5 ms·

>health of our population shows how well that has worked The average lifespan has gone up considerably in recent decades, and people remain active longer than

by DenisM 12y ago

>health of our population shows how well that has worked The average lifespan has gone up considerably in recent decades, and people remain active longer than ever, i.e. people are gaining productive years, not just end-of-life years. In other words, "it" worked fairly well.

arnorhs 12y ago
Your reply has the same problem as SoftwareMaven's. Claims about two facts which are both true, does not make a correlation. (the only difference between yours and SoftwareMaven's claim is + vs -) There are way too many factors at hand to be able to say anything about the role/value of nutritional science on the overall lifespan of earthlings.
themgt 12y ago
That is almost all due to medical, not nutritional science - antibiotics, better surgeries, pharma, etc. Nutritional science has been an abysmal failure for decades and is barely beginning to relearn many things "nutrional science" itself intentionally threw away in favor of laughably simplistic ideas about how the body works.
- DenisM 12y ago
  I should have made it clearer that I was meaning to refute the claim about [declining] "health of our population", not defending the nutritional science. I don't have much love for the latter.
- jfoutz 12y ago
  I'm going to go out on a limb and say medicine wasn't very effective pre 1900, and furthermore the vast majority of life expectancy improvements were due to clean water and enough food. Historically, nutrition has saved a ton of lives. But, I'm with you, modern "nutrition science" doesn't really deserve any credit for that.
  - kangax 12y ago
    And ironically, death rates from obesity just crossed those from hunger. The abundance of food (or rather, abysmal diet culture) is now starting to hurt us.
    - nightski 12y ago
      Sure but isn't it misleading to correlate high caloric intake with obesity? I mean this CAN be the case, but the more weight I lose and the more I work out - the more calories I actually consume.
      - kangax 12y ago
        I think it's safe to say that there's some sort of correlation, although of course obesity is a complex issue. Higher caloric intake is just part of equation. Sedentary life style, increased stress, reduced sleep, "western" diet (highly inflammatory, with poor nutrient density), craving-inducing food, and messed up intestinal flora are just some of the things that likely contribute to obesity. As someone who travels from US to Europe often, I always wonder what exactly it is that causes such dramatic difference. Is it gluten, that's been under scrutiny lately? It doesn't seem to be so, since so many European countries are happily eating their bread. Although European-favored sourdough has been shown to positively affect intestinal flora through fermentation, unlike those puffy bread-like impostors you see in commercial stores in US. Lifestyle doesn't seem to differ much either, although Europeans definitely have a more sacred and slower approach to meals, and there's less of that "quick lunch in a rush" culture. However, portion size and difference in cooking oils (olive in EU vs. corn/cottonseed/canola/etc. in US) seem to stand out the most, and are probably the biggest offenders. [1] [1] http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-omega-3-is-making-us-sick http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-...
        kaitai 12y ago
        There are a number of reports claiming that wheat strains in the US and Europe are quite different, with differing gluten levels. The US has certainly pioneered the breeding of high-gluten wheats, as they're better for processed goods. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference with any science. Certainly in Scandinavia wheat does not play the primary role that it does in the US. Rye, barley, and oats are common in the diet. How many Americans, though, have eaten 100% rye bread even once in their lives?
- 3pt14159 12y ago
  Well, it is both. Cleaning the water supply has drastically increased infant mortality and general health, which is someways is a nutritional advancement.
glaugh 12y ago
I think he's referencing "Lifestyle diseases" or "Diseases of civilization", like diabetes and heart disease, which appear to be quite rare in tribal settings (and not just because people die first of other things), but are commonplace in places like the modern USA. People are obviously living a lot longer, but it's hard to tease apart how much of that is (1) people not dying of communicable diseases, which used to be the #1 killer, (2) sheer quantity of food (i.e., not starving), (3) the decline of violence, (4) diet composition, and (5) a whole host of other things. We can't really just say "We're better now than we were then, so every change must have been a good change," without teasing apart correlation from causation. Otherwise in the 60s you could have said "People didn't used to eat lead paint chips, and now they do, and people are living a lot longer these days." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease
legohead 12y ago
If we were to take this article as truth -- specifically, the part that fasting can activate dormant stem cells, then fasting could very well be a bad thing. There was recent research done that suggests that stem cells are a key ingredient to long life [1], and if they were to, say, come out of dormancy and become active too early and die, then you have just shortened your life. [1] http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/stem-cells-may-be-key-to-long-life-research-on-body-of-115-year-old-woman/ http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/stem-cells-may-be-key-to-long-...

by DenisM 12y ago

arnorhs 12y ago

Your reply has the same problem as SoftwareMaven's. Claims about two facts which are both true, does not make a correlation. (the only difference between yours and SoftwareMaven's claim is + vs -) There are way too many factors at hand to be able to say anything about the role/value of nutritional science on the overall lifespan of earthlings.

themgt 12y ago

That is almost all due to medical, not nutritional science - antibiotics, better surgeries, pharma, etc. Nutritional science has been an abysmal failure for decades and is barely beginning to relearn many things "nutrional science" itself intentionally threw away in favor of laughably simplistic ideas about how the body works.

DenisM 12y ago
I should have made it clearer that I was meaning to refute the claim about [declining] "health of our population", not defending the nutritional science. I don't have much love for the latter.
jfoutz 12y ago
I'm going to go out on a limb and say medicine wasn't very effective pre 1900, and furthermore the vast majority of life expectancy improvements were due to clean water and enough food. Historically, nutrition has saved a ton of lives. But, I'm with you, modern "nutrition science" doesn't really deserve any credit for that.
- kangax 12y ago
  And ironically, death rates from obesity just crossed those from hunger. The abundance of food (or rather, abysmal diet culture) is now starting to hurt us.
  - nightski 12y ago
    Sure but isn't it misleading to correlate high caloric intake with obesity? I mean this CAN be the case, but the more weight I lose and the more I work out - the more calories I actually consume.
    - kangax 12y ago
      I think it's safe to say that there's some sort of correlation, although of course obesity is a complex issue. Higher caloric intake is just part of equation. Sedentary life style, increased stress, reduced sleep, "western" diet (highly inflammatory, with poor nutrient density), craving-inducing food, and messed up intestinal flora are just some of the things that likely contribute to obesity. As someone who travels from US to Europe often, I always wonder what exactly it is that causes such dramatic difference. Is it gluten, that's been under scrutiny lately? It doesn't seem to be so, since so many European countries are happily eating their bread. Although European-favored sourdough has been shown to positively affect intestinal flora through fermentation, unlike those puffy bread-like impostors you see in commercial stores in US. Lifestyle doesn't seem to differ much either, although Europeans definitely have a more sacred and slower approach to meals, and there's less of that "quick lunch in a rush" culture. However, portion size and difference in cooking oils (olive in EU vs. corn/cottonseed/canola/etc. in US) seem to stand out the most, and are probably the biggest offenders. [1] [1] http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-omega-3-is-making-us-sick http://chriskresser.com/how-too-much-omega-6-and-not-enough-...
      - kaitai 12y ago
        There are a number of reports claiming that wheat strains in the US and Europe are quite different, with differing gluten levels. The US has certainly pioneered the breeding of high-gluten wheats, as they're better for processed goods. Unfortunately, I can't find a reference with any science. Certainly in Scandinavia wheat does not play the primary role that it does in the US. Rye, barley, and oats are common in the diet. How many Americans, though, have eaten 100% rye bread even once in their lives?
3pt14159 12y ago
Well, it is both. Cleaning the water supply has drastically increased infant mortality and general health, which is someways is a nutritional advancement.

glaugh 12y ago

I think he's referencing "Lifestyle diseases" or "Diseases of civilization", like diabetes and heart disease, which appear to be quite rare in tribal settings (and not just because people die first of other things), but are commonplace in places like the modern USA. People are obviously living a lot longer, but it's hard to tease apart how much of that is (1) people not dying of communicable diseases, which used to be the #1 killer, (2) sheer quantity of food (i.e., not starving), (3) the decline of violence, (4) diet composition, and (5) a whole host of other things. We can't really just say "We're better now than we were then, so every change must have been a good change," without teasing apart correlation from causation. Otherwise in the 60s you could have said "People didn't used to eat lead paint chips, and now they do, and people are living a lot longer these days." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lifestyle_disease

legohead 12y ago

If we were to take this article as truth -- specifically, the part that fasting can activate dormant stem cells, then fasting could very well be a bad thing. There was recent research done that suggests that stem cells are a key ingredient to long life [1], and if they were to, say, come out of dormancy and become active too early and die, then you have just shortened your life. [1] http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/stem-cells-may-be-key-to-long-life-research-on-body-of-115-year-old-woman/ http://guardianlv.com/2014/04/stem-cells-may-be-key-to-long-...