The Ur-Quan Masters Home Page Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
July 28, 2017, 08:50:07 pm
Home Help Search Login Register
News: UQM development migrated from Subversion to Git

+  The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum
|-+  The Ur-Quan Masters Re-Release
| |-+  Starbase Café (Moderators: Michael Martin, fossil, Lukipela)
| | |-+  Nutrition
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Print
Author Topic: Nutrition  (Read 1137 times)
Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Nutrition
« on: June 26, 2017, 09:59:19 am »

Currently taught nutrition advice is not based in science; it's instead based on decades-old bureaucracy. But yes. We do learn the nonsense about how salt is bad for you, meat is bad for you, fat is bad for you, and that we should shove bread and pasta down our throats and drink more water than we actually want.

I don't think the problem is just decades-old bureaucracy, I think there is also a problem with the nutritional sciences themselves. There are actually several contradictory studies regarding for example if red meat is carcinogenic or not, so you could say that "all of these scientific studies" show that red meat is good for me, while another guy could say, yeah, but "all these scientific studies" show that red meat increases the risk of getting certain types of cancer. The same is true for saturated fats and cardiovascular diseases. Regarding salt, I think there actually is a broad scientific consensus that you shouldn't eat too much salt (NaCl), especially large amounts of sodium ions are linked to high blood pressure and cardiovascular diseases.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:57:29 pm by Death 999 » Logged
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Sharing is good.


View Profile WWW
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #1 on: June 26, 2017, 06:19:48 pm »

Nutrition science is just weak across the board, because it's hard to study nutrition in humans. This is the full extent of what we know:

1. Sugar is bad for you.
2. We need to get enough of various nutrients. We have a rough idea of how much for many of them.
3. Some people respond badly to some kinds of foods. We don't really know why.

Regarding salt, research is more in support of too little salt being bad for you than too much. Only certain people appear to be affected at all by having too much salt, and it is consistently shown that too little salt is worse for everyone. That "too little" amount? Higher than what all the various health agencies are suggesting is too much. Healthcare Triage did a couple episodes on this (on YouTube).

Salt is an essential nutrient, and keeping a proper water/salt balance is so essential that our bodies are highly effective at controlling it even though they are completely incapable of managing any other nutrient. So the idea that we need to ignore our instincts in this department is frankly absurd.

For everything else, we just have to eat a variety of foods, hope we get the nutrients we need, and figure out what works best for us individually.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:57:41 pm by Death 999 » Logged

Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #2 on: June 26, 2017, 07:14:35 pm »

1. Sugar is bad for you.

As in table sugar, or sucrose? Yeah, probably. I almost never drink liquids with added sucrose, but mostly because of the high amount calories. I do eat dark chocolate with some added sucrose, because there are lots of health benefits associated with cacao. The best would of course be to eat cacao without any sugar, but that tastes very bitter. Or maybe mix it with chili peppers like the Aztec and Maya did.

As for more complex carbohydrates, with a low glycemic index, there is again a lot of conflicting research regarding how much you should eat. I know there are several scientific articles that support the Atkins diet, but I also know that there are several scientific articles that support a much higher intake of carbohydrates.

Only certain people appear to be affected at all by having too much salt

Really? Never heard about salt poisoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_poisoning). Everybody will die from having too much salt in their bodies, and not just humans. Other animals too. Try eating a few spoons of NaCl (don't worry, you are not going to die, you will just feel horrible and vomit).

, and it is consistently shown that too little salt is worse for everyone.

You will die both from having too much salt in your body, and from having too little salt in your body.

That "too little" amount? Higher than what all the various health agencies are suggesting is too much. Healthcare Triage did a couple episodes on this (on YouTube).

Okay, so why do you trust Healthcare Triage more than the various of health agencies? You don't think they might also have tons of scientific articles supporting their dietary recommendations?

Also, the average salt intake in the United States is probably way higher than their dietary recommendations, because NaCl (just like sucrose), is added to lots of different foods today.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:57:48 pm by Death 999 » Logged
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Sharing is good.


View Profile WWW
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #3 on: June 26, 2017, 08:56:23 pm »

Quote
As in table sugar, or sucrose?

Mainly fructose (note: sucrose is 50% fructose), but to a lesser extent other simple sugars as well.

Quote
Everybody will die from having too much salt in their bodies

That's a much higher dose than anyone gets. Anything will kill you at a ridiculous dose.

Quote
why do you trust Healthcare Triage more than the various of health agencies?

I don't trust him, but if he's reporting on his sources accurately, he's doing better already.

Quote
You don't think they might also have tons of scientific articles supporting their dietary recommendations?

Maybe, but I haven't ever seen any research supporting the levels of salt they recommend. I have seen research which suggests the levels they recommend are dangerously low, however. It's not much, but I'm not going to accept a conclusion that has no backing I am aware of in the scientific literature over a conclusion that has some backing I am aware of in the scientific literature.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 08:57:54 pm by Death 999 » Logged

Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2017, 10:08:23 pm »

Nutrition science is just weak across the board, because it's hard to study nutrition in humans.

In order to know if a certain type of food is causing a health condition, or if it is just correlated with a health condition, we need to gather a lot of information from each person that is in the study. Today, lots of information about each individual is available somewhere on the Internet, but it is often protected by privacy laws. Still, if we could gather information like this from the Internet, and use a Bayesian computer algorithm to correlate health conditions with different types of food, we would probably become much more aware of how different types of food affect our health.



Some of you might object that I might be purchasing food that I am not eating. I might for example have kids, and some of the groceries I buy might be for them. It is therefore necessary to mainly look at single individuals living alone, because they will usually consume all the groceries they buy.

One can also look upon families as units. If we analyze large amounts of families as units, we can also get a better idea about how groceries typically consumed by children are affecting their health.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2017, 11:02:39 pm by Zanthius » Logged
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Sharing is good.


View Profile WWW
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2017, 11:36:13 pm »

Quote
In order to know if a certain type of food is causing a health condition, or if it is just correlated with a health condition, we need to gather a lot of information from each person that is in the study. Now, lots of information about each individual is available somewhere on the Internet, but it is often protected by privacy rules. Still, if we could gather information like this from the Internet, and use computer algorithms to correlate health conditions with different types of food, we would probably become much more aware of how different types of food affect our health.

You can't just solve the problems with correlative studies by getting all the data, even if that were a reasonable endeavor. We will always have to treat correlation with caution. Always. You could probably fill a textbook with the possible ways you could be misinterpreting a given correlation.
Logged

Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #6 on: June 27, 2017, 12:53:33 am »

You can't just solve the problems with correlative studies by getting all the data, even if that were a reasonable endeavor. We will always have to treat correlation with caution. Always. You could probably fill a textbook with the possible ways you could be misinterpreting a given correlation.

Bayesians can never be 100% sure of anything, but we can use this technique to at least exclude foods that only correlate with other foods that correlate with a health condition (I just translated this text from my native language to English, so the language is probably far from perfect):

http://archania.org/groceries_and_health.html

We can also collect data from millions of people in this way, which is far more than in the older nutritional studies. If North Korea decided to implement this system, they would probably become world leaders in nutritional science, almost instantaneously.  Almost all the old nutritional studies would become obsolete, since they are based on so few individuals and haven't analyzed everything the individuals in the studies are consuming.

Kim Jong-un could probably without too much trouble, analyze what the entire North Korean population is consuming, and correlate it with information about their health. Those studies would be based on 25 million people, since it lives approximately 25 million people in North Korea.

« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 01:20:55 am by Zanthius » Logged
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
*****
Offline Offline

Gender: Male
Posts: 3471


We did. You did. Yes we can. No.


View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #7 on: June 27, 2017, 01:18:56 am »

You can't just say Bayes and become immune to sample bias etc. Coming up with correct hypotheses is the hard part.
Logged
Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #8 on: June 27, 2017, 01:21:51 am »

You can't just say Bayes and become immune to sample bias etc. Coming up with correct hypotheses is the hard part.

Ehhhh? Why would you need to come up with any hypothesis? This is all just about using the right methodology for nutritional research.

Sample bias is reduced by using a large sample (for example the entire North Korean population), and by analyzing as many variables as possible from the samples, and using the exclusion principle I wrote about here: http://archania.org/groceries_and_health.html
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 01:54:13 am by Zanthius » Logged
Julie.chan
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 119


Sharing is good.


View Profile WWW
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #9 on: June 27, 2017, 02:43:16 am »

N... North Korea doesn't have 100% complete records of everything everyone eats. The NK government doesn't even have any influence on the poor there, only the (compared to other North Koreans) well-off Party members in Pyongyang. Outside there, most of the poorer NK population lives in ghettos which are essentially cut off from the government, and they have to buy illegal food on the black market to survive, food that even includes human flesh labeled as pork, according to some rumors.

Plus, there's no way the NK government would be honest about this. They would just pretend that all of its people are in perfect health and spout propaganda about how the DPRK is doing such a perfect job with its citizens' nutrition, or some crap like that.

The only way North Korea, one of the poorest countries in the world, I might add, is in a situation to advance nutrition science is that it is so authoritarian and free of ethics concerns that the NK government could imprison a large segment of the population for a randomized controlled nutrition study. But they probably wouldn't do that, either. What benefit would that be to NK leaders? Certainly not enough to justify the cost.
Logged

Scalare
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #10 on: June 27, 2017, 09:52:14 am »

Nutrition science is just weak across the board, because it's hard to study nutrition in humans.

In order to know if a certain type of food is causing a health condition, or if it is just correlated with a health condition, we need to gather a lot of information from each person that is in the study. Today, lots of information about each individual is available somewhere on the Internet, but it is often protected by privacy laws. Still, if we could gather information like this from the Internet, and use a Bayesian computer algorithm to correlate health conditions with different types of food, we would probably become much more aware of how different types of food affect our health.



Some of you might object that I might be purchasing food that I am not eating. I might for example have kids, and some of the groceries I buy might be for them. It is therefore necessary to mainly look at single individuals living alone, because they will usually consume all the groceries they buy.

One can also look upon families as units. If we analyze large amounts of families as units, we can also get a better idea about how groceries typically consumed by children are affecting their health.

If you want 1984 to happen please send all your data to the federal statistics bureau. It will be used to refuse health insurance and to tax the fat people, like is currently happening in japan already.
Logged
Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #11 on: June 27, 2017, 10:29:53 am »

If you want 1984 to happen please send all your data to the federal statistics bureau. It will be used to refuse health insurance and to tax the fat people, like is currently happening in japan already.

People shouldn't need to pay for health insurance at all. It should be a public service funded by tax money.

But I agree with you that this is very dangerous indeed. So if the federal statistics bureau started to gather information like this, we would need a high level of transparency and oversight. There shouldn't be any way for them to figure out who the ID-numbers really belong to. And when I say ID number, I really mean a string of data that is also difficult for people to remember. Something like this: "#uc9Pds9%8x8Q%u#ZCd@a6^7H89E*Xw2$ev+*5!CqnGA*-@JHPSeWtmp%!kA"

 We should of course also make it optional for people to participate in this, so they can choose themselves if they want to contribute to this type of research or not.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 10:49:50 am by Zanthius » Logged
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #12 on: June 27, 2017, 11:21:08 am »

You must mean hashing. that could work.
But then again, what's a federal statistics bureau? Is that an american concept?
Imho you're better off having a worldwide controlled neural net figure this out than some bureaucrats in an american govt office.

Logged
Zanthius
*Smell* controller
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 297



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #13 on: June 27, 2017, 12:22:50 pm »

But then again, what's a federal statistics bureau? Is that an american concept?

They also have something like this in:

Germany: https://www.destatis.de/EN/Homepage.html
France: http://www.gouvernement.fr/en/statistics
Netherlands: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb
Switzerland: https://www.bfs.admin.ch/bfs/en/home.html
Sweden: http://www.scb.se/en/
China: http://www.stats.gov.cn/english/
Russia: http://www.gks.ru/wps/wcm/connect/rosstat_main/rosstat/en/main/

And probably several other countries. Anyhow, it would be easiest to implement this in the countries that already are most digitized:



But this ranking is from 2016, when Obama still was president in the United States.... Now, they are probably more interested in investing in coal power and a wall towards Mexico than in digitalization and things like this.
« Last Edit: June 27, 2017, 01:00:17 pm by Zanthius » Logged
Scalare
*Many bubbles*
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 114



View Profile
Re: Nutrition
« Reply #14 on: June 27, 2017, 01:11:34 pm »

So why do it on a federal level instead of worldwide? If you do it on a national level every nation will have different results.

But you could start here to compare to the US data:
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=60029eng&D1=0-4&D2=0-2&D3=a&LA=EN&VW=T
http://statline.cbs.nl/Statweb/publication/?DM=SLEN&PA=81177eng&D1=39-43&D2=0-12,26-38&D3=0&D4=l&LA=EN&VW=T
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 9 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!