FreedomPhilosophy Posted July 4, 2013 Posted July 4, 2013 In this program I share a little of the research material on diet I have been studying for over 27 years. There ought to be an objective means to determine what we should eat, and there is! [View:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMc5RdPahiE]
Andrew79 Posted July 5, 2013 Posted July 5, 2013 For an objective, optimum diet wouldn't you have to start with what nutrients the human body needs to function first, and then look at the best way to get them?
FreedomPhilosophy Posted July 5, 2013 Author Posted July 5, 2013 For an objective, optimum diet wouldn't you have to start with what nutrients the human body needs to function first, and then look at the best way to get them? Dehmelt specifically addresses this point, we need to know what is best to eat today. Evolution and comparitive biology is object science, it is unfortunately imprecise and I have gone some way to address this with Pickfords paper, i.e. chimps are not a great model. The empirical method in nutritional science is very problematic: 1) people consume foods not nutrients, so how will it be possible to identify optimal nutrient levels? 2) nutrients is a misleading concept (substances in foods may serve no nutritional role but can still be good or bad for health) 3) people can't be experimented on in a controlled environment 4) people live a long time so that connecting the inputs and long term effects is time consuming and imprecise 5) above observation is further compounded because choices of the prior 2 generations have effects on the current generationWe already know a great deal about food and we also know a little bit about our evolution and much about our anatomy and physiology. We should leverage that knowledge while we wait for nutritional science to yield better answers. Nutritional science is doing a great job though, it just yields answers slowly.
Recommended Posts