>I read somewhere (don't remember where, so can't give a good cite) that biochemists say we only understand about 10% of the chemical processes in our bodies. W

>I read somewhere (don't remember where, so can't give a good cite) that biochemists say we only understand about 10% of the chemical processes in our bodies. We know some things various nutrients are used for, but there are many we don't know. We often don't understand exactly how particular nutrients go from being part of our food to being being available at the places they are used in a form usable to our cells. I think we know more far than 10% about our own biochemistry, but you are right in saying that there are plenty of processes we don't know enough about. Because the system is too great at adapting to changes that attempts to measure response from a single factor usually fails quite miserably. For example, Robert Lustig has been preaching for years that fructose is bad for you. His theory is scientifically sound, yet we have not observed the apocalyptic consequences he envisioned decades back. Similar debates on fat has been going on for decades and either side is backing up. Throw some economics and politics in there, and we have the mess we are dealing with today. The main thing that set us apart from the indigenous peoples and perhaps our grandparents' generation is that we are feeding ourselves ad libitum which is very much unprecedented. After all, caloric restriction is the only proven way to enhance longevity in lab animals so it is quite likely that there is no magical diet but to eat and move as little as possible like the tortoise of Galapagos. Whether this lifestyle is conductive to a fulfiled life to open to (another) debate.