Like… I don’t know what’s the point. Eat heathy, and live a long life? Jesus christ, who has the energy for that?
Just eat whatever. Drink Sodas. Die. Who cares. There’s probably gonna be a global recession, or global great depression. Everyone around me is toxic. People in my country is toxic. The government is toxic. Why even live that long? Maybe my next incarnation will be better.
You sure you’re not just eating poorly and thinking you’re eating healthy? There’s a significant amount of misinformation in nutrition, on par with climate denialism.
That is almost a given. There is a lot of disagreement on what healthy food looks like, and a lack of foundational research on health outcomes of different diets long term.
Healthy food for different populations is the food that sustains health, even if that food by itself isn’t universally healthy for all humans. Dairy, Gluten allergies, etc. There are many foods that some people can tolerance, but not all people can tolerate. Western diet and first nations people don’t often mix well.
Even in the health research space, there is considerable, and acerbic disagreement on what is healthy vs just tolerated. For individuals its even more blurry, there are many religious, philosophical, and cultural reasons people maintain a food bias for.
A elimination diet protocol is the single best tool a individual can use to find out what is causing them problems. Get down to the very bare minimum of nutrition (meat, salt, water), stabilize for a few weeks, then reintroduce foods very slowly until they are able to identify what they cannot tolerate.
I’m sorry, but while it might feel good to adopt a “different things work for different people,” view, elimination diet is only a necessary tool for rare edge cases at most. There is plenty of foundational research at this point, and for the real nutritional scientists who do the real science, there is a consensus that the Mediterranean dietary pattern is the preferred choice for the general population. That is why this diet is pretty much always the backbone of government dietary recommendations (with deviations in those recommendations usually being the result of capitulation to corporations).
And the more plant-centric your diet gets, the better your outcomes.
I have opposing research reading. Lots of the nutritional space uses associative studies and relative risk to determine “optimal”
Is “associative studies and relative risk” another way of saying, “correlation can’t establish causation”? Does that mean we actually don’t know if smoking is bad for us? Sorry, but if you’re going to read from the same playbooks as idiots like Gary Taubes and Nina Teicholz then you’re not going to have any credibility. Nutritional epidemiology is rock solid and the cornerstone of sound nutritional science. If your views depend on undermining an entire field of science, you’re already cut from the same cloth as climate deniers.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JJeoYQ6FaAw
I have nothing but respect for them, but they are journalists and not conducting science themselves.
But yes, I will say epidemiology should only be considered hypothesis generating, not demonstrating causation. The best way to tell if a epidemiology paper is clinically useful is if they express their results in absolute risk (they almost never do)
However, this is a field of science, the philosophy and influencers don’t matter, all that matters is health outcomes. If people are getting the outcomes they want then I’m happy for them.
There is research that also points to meat being beneficial - so I absolutely don’t think its reasonable to close the book on nutrition as solved, and meat is the enemy.
Ahh, I see you are now downvoting my comments! OK, Message received
Here is my own youtube video on nutritional epidemiology! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWgH-VaqMjQ - 7 Flaws in Nutrition Epidemiology
Called it. Get your pseudoscience crackpot cheesehands diet nonsense out of here.
Why are these published studies pseudoscience?
Anybody can cherry pick isolated studies to support any argument they want. I’m not giving you the time of day on this because it never ends. That’s the point. It’s the same playbook as the tobacco industry, same as the oil companies. Corporate-backed pseudoscience that appears just about legitimate-enough to create distractions and confusions.
You already admitted to being anti-epidemiology and “respecting” people like Taubes, as well as name-dropping the carnivore diet. That’s all I need to know, to know that you’re full of nonsense.
There are also plenty of reasons “healthy” foods might absolutely fuck with your health, even if you’re not eating a ridiculous amount of them. For example whole wheat is a perfectly fine food to have in your diet, unless you have celiac disease and don’t realize it yet.