7 ms·

I don't think it's fair to say that "modern diets are the problem". The availability of modern diets is, after all, largely responsible for modern civilization

by Steuard 13y ago

I don't think it's fair to say that "modern diets are the problem". The availability of modern diets is, after all, largely responsible for modern civilization (which was enabled by agriculture). But I think it's fair to say that the many benefits of modern diets are accompanied by some serious negative side effects, and that the human microbiome has not yet had enough time to evolve into an optimal state for coping with them. (It probably doesn't help that the "modern diet" isn't at all a stable target to optimize for, either.) Perhaps in another 20,000 years, evolution would naturally shape our microbiome to eliminate things like Crohn's disease and tooth decay.

Mz 13y ago
"I don't think it's fair to say that "modern diets are the problem"." Yeah, see, I didn't say that. You edited that to mean something completely different from what I said/meant. My sentence started with "perhaps", had no italics and I went on to ask how that could be tested. So I think this is a not great comment. It feels almost slanderous to me. But I think it's fair to say that the many benefits of modern diets are accompanied by some serious negative side effects, and that the human microbiome has not yet had enough time to evolve into an optimal state for coping with them. That's part of my assumption. But, also, it seems to me that the modern diet has chemical impacts that are pretty well-established as promoting disease. Not that we have to eat crap, but a lot of us do, in fact, live on rather crappy food -- microwave meals, food "products", etc. I think it's complicated and that the impact of food chemistry is not well studied or taken all that seriously. People who think relatively small changes may have big impacts tend to dismissed as quacks.
- Steuard 13y ago
  First and foremost: I apologize for making a comment that came across as hostile. Perhaps my intent would have been clearer if I had said, "I don't think it WOULD BE fair to say...". I did not mean to suggest that you personally believed this to be true. That said, you were clearly suggesting that it is a possibility should be taken seriously, perhaps more seriously than biomedical experts have done to date. And my addition of italics was entirely to emphasize which part of that suggestion I was responding to. In retrospect, a more careful post of mine ought to have said "[emphasis added]", though that still feels a bit like overkill to me. I think in the context of a threaded discussion I unthinkingly assumed that readers would have your original words and context freshly in mind when they saw my response. It's disappointing to me that, given our evident agreement on much of the more substantive part of my comment, you took my initial words to be a hostile and deceptive attack.
  - Mz 13y ago
    Thank you for your response. I have been quite open about the fact that both on HN and elsewhere, I have had the shit kicked out of me for talking about my medical issues and what I have done to get healthier. What with being human, it's a little hard for me to not be "overly sensitive" about the topic. I do try to be as even-handed as possible but repeated vicious attacks do take their toll, no matter how much the victim wants to rise above it. Have a great day.

by Steuard 13y ago

Mz 13y ago

"I don't think it's fair to say that "modern diets are the problem"." Yeah, see, I didn't say that. You edited that to mean something completely different from what I said/meant. My sentence started with "perhaps", had no italics and I went on to ask how that could be tested. So I think this is a not great comment. It feels almost slanderous to me. But I think it's fair to say that the many benefits of modern diets are accompanied by some serious negative side effects, and that the human microbiome has not yet had enough time to evolve into an optimal state for coping with them. That's part of my assumption. But, also, it seems to me that the modern diet has chemical impacts that are pretty well-established as promoting disease. Not that we have to eat crap, but a lot of us do, in fact, live on rather crappy food -- microwave meals, food "products", etc. I think it's complicated and that the impact of food chemistry is not well studied or taken all that seriously. People who think relatively small changes may have big impacts tend to dismissed as quacks.

Steuard 13y ago
First and foremost: I apologize for making a comment that came across as hostile. Perhaps my intent would have been clearer if I had said, "I don't think it WOULD BE fair to say...". I did not mean to suggest that you personally believed this to be true. That said, you were clearly suggesting that it is a possibility should be taken seriously, perhaps more seriously than biomedical experts have done to date. And my addition of italics was entirely to emphasize which part of that suggestion I was responding to. In retrospect, a more careful post of mine ought to have said "[emphasis added]", though that still feels a bit like overkill to me. I think in the context of a threaded discussion I unthinkingly assumed that readers would have your original words and context freshly in mind when they saw my response. It's disappointing to me that, given our evident agreement on much of the more substantive part of my comment, you took my initial words to be a hostile and deceptive attack.
- Mz 13y ago
  Thank you for your response. I have been quite open about the fact that both on HN and elsewhere, I have had the shit kicked out of me for talking about my medical issues and what I have done to get healthier. What with being human, it's a little hard for me to not be "overly sensitive" about the topic. I do try to be as even-handed as possible but repeated vicious attacks do take their toll, no matter how much the victim wants to rise above it. Have a great day.