If you only eat potatoes you wouldn't die from lack of sodium, the average person would probably become healthier only eating potatoes, it's been done, though I'm not endorsing that. Potatoes and water already have sodium in them, maybe not quite at the ideal ratio per average calorie but it's pretty close or maybe in that range depending on the person.
We certainly need some sodium/salt but I think the extent to which most people crave salt is a result of miscalibration due to overexposure and adaptations which aren't aligned with our current environment.
I minimize added sodium and I don't really have any cravings for salt anymore, unless you count the cravings I have generally for the food/nutrition I need to sustain myself, which contains roughly enough sodium naturally.
If someone is eating a varied diet of whole foods with no added salt it's possible that adding a very marginal amount of extra salt would be healthier in some cases, but that's very far from what is typical.
I agree that seed oils should be avoided yes. I am skeptical of explanations pointing to some element particular to seed oils that is the main source of obesity and health problems, and I'd be worried this might lead people to be less concerned about consuming other unhealthy things.
I'm unsure exactly what points you're making.
I'm saying the idea that it's healthiest to avoid virtually any refined oil is mainstream nutritional understanding. Do you dispute this? I'm not making a point about which refined oils/fats are better than others. I haven't seen anything that has convinced me mainstream nutrition is wrong about that, but I don't think its particularly important when they can all be avoided.
Typical doctors are not particularly reliable nutritional authorities. They have almost no nutrition training.
MacDonalds fries are clearly very unhealthy regardless of what they're fried in. Do you have evidence that they're healthier when fried in beef tallow?
Regardless, the point I was making was that the diets the original commenter mentioned all restrict things that mainstream nutrition already suggests cause health problems.
Refined sugar, refined grains, refined fats, and animal products are all things mainstream nutrition suggests cause health problems. All of the diets listed restrict at least one of those things, so it's not surprising that people would report temporary improvements in health relative to a diet that doesn't restrict any of them.
I am confused by this sort of reasoning. As far as I'm aware, mainstream nutritional science/understanding already points towards avoiding refined oils (and refined sugars).
There's already explainations for why cutting out refined oil is be beneficial.
There are already reasonable explainations for why all of those diets might be reported to work, at least in the short term.
I would consider most bread sold in stores to be processed or ultra processed and I think that's a pretty standard view but it's true there might be some confusion.
Or take traditional soy sauce or cheese or beer or cured meats
I would consider all of those to be processed and unhealthy and I think thats a pretty standard view, but fair enough if there's some confusion around those things.
So as a natural category "ultra processed" is mostly hogwash.
I guess my view is that it's mostly not hogwash?
The least healthy things are clearly and broadly much more processed than the healthiest things.
I typically consume my greens with ground flax seeds in a smoothie.
I feel very confident that adding refined oil to vegetables shouldn't be considered healthy, in the sense that the opportunity cost of 1 Tablespoon of olive oil is 120 calories, which is over a pound of spinach for example. Certainly it's difficult to eat that much spinach and it's probably unwise, but I just say that to illustrate that you can get a lot more nutrition from 120 calories than the oil will be adding, even if it makes the greens more bioavailable.
That said "healthy" is a complicated concept. If adding some oil to greens helps something eat greens they otherwise wouldn't eat for example, that's great.
I am perhaps not speaking as precisely as I should be. I appreciate your comments.
I believe it's correct to say that if you consider all of the food/energy we consumed in the past 50+ million years, it's virtually all plants.
The past 2-2.5 million years had us introducing more animal products to greater or lesser extents. Some were able to subsist on mostly animal products. Some consumed them very rarely.
In that sense it is a relatively recent introduction. My main point is that given our evolutionary history, the idea that plants would be healthier for us than animal products when we have both in abundance, and the idea that plants are more suitable to maintaining health long past reproductive age, aren't immediately/obviously unreasonable ideas.
I would consider adding salt to something to be making that thing less healthy. If adding salt is essential to making something edible, I think it would be healthier to opt for something that doesn't require added salt. That's speaking generally though, someone might not be getting enough sodium, but typically there is adequate sodium in a diet of whole foods.
We often combine foods to make nutrients more accessible, like adding oil to greens with fat-soluble vitamins.
I would disagree that adding refined oil to greens would be healthy overall.
Not sure how much oil we're talking, but a tablespoon of oil has more calories than an entire pound of greens. Even if the oil increases the availability of vitamins, I am very sceptical that it would be healthier than greens or other whole plants with an equivalent caloric content to the added oil. I believe it's also the case that fats from whole foods can offer similar bioavailability effects.
At the same time, as far as I'm aware some kinds of vinegar might sometimes be a healthy addition to a meal, despite it's processing being undoubtedly contrary to the general guidelines I'm defending, so even if I don't agree about the oil I think the point still stands.
I do think you're offering some valid points that confound my idea of simple guidelines somewhat, but I still don't think they're very significant exceptions to my main point.
Appreciate the dialogue:)
I think we're pretty confident that refined oils are unhealthy (especially in larger quantities) , I believe there's just controversy about the magnitude of explanatory power given to seed oils.
Very interesting post! I enjoyed it! Just had some thoughts about the poly section.
I'm not sure why you'd be honour bound to make that work. Maybe the phrasing is just being hyperbolic but I don't think refraining from pursuing a romantic relationship damages your poly honour.
If you define "hyper-skilled" as "way more skilled than average" then what you're saying is true by definition. If its not defined relative to everyone else in a given culture, I think you can certainly say most people are hyper skilled at communication, emotional regulation and self-awareness in ways which their culture requires of them.
For example, most people in highly religious/authoritarian cultures are adept at those social skills which prevent them from being ostracized and condemned. Not reacting violently to insults would be considered hyper skilled in some cultures whereas it's the minimum in others.
With that In mind I don't think polyamory is as unrealistic or as demanding in its requirements as you make it out to be. People tend to become hyper skilled socially when it's a requirement for what they're doing, and when it's normalized within their culture. If other structures are in place to replace the requirement for those particular skills, they won't develop.
Polyamory probability selects for people who are socially skilled in the ways that help with polyamory, but being polyamorous also helps to develop those skills.
I think it's fair to say that for many or most people it would be too costly to try to switch from monogamy towards polyamory when they've already been highly invested in developing their monogamy toolbox. I think that's very different from saying only a small percentage of people have the capacity/potential to flourish being poly.
I read most of the comments and I think pretty much all of the arguments against polyamory are coming from monogamous people with very limited/no experience with polyamory or polyamorous people. Not to say that discredits their arguments, but I'm typically pretty sceptical of arguments about lifestyles that are widely considered distasteful, coming from people who are far removed from those lifestyles, based on a couple anecdotes, if any.
Monogamous people are also already having way fewer children, and the type of person deciding to be polyamorous probably correlates pretty strongly with the type of person already deciding not to have kids. I don't think there's really good arguments that kids of poly people will be worse off, most of those arguments refer to practices which aren't essential to being Poly. Many of the arguments appeal to reference classes that aren't particularly applicable to a scenario where things are being done with care intentionally as opposed to as a result of scarcity, neglect, and unforseen challenging circumstances.