5 ms·

Take a look at what Weston Price learned as he traveled around healthy cultures. I'm certainly not implying "everything old is good", but we have adopted an att

Take a look at what Weston Price learned as he traveled around healthy cultures. I'm certainly not implying "everything old is good", but we have adopted an attitude of "they were all stupid", which isn't true. Let's take a look: Wisdom: Fat is a good energy source. "Science": Fat makes you fat and clogs your arteries. Now: Fat is important for regulating satiety and nervous system health. Wisdom: Simple carbs and sugar should be very limited. "Science": You can eat as much as you want without any problems. Now: High glucose and fructose loads are significant players in NAFLD, diabetes, heart disease and dimentia. Wisdom: Fermented foods like keifer, sauerkraut, and miso are important parts of the diet. "Science": Kill all the bugz! Now: Gut biome health may be a significant factor in many physical and mental health problems. Wisdom: Regular periods of fasting are good for mind and body. "Science": You should eat 6 small meals every day to keep blood sugar even. Now: See TFA. I'm sure I could keep going...

anon4 12y ago
But that wisdom is all from different periods. Fat in particular is the old sugar - it makes food taste good. It's also the most calorie-dense macronutrient. Of course you're going to put as much as you can in your food. Want some more old wisdom? Bread: eat as much as possible, because it's cheap and fills you up. Bread and butter - the foundation of a good diet. You can't just take any old practice and follow it blindly, you need to have some idea if it's good for you or simply doesn't kill you. Because there's a whole ton of shit that doesn't kill you. Nutritional science may be bunk, but at least you can usually tell when they're speaking bunk and it sure beats the old system of "My parents ate this and they lived to the ripe old age of 50".
DanBC 12y ago
Science has never said you can eat as many simple carbs as you like with no problem. There have been "scumbag food advertisers" and "unqualified unregistered pseudo nutritionists" who have said that you must not eat any fat at all but that sugar is fine. That's not science.
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. It is only in the last 10 years that "whole grains" (white flour with a little bran added back) has been added, but the glycemic index of whole grain bread is almost identical to white bread. Grains are the "foundation" of the food pyramid. We've also been told for 50 years that sugar is metabolically inert, so you "just have to worry about the calories". Sugar is a fine substitute for anything, just look at Snackwells. The message has been driven home so well that stupid things happen like a mother getting fined for packing a nutritious lunch for her daughter, but not including the all-important "Ritz" food group[1]. 1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-crackers-fines-mom-for-unhealthy-lunch-1.2432039 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-cr...
  - venomsnake 12y ago
    By coincidence USG guidelines are also not science, but something that is hammered together with the permission of the food lobies.
    - jerf 12y ago
      The USG guidelines have been well-founded on scientific research. If you want to argue that the USG guidelines were founded on scientific research that they (or other government branches) paid for, that they've managed to distort the resulting science to the point of destroying it, and that the whole process has been beholden to large food interests and national interests by virtue of the control of the purse strings... be my guest! It is, however, what the "science" has been for the past 50 years. There has been no other "science". Attempts to pretend otherwise are simply and straight-up revisionist history, now that real science is finally poking through and the science of the past 50 years is not looking all that good. However, it is our moral duty to not pretend that "science" has been right the past 50 years, has been telling us the same things that we are just figuring out now, and it was, just, uh... umm... very very quiet or something?
      - 12y ago
drzaiusapelord 12y ago
These are pretty disingenuous, uncited, and generalized examples. For example, fat has always been fine, excess calories are not. That leads to fatty build-up that does cause serious health issues. The problem is that casuals see 'fat' and equate it with body fat, instead of being focused on what science has been saying saying all along: eat that calories you need and not past that as you'll gain weight. Marketers have used this confuse to sell products, "low fat" craze, but that has never been the staple of nutritional understanding. Lets also remember even the ones that the "ancients" got right, they got millions wrong, most of which were seriously dangerous. The modern person's appeal to the past is insane to me. I think if you could travel back in time to live in one of those cultures you value so much, you'd see nothing but sickness, death, and other horrible things that would be trivially treated in post-enlightenment societies. Unfortunately, bullshit like 'ancient wisdom' has become popular of late thus parents not vaccinating their children, a return to extreme/fundamentalist religiosity, and dangerous cargo cult-like beliefs like treating cancer with green tea.
- _broody 12y ago
  Where do you get from that 'fat has always been fine'? It's been the target of demonization by trendy dietitians for essentially the second half of the 20th century. This article on the subject made it to the top of HN a while ago: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mod=trending_now_1 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840...
  - dunmalg 12y ago
    I think the point is that "trendy dietitians" != "science"
- tolmasky 12y ago
  This is a mischaracterization of the past 30 years. In the 1980s, American's really were told to drastically reduce their fat intake due to a misunderstanding of LDL. It remains recommended to only be 10% of your daily intake of calories -- a statement of the percentage of calories you should eat as fat, not a statement about excess calories, which can be regarded as bad in general regardless of their source. If you look at what took place in the following 30 years since this stance, fat intake has in fact been reduced quite considerably in the United States, yet heart disease has increased. This has nothing to do with worshiping "ancient wisdom", its simply identifying an error science made (which it is allowed to do), and rectifying it without historical revisionism.
rbanffy 12y ago
Would you like to continue also mentioning the instances popular "wisdom" was also wrong?
- SoftwareMaven 12y ago
  You know what's funny? Before the 1940s, we didn't really have a problem with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, PCOS, or any number of other diseases tied to diet. The groups that had problems had a diet much like we do today (high in flour and sugar, low in fat) except with less protein. I'm not saying we can't improve on what was "known", and we can certainly understand the methods of actions. They also got a lot wrong. I'm just looking for a little humility in nutrition science. So, what did they get wrong? Smoking is ok (or, maybe even healthy). Exercise is unhealthy[1]. Making dinner after wiping away black plague puss w/o washing hands is OK. 1. Ironically, the alternative of too much exercise may be unhealthy as well.
  - rbanffy 12y ago
    I am quite sure the list can be at least as long as the one with items popular wisdom got right.
    - arjn 12y ago
      Longer actually.
diziet 12y ago
You are using the Straw man fallacy here.
- anon4 12y ago
  You know, Software Maven does sound a bit like Straw Man. Now, I'm not saying that person is a troll, but he kind of smells like one and as they say, if it smells, it stinks.
mrexroad 12y ago
sounds like science is doing a fine job, the important thing is that it self-corrects and we have a far, far deeper understanding of subtile complexities. one of the few things that gives me hope for humanity is the hope that most things we "know" today will (rightly) be wrong in 100 years. knowledge from conventional wisdom doesn't compound over time.
ScottBurson 12y ago
Wisdom: Regular periods of fasting are good for mind and body. "Science": You should eat 6 small meals every day to keep blood sugar even. Now: See TFA. These recommendations don't actually conflict. Maybe it's best to eat lots of small meals when you're eating, and still fast periodically.
Houshalter 12y ago
This line of reasoning is ridiculous and I will give an analogy. Pick an ancient "wisdom" at random. What probability do you assign to this belief being true? You get "throwing salt over your shoulder increases luck." Obviously ridiculous right? You aren't going to actually do it just cause "the ancients" said it was good. Now imagine some study comes out saying that exposure to salt in the air actually increases your something-or-other levels making you healthier. Ha, the ancients were right (kinda-sorta, about one thing, and for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong predicted effect)! All modern science must be wrong and all ancient wisdom must be correct! Proof we must go back to draining blood to to treat diseases and stop abandoning ancient practices.

anon4 12y ago

But that wisdom is all from different periods. Fat in particular is the old sugar - it makes food taste good. It's also the most calorie-dense macronutrient. Of course you're going to put as much as you can in your food. Want some more old wisdom? Bread: eat as much as possible, because it's cheap and fills you up. Bread and butter - the foundation of a good diet. You can't just take any old practice and follow it blindly, you need to have some idea if it's good for you or simply doesn't kill you. Because there's a whole ton of shit that doesn't kill you. Nutritional science may be bunk, but at least you can usually tell when they're speaking bunk and it sure beats the old system of "My parents ate this and they lived to the ripe old age of 50".

DanBC 12y ago

Science has never said you can eat as many simple carbs as you like with no problem. There have been "scumbag food advertisers" and "unqualified unregistered pseudo nutritionists" who have said that you must not eat any fat at all but that sugar is fine. That's not science.

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
The current US government nutritional guidelines call for 6-10 servings of grains per day. It is only in the last 10 years that "whole grains" (white flour with a little bran added back) has been added, but the glycemic index of whole grain bread is almost identical to white bread. Grains are the "foundation" of the food pyramid. We've also been told for 50 years that sugar is metabolically inert, so you "just have to worry about the calories". Sugar is a fine substitute for anything, just look at Snackwells. The message has been driven home so well that stupid things happen like a mother getting fined for packing a nutritious lunch for her daughter, but not including the all-important "Ritz" food group[1]. 1. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-crackers-fines-mom-for-unhealthy-lunch-1.2432039 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/daycare-gives-kids-cr...
- venomsnake 12y ago
  By coincidence USG guidelines are also not science, but something that is hammered together with the permission of the food lobies.
  - jerf 12y ago
    The USG guidelines have been well-founded on scientific research. If you want to argue that the USG guidelines were founded on scientific research that they (or other government branches) paid for, that they've managed to distort the resulting science to the point of destroying it, and that the whole process has been beholden to large food interests and national interests by virtue of the control of the purse strings... be my guest! It is, however, what the "science" has been for the past 50 years. There has been no other "science". Attempts to pretend otherwise are simply and straight-up revisionist history, now that real science is finally poking through and the science of the past 50 years is not looking all that good. However, it is our moral duty to not pretend that "science" has been right the past 50 years, has been telling us the same things that we are just figuring out now, and it was, just, uh... umm... very very quiet or something?
    - 12y ago

drzaiusapelord 12y ago

These are pretty disingenuous, uncited, and generalized examples. For example, fat has always been fine, excess calories are not. That leads to fatty build-up that does cause serious health issues. The problem is that casuals see 'fat' and equate it with body fat, instead of being focused on what science has been saying saying all along: eat that calories you need and not past that as you'll gain weight. Marketers have used this confuse to sell products, "low fat" craze, but that has never been the staple of nutritional understanding. Lets also remember even the ones that the "ancients" got right, they got millions wrong, most of which were seriously dangerous. The modern person's appeal to the past is insane to me. I think if you could travel back in time to live in one of those cultures you value so much, you'd see nothing but sickness, death, and other horrible things that would be trivially treated in post-enlightenment societies. Unfortunately, bullshit like 'ancient wisdom' has become popular of late thus parents not vaccinating their children, a return to extreme/fundamentalist religiosity, and dangerous cargo cult-like beliefs like treating cancer with green tea.

_broody 12y ago
Where do you get from that 'fat has always been fine'? It's been the target of demonization by trendy dietitians for essentially the second half of the 20th century. This article on the subject made it to the top of HN a while ago: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303678404579533760760481486?mod=trending_now_1 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230367840...
- dunmalg 12y ago
  I think the point is that "trendy dietitians" != "science"
tolmasky 12y ago
This is a mischaracterization of the past 30 years. In the 1980s, American's really were told to drastically reduce their fat intake due to a misunderstanding of LDL. It remains recommended to only be 10% of your daily intake of calories -- a statement of the percentage of calories you should eat as fat, not a statement about excess calories, which can be regarded as bad in general regardless of their source. If you look at what took place in the following 30 years since this stance, fat intake has in fact been reduced quite considerably in the United States, yet heart disease has increased. This has nothing to do with worshiping "ancient wisdom", its simply identifying an error science made (which it is allowed to do), and rectifying it without historical revisionism.

rbanffy 12y ago

Would you like to continue also mentioning the instances popular "wisdom" was also wrong?

SoftwareMaven 12y ago
You know what's funny? Before the 1940s, we didn't really have a problem with obesity, heart disease, diabetes, non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, PCOS, or any number of other diseases tied to diet. The groups that had problems had a diet much like we do today (high in flour and sugar, low in fat) except with less protein. I'm not saying we can't improve on what was "known", and we can certainly understand the methods of actions. They also got a lot wrong. I'm just looking for a little humility in nutrition science. So, what did they get wrong? Smoking is ok (or, maybe even healthy). Exercise is unhealthy[1]. Making dinner after wiping away black plague puss w/o washing hands is OK. 1. Ironically, the alternative of too much exercise may be unhealthy as well.
- rbanffy 12y ago
  I am quite sure the list can be at least as long as the one with items popular wisdom got right.
  - arjn 12y ago
    Longer actually.

diziet 12y ago

You are using the Straw man fallacy here.

anon4 12y ago
You know, Software Maven does sound a bit like Straw Man. Now, I'm not saying that person is a troll, but he kind of smells like one and as they say, if it smells, it stinks.

mrexroad 12y ago

sounds like science is doing a fine job, the important thing is that it self-corrects and we have a far, far deeper understanding of subtile complexities. one of the few things that gives me hope for humanity is the hope that most things we "know" today will (rightly) be wrong in 100 years. knowledge from conventional wisdom doesn't compound over time.

ScottBurson 12y ago

Wisdom: Regular periods of fasting are good for mind and body. "Science": You should eat 6 small meals every day to keep blood sugar even. Now: See TFA. These recommendations don't actually conflict. Maybe it's best to eat lots of small meals when you're eating, and still fast periodically.

Houshalter 12y ago

This line of reasoning is ridiculous and I will give an analogy. Pick an ancient "wisdom" at random. What probability do you assign to this belief being true? You get "throwing salt over your shoulder increases luck." Obviously ridiculous right? You aren't going to actually do it just cause "the ancients" said it was good. Now imagine some study comes out saying that exposure to salt in the air actually increases your something-or-other levels making you healthier. Ha, the ancients were right (kinda-sorta, about one thing, and for the wrong reasons, and with the wrong predicted effect)! All modern science must be wrong and all ancient wisdom must be correct! Proof we must go back to draining blood to to treat diseases and stop abandoning ancient practices.