= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
CasioTheSane comments on How to use human history as a nutritional prior? - Less Wrong Discussion
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 (49)
All foods both exhibit toxicity, and provide nutrients. I think the goal of nutrition is to choose the right foods in the right amounts to balance nutritional needs with toxic effects.
Unfortunately, this is easier said than done. When you really look into it we don't know much about human nutrition, but some choices are still better than others with the information we do have. The problem is I am having trouble finding a rigorous way to weigh these different choices. I guess the real question isn't "is gluten toxic?" but "are gluten containing foods more or less toxic than other alternatives which meet the same nutritional requirements?"
That's a great point about the lead cups, and smoking. It certainly makes me wonder what other things are hurting our health right now, that we potentially have the clues to identify but haven't managed to connect the dots yet.
There are other examples besides lead cups. Most nutritional deficiencies have only recently been recognized; scurvy's solution was famously lost for a century, and while there were folk remedies even back in the Roman era for curing goiters with seaweed, none of them indicate any understanding of the subtler effects on intelligence.
Nutritional and economic requirements. I'd guess gluten-free foods are no cheaper than otherwise-equivalent regular foods, so unless you're willing to spend an arbitrarily large amount of money on food that's also relevant.