= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on What should I have for dinner? (A case study in decision making) - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (106)
Do the discussions change materially if we replace 'good for you' with some operational definition like 'reduces problems like obesity or heart disease compared to the previous diet' or 'gives health results more akin to farmers in Okinawa'?
There may be no 'healthy diet' in some idealistic sense, but what on earth makes one think that there are not less and more healthy diets?
Considering the case discussed in the original piece, that heart disease is reduced but overall mortality isn't by avoiding fats, then this may actually be healthy in the context you describe rather than unhealthy.
So I would say it does materially change the discussion, if not in a particularly deep way.