= 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)
When people talk about diet, the phrasing often seems to be "fats are bad for you" versus "carbs are bad for you" or "this is bad for you" versus "that is bad for you."
The question that I came up with while reading this post was, why are these hypotheses in conflict? Why should there be an option that is "good for you"? Assuming that "eating" evolved by way of "things that eat tend to reproduce more" and "things that feel good when eating things that help them reproduce will eat them, feel good, and reproduce" (I realize that I'm abusing evolutionary explanations here but I will get to my point) I don't see any reason to believe that there exists a diet which will make people happy and healthy over the long long term.
On the one hand, the existence of food that would keep humans healthy significantly past reproductive age has only been selected for in the past 10,000 years. On the other hand humans that stay healthy past reproductive age have never been selected for (at least in men ).
So there's a lot of evidence that I don't fully understand in the background of this debate, and I have little to no knowledge of nutrition, so I'm hoping to learn a lot and change my mind at least twice based on replies, but...
So I guess my question is, do "mainstream" nutritionists maintain that carbs are good for you? Does Taubes maintain that fat is good for you? Does data suggest that there exists a diet which is good for you, that creates serious improvements in longevity and health?
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.