Hacker News Reader

Comment by dghughes | Hacker News Reader

It's surprising how specific such a thing can be;

I read a great article (maybe it was on HN?) about a man who had a bowel disease who suddenly developed heart disease. He was getting worse by the day and was about to get a transplant.

A new doctor had a look and took into account the man's disease which caused poor absorption of nutrients. It turns out the man had no selenium and it was causing his heart disease.

After an urgent rapid replenishment of selenium and careful diet he's OK. It's amazing how a small amount of what seems like an obscure nutrient/mineral can cause such harm.

I agree a normal healthy diet is best.

View on HN

What comprises a "normal healthy diet?"

Soylent released Powder 1.7 a month ago. http://blog.soylent.com/post/154513593367/powder-17-now-ship...

1 for 3 ain't bad.

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

"Don't eat too much" is a tautology, and "mostly plants" has been debunked.

Can you provide sources?

[citation needed]

Pithy quotes require charitable readers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity

But you're right to be skeptical in general. Nutrition research is in such scientific wilderness that it's hard to consider any guidance at all reputable in any way.

So it's tough to filter through a wide variety of literature to find the reputable material. I try to focus on meta-analyses that cover a lot of ground by authors I consider reputable (and aren't selling a diet themselves).

There's a meta-analysis from 2014, examining a wide variety of studies of diets (ranging from fad to institutionally recommended). It concluded:

"A diet of minimally processed foods close to nature, predominantly plants, is decisively associated with health promotion and disease prevention."

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhe...

Original study:

http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhe...

I take your logical point about how "don't overeat" begs the question, but this is where Davidson's charity is helpful. The best way to read "not too much"--if you follow Davidson's advice and assume Pollan is rational--would be to read it as a shorthand for something like the following recommendation:

Calibrate how much you eat to avoid obesity, because obesity is correlated with significantly lower health outcomes over the long term.

Caveat, some people should shoot for a BMI < 35, some should shoot for a BMI < 27.5, so precise general advice is probably impossible.

Tautology or not, it's actually pretty easy not to eat too much, considering that our bodies are pretty good at telling us when we've had enough.

All you have to do is eat a moderate amount, wait twenty or thirty minutes (for your stomach to start digestion, send signals to your brain, etc), see if you are still hungry, and eat a bit more if you are. If you reach the point where you feel 'full' you've probably overeaten. Not complicated, although many people, myself included, don't always take the time to listen to their bodies or have the self control to stop eating when they are chowing down on something delicious, even though know they've probably had enough.

variety is probably the most important criteria...

Not really when you look at the Maasai or the Inuit...

A normal healthy diet contains all the macronutrients(Protein, Carbohydrates & Fat), Vitamins(A, B, C, D, E, K) and Minerals(Calcium, Copper, Iron, Zinc etc) in the right amount. The right amount depends on your weight, height, age etc. You can use tools like Cron-O-Meter to track your meals and figure out what you are getting enough of and what not. You also need plenty of water along with balanced diet.

It's insane that we can't even be sure. Across my RSS feed, in back to back entries:

- Intermittent fasting a great boost to fat burning and weight maintenance

- Skipping breakfast makes you gain weight

Now, I know the gist of why intermittent fasting can work. And if you read into the skipping breakfast article with a lot of background info they don't provide you can pretty much tell their measure group was people who skipped breakfast and probably had a shitty habits around diet and excercise as well.

But if I'm just casually trying to figure out what normal and healthy are, here are two articles that present research that come to conclusions that (on the surface) are completely opposed, but neither is technically wrong.

Fat was the cause of all problems. Sugar is the new tobacco. Tobacco was recommended by doctors for energy. Sitting is the new smoking. Standing will kill you. Red meat will give you a heart attack. Omega 3 is essential for a million things. Fish oil pills are, well, snake oil. MCT is the new fish oil. Coconut and palm harvesting contribute to global warming. Brown rice is healthier than white. White rice has a lower glycemic index.

What the heck are we supposed to do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com