So this year I've stopped working out, and my grades have improved drastically, but at the cost of losing muscle mass and gaining fat, and becoming physically slower and lazier just as I became faster and more active intellectually. One effect I especially noticed was the disappearance of that perpetual state of happiness/satisfaction that comes from frequent physical exertion, which I think had a tendency to get in the way of a feeling of urgency regarding studies; why bother with tiresome and frustrating intellectual exercise when physical exercise yielded results and pleasure/satisfaction much more easily and reliably?

Anyway, this got me thinking: "I need to figure out a training that is optimized for intellectual performance. Aspects that might be interesting to work on would be:

• getting as much blood (oxygen, nutrients) as possible to the brain, whenever needed.
• minimizing the amount of other tissue (including muscle in excess of what is strictly needed for a comfortable daily life, and digestive organs in excess of what is needed to get the nutrients from the food).
• optimizing the diet in order to feed the brain according to its needs while avoiding dietetical imbalances that would result in damage of some sort or another (too much sugar can damage the pancreas, too much protein and the kidneys can suffer, etc.)
• something that is easy and quick to implement and follow, relatively inexpensive and straightforward; the idea is to save as much time, resources and energy as possible for the needs of studying/working.

These ideas I'm throwing around from a position of extreme ignorance. I've tried hiring nutritionists, but their diets were optimized for bodybuilding, not for intellectual efficacy, and were incredibly troublesome to follow. These involved about five to eight meals a day, large amounts of meat or meat substitutes, which is expensive to sustain, and me in a perpetual state of either hunger or digestive lethargy, plus permanent muscular soreness from the training regime that goes with it... and then there's the supplements.

So, yeah, I'm no gwern, but I'd love to figure out a diet that allows me to work at maximum efficacy. Other concerns, such as feeling strong or looking attractive or even dancing well, are quite far behind in priority. How should I go about this? How about you lads and ladies? What's your experience with dieting/working-out? More importantly, what does the research say?

P.S. I tried to read "Good Calories Bad Calories", but I never managed to finish it: it spent so much time attacking the current paradygm that I grew tired of waiting for it to actually list and summarize its recommendations. If anyone here finished reading that and drew out the conclusions, I'd love to hear them.

P.P.S. The main post will update as the discussion advances; once enough proper information is gathered, a top level post might emerge.

Mentions include selection bias, lack of reproduction of results, naturalistic fallacy, status signalling, habituation, science as attire, and maybe some I didn't catch.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g1denSoAbc&feature=player_embedded

Nutrition is a case where we have to try to make the best possible use of the data we have no matter how terrible, because we have to eat something now to sustain us while we plan and conduct more experiments.

I want to apply Bayes theorem to make rational health decisions from relatively weak data. I am generally wondering how one can synthesize historical human experiences with incomplete scientific data, in order to make risk-adverse and healthy decisions about human nutrition given limited research.

Example question/hypothesis: Does gluten cause health problems (ie exhibit chronic toxicity) in non-coeliac humans? Is there enough evidence to suggest that avoiding gluten might be a prudent risk-adverse decision for non-coeliacs?

We have some (mostly in vitro) scientific data suggesting that gluten may cause health problems in non-coeliac humans (such as these articles http://evolvify.com/the-case-against-gluten-medical-journal-references/). Let's say for the sake of arguing, that I can somehow convert these studies into a non-unity likelihood ratio for gluten toxicity in humans (although suggestions are welcome here too).

However, we also have prior information that a population of humans has been consuming gluten containing foods for at least 10,000 years, without any blatantly obvious toxic effects. Is there some way to convert this observation (and observations like this) into a prior probability distribution?

Here is the link. The context is nutritional science and epidemiology, but confirmation bias is the primary theme pumping throughout the discussion. Gary Taubes has gained a reputation for contrarianism.* According to Taubes, the current nutritional paradigm (fat is bad, exercise is good, carbs are OK) does not deserve high credibility.

Roberts brings up the role of identity in perpetuating confirmation bias--a hypothesis has become part of you, so it has become that much harder to countenance contrary evidence. In this context they also talk about theism (Roberts is Jewish, while Taubes is an atheist). And, the program being EconTalk, Roberts draws analogies with economics.

*Sometime between 45 and 50 minutes in, Roberts points out that given this reputation, Taubes is susceptible to belief distortion as well:

What's your evidence that you are not just falling prey to the Ancel Keys and other folks who have made the same mistake?

I do not think Taubes gives a direct answer.