as a as little sugar/starch as possible diet is the correct approach. This booklet told people to have fruits and starches but in moderation, when most of those foods they said was fine, should be avoided entirely if possible.
- amalag 14y ago
  They want to make money. Nutritional science will tell them the next "healthy" food they can sell to the public. Maybe they can sleep better at night knowing it was scientifically vetted.
Tichy 14y ago
I don't get it. What is their point? Why not go public once they have some results? Also wondering how they want to get fast results when presumably a lot of effects of diets are only visible in the long term? Also, are there really just useless studies, or are they just not popular enough? This almost cries out for a parody. Teleportation - we have waited long enough. Now we bundle the best scientists and we will deliver fast results.
kafkaesque 14y ago
What NuSi is doing sounds great. I was vegetarian for 7 years, an omnivore for 1 when I started weight-lifting, and after that I stopped weight-lifting and became a runner. It has been a year and am training for my first half marathon. Compared to 10 years ago, I feel there has been an increase on food data-collecting and more rigorous scientific experiments that help build a database of bad foods and good foods. And I feel what NuSi is doing can be a good thing because it'll bring about talks and communication between big food corporations and nutritionists, "food scientists", etc. However, the dilemma for me comes when trying to change the rules of what ingredients are allowed in foods (I'm thinking about the so-called 'soda pop ban'). I feel certain things ought to be banned, such as trans fats/hydrogenated oils. I think they are poisonous, but corporations, being as they are, are reluctant to change this because using them are so cost-effective and good for their pockets. To ban something that would decrease a company's profit and force them to effectively increase their production cost goes against their ideology. I am optimistic that gradually we will see an improvement, but we are years away from it, simply because changing large companies's mission for a higher food standard brings about unwanted consequences for them, especially when change is abrupt. So, of course, we're getting the wrong advice. It is a chain of connections. Some health advisers work for large companies and have their own agenda to push. Other scientists and nutritionists do not have the means to fund big experiments and collect more data. My question is: who are these 'best scientists and universities' that are working on these 'risky questions'? Transparency would be nice, for sure. You have my attention. (My $0.02)
asciimo 14y ago
This is a great idea, on the surface. I'm suspicious of their board of directors, 4 out of 5 of whom are McKinsey & Company alumni. Truth and profit are rarely compatible. Wikipedia's Criticism section on McKinsey & Company is interesting to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Criticism
bennesvig 14y ago
Tim Ferriss posted about joining the board yesterday - http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/
amalag 14y ago
It's complicated because people don't want to cook. If you eat freshly cooked vegetables and WHOLE grains, what problem will you have? Another silly attempt at "hacking" our bodies. Spare me.
- mef 14y ago
  It's assumptions like these that drive the need for rigorous nutritional science initiatives.
  - amalag 14y ago
    So Michele Obama's attempt to counter obesity with exercise for children and healthy fresh cooked food needs to be examined rigorously through the lens of a nutritional science initiative? We might discover that exercise makes you more fat or fresh vegetables contain an unknown chemical which makes kids fat? Again people don't want to cook simple healthy food and are more interested in the next four hour body guru telling them that they can eat lots of meat and no grains or some other crazy thing.
    - frankus 14y ago
      I agree with your comments on the benefits of cooking as many meals as possible from scratch, and on the idea that it clearly was possible for people decades and centuries ago to avoid getting fat. So absent some pervasive non-dietary effect, we should be able to stay thin by eating like our grandparents. On the other hand, we don't want to be spending limited resources on things that don't solve the problem at hand. For instance, as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine stated: “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.” If we tell people to go running during their lunch hour, and then they go eat at MacDonald's because they don't have time to cook, it's probably not helping the situation.
- seiji 14y ago
  WHOLE grains still aren't good for you. It's like the new soft drinks proudly advertising "Now with REAL Cane Sugar!" -- it's still horrible for you.
Shivetya 14y ago
The idea of examining food to determine if its good or bad for us sounds wonderful. Simply reading some of the comments here shows prejudices on both sides. I put myself on the side of "don't eat so much" as compared to "don't eat that". Yet I am a firm believer that when lives gets easier people get lazier. When they get lazy they do not make good choices because they do not have too. People do not even have to go anywhere or even outside for entertainment. The amount of physical labor, let alone activities in general, has vastly decreased. Then add in the fact that about any food you want is readily available, conveniently packaged, and having the means to keep most if not all of it for long periods of time and it looks like a recipe for disaster.
alokv28 14y ago
Peter Thiel, in his Stanford class, referred to a "Manhattan Project for nutrition." He indicated that it was in the formative stages at that point. I wonder if this is what he was referring to.

40 points by Hagelin 14y ago

If the independence from industry and focus on the scientific method can be truly maintained then this can only be a good thing. One comment, the board of directors seem pretty top heavy with "big pharma" and VC/private equity types, which I find a bit hard to reconcile with the non-profit and independence aims of nusi. Surely the whole thrust of an organization like this is to promote health and this must be fundamentally against the interests of drug companies. I'd certainly be interested to hear what the board of directors hope to achive.

tokenizer 14y ago
As someone who has recently learned of a ketosis diet and a low carb approach to this problem, it was pretty interesting when during this talk, http://youtu.be/FSeSTq-N4U4?t=32m10s http://youtu.be/FSeSTq-N4U4?t=32m10s, when he mentions the diabetes booklet given out by a pharmaceutical company which recommends low sugar foods. While this seems like a good approach, the doctor in the video explains how this is counter intuitive to combat diabetes, as a as little sugar/starch as possible diet is the correct approach. This booklet told people to have fruits and starches but in moderation, when most of those foods they said was fine, should be avoided entirely if possible.
amalag 14y ago
They want to make money. Nutritional science will tell them the next "healthy" food they can sell to the public. Maybe they can sleep better at night knowing it was scientifically vetted.

Tichy 14y ago

I don't get it. What is their point? Why not go public once they have some results? Also wondering how they want to get fast results when presumably a lot of effects of diets are only visible in the long term? Also, are there really just useless studies, or are they just not popular enough? This almost cries out for a parody. Teleportation - we have waited long enough. Now we bundle the best scientists and we will deliver fast results.

kafkaesque 14y ago

What NuSi is doing sounds great. I was vegetarian for 7 years, an omnivore for 1 when I started weight-lifting, and after that I stopped weight-lifting and became a runner. It has been a year and am training for my first half marathon. Compared to 10 years ago, I feel there has been an increase on food data-collecting and more rigorous scientific experiments that help build a database of bad foods and good foods. And I feel what NuSi is doing can be a good thing because it'll bring about talks and communication between big food corporations and nutritionists, "food scientists", etc. However, the dilemma for me comes when trying to change the rules of what ingredients are allowed in foods (I'm thinking about the so-called 'soda pop ban'). I feel certain things ought to be banned, such as trans fats/hydrogenated oils. I think they are poisonous, but corporations, being as they are, are reluctant to change this because using them are so cost-effective and good for their pockets. To ban something that would decrease a company's profit and force them to effectively increase their production cost goes against their ideology. I am optimistic that gradually we will see an improvement, but we are years away from it, simply because changing large companies's mission for a higher food standard brings about unwanted consequences for them, especially when change is abrupt. So, of course, we're getting the wrong advice. It is a chain of connections. Some health advisers work for large companies and have their own agenda to push. Other scientists and nutritionists do not have the means to fund big experiments and collect more data. My question is: who are these 'best scientists and universities' that are working on these 'risky questions'? Transparency would be nice, for sure. You have my attention. (My $0.02)

asciimo 14y ago

This is a great idea, on the surface. I'm suspicious of their board of directors, 4 out of 5 of whom are McKinsey & Company alumni. Truth and profit are rarely compatible. Wikipedia's Criticism section on McKinsey & Company is interesting to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Criticism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKinsey_%26_Company#Criticism

bennesvig 14y ago

Tim Ferriss posted about joining the board yesterday - http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/ http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2012/09/12/nusi/

amalag 14y ago

It's complicated because people don't want to cook. If you eat freshly cooked vegetables and WHOLE grains, what problem will you have? Another silly attempt at "hacking" our bodies. Spare me.

mef 14y ago
It's assumptions like these that drive the need for rigorous nutritional science initiatives.
- amalag 14y ago
  So Michele Obama's attempt to counter obesity with exercise for children and healthy fresh cooked food needs to be examined rigorously through the lens of a nutritional science initiative? We might discover that exercise makes you more fat or fresh vegetables contain an unknown chemical which makes kids fat? Again people don't want to cook simple healthy food and are more interested in the next four hour body guru telling them that they can eat lots of meat and no grains or some other crazy thing.
  - frankus 14y ago
    I agree with your comments on the benefits of cooking as many meals as possible from scratch, and on the idea that it clearly was possible for people decades and centuries ago to avoid getting fat. So absent some pervasive non-dietary effect, we should be able to stay thin by eating like our grandparents. On the other hand, we don't want to be spending limited resources on things that don't solve the problem at hand. For instance, as the American Heart Association and American College of Sports Medicine stated: “It is reasonable to assume that persons with relatively high daily energy expenditures would be less likely to gain weight over time, compared with those who have low energy expenditures. So far, data to support this hypothesis are not particularly compelling.” If we tell people to go running during their lunch hour, and then they go eat at MacDonald's because they don't have time to cook, it's probably not helping the situation.
seiji 14y ago
WHOLE grains still aren't good for you. It's like the new soft drinks proudly advertising "Now with REAL Cane Sugar!" -- it's still horrible for you.

Shivetya 14y ago

The idea of examining food to determine if its good or bad for us sounds wonderful. Simply reading some of the comments here shows prejudices on both sides. I put myself on the side of "don't eat so much" as compared to "don't eat that". Yet I am a firm believer that when lives gets easier people get lazier. When they get lazy they do not make good choices because they do not have too. People do not even have to go anywhere or even outside for entertainment. The amount of physical labor, let alone activities in general, has vastly decreased. Then add in the fact that about any food you want is readily available, conveniently packaged, and having the means to keep most if not all of it for long periods of time and it looks like a recipe for disaster.

alokv28 14y ago

Peter Thiel, in his Stanford class, referred to a "Manhattan Project for nutrition." He indicated that it was in the formative stages at that point. I wonder if this is what he was referring to.