You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

shminux comments on How to use human history as a nutritional prior? - Less Wrong Discussion

8 Post author: CasioTheSane 10 March 2012 12:47AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (49)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: shminux 10 March 2012 03:41:22AM 2 points [-]

The folk wisdom of "eat a bit of everything" seems to go well with humans being omnivores and with not overdosing on any particular harmful ingredient. That was before pollution and allergies were rampant, of course.

Comment author: CasioTheSane 10 March 2012 04:04:15AM *  3 points [-]

That only makes sense in cases where you have no additional data suggesting that some foods are healthier than others.

Also, if a few foods exist which exhibit chronic toxicity at low doses, but you don't know which foods those are, wouldn't it be safer to limit the total number of different foods you consume, as to limit the chance of consuming a particularly bad one by chance? While atypical, there could be cases where the toxicity curve is relatively flat, and lower doses don't really protect you. For example, an endocrine toxin that simulates a hormonal signal even at a low dose.

Comment author: wedrifid 10 March 2012 04:04:09AM 4 points [-]

The folk wisdom of "eat a bit of everything" seems to go well with humans being omnivores and with not overdosing on any particular harmful ingredient. That was before pollution and allergies were rampant, of course.

This would seem to require that most of the 'wisdom' being embedded in the 'everything' in question.

Comment author: CasioTheSane 11 March 2012 10:28:48PM *  2 points [-]

Good point, foods that have been historically clearly identified as toxic would have already moved into the non-food category. So this advice is effectively saying, "look only at your priors and don't consider or collect new data."

If our ancestors took this advice literally they'd have kept eating things that can obviously kill you, like digitalis.

In reality, I think the spirit of the advice is a warning not to under-estimate the importance of your priors: don't consider new data in isolation.

Comment author: wedrifid 12 March 2012 05:44:12AM 2 points [-]

In reality, I think the spirit of the advice is a warning not to under-estimate the importance of your priors: don't consider new data in isolation.

You have managed to extract a rather useful generalizable point from the subject!

As well as this we can assume that the advice also covers the idea of not putting all your eggs (be they epistemic or dietary) in one basket.