
Eating for Health, Not Weight - rhollos
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/23/opinion/sunday/the-optimal-diet.html?ref=opinion&_r=0moc.semityn.www
======
spodek
With an Ivy League PhD in physics, I'm a big fan of science.

I have not observed a scientific approach to diet effective in promoting
health.

In my albeit limited observation, I observe no correlation between knowing a
lot about food, digestion, etc and fitness or healthiness. In particular,
American culture appears to approach diet most scientifically, yet has
probably the least healthy population. Meanwhile, many illiterate cultures
appear to have healthy diets (implying thousands of years of trial and error,
admittedly a form of science, works).

My observations are anecdotal, not data, so feel free to dismiss them as such.
I just suggest all scientific results so far, compared to what we'd need to
meaningfully predict healthiness in a diet, negligibly less anecdotal.

The body is incredibly complex and diet involves multiple internal systems --
digestive, motivational, cardio-vascular, etc -- interacting with huge
varieties of foods -- themselves sets of incredibly complex systems. Looking
at parts of these systems doesn't seem effective in helping people get
healthy, at least not at the level science is at today.

Generations from now science may be able to grasp this complexity and predict
healthy diets at the individual level. For now, I appreciate people
researching it, but I found all of their predictions for what makes healthy
food based on so many untested assumptions and other logical jumps as to be
worthless for anything but displaying the pre-conceived notions of the
experimenters.

~~~
peterwwillis
Here's some more anecdotal "diet of nations" theories:

Climates with less sunlight and more cold require humans to consume more meat
to absorb its Vitamin D. Nations that aren't as far north don't have to eat as
much meat, or they may be closer to a coast and consume more fish/shellfish.
In addition, the warmer climate may lead to its inhabitants being outdoors
more often, which may lead to more overall exercise.

A food culture based on centuries of the local inhabitants using what they
have available may lead to increased health. For example, if the local food
happens to store well and can be harvested en masse, and isn't threatened
significantly by drought or floods, they may just naturally eat less food
because it's availability is greater than those of other cultures. For
example, Freekeh is a mediterranean grain staple which is harvested early in
the season, which reduces the threat of rain, drought, pests and vermin, which
not only increases the total average yield but reduces the need for chemicals
to ensure a good harvest.

Another factor which may affect the diet is the length at which one needs to
go to harvest their food. Some foods are quite labor intensive to gather or
prepare and thus a lot of time and energy will be taken just to get the food
ready to consume, while other foods can be picked off the ground and eaten.
Some also can only be harvested at precise intervals while other are available
nearly year-round. This may lend to either a "storing fat for the winter"
gorging when food is available, or the opposite, eating lightly and
occasionally whenever it is desired.

Finally, there are general cultural differences when it comes to how and when
to consume food. In Mexico (and I would assume many parts of latin america) it
is typical to have a small breakfast, a quite large late lunch and eat dinner
after 9PM. In other parts of the world the custom may be to eat a pastry for
breakfast, a light lunch and a healthy balanced dinner early in the evening
with different beverages throughout the day to tie one over.

When it comes to America, there seems to be a culture of sport that many parts
of the country are lacking. If you see some kids playing soccer, chances are
they're mostly not "white americans". Baseball used to be a favorite summer
pasttime, but I don't see that many kids playing stickball in the streets
these days. And in winter, besides ice hockey in the north you won't see a
whole lot of outdoor sport played by kids or adults in America (unless it's
some sort of amateur league team sport). Many other countries play sports
year-round which no doubt contributes to a healthier overall lifestyle.

Finally there's our unique food culture and history. We're not a very old
nation, so there hasn't been a very long time to develop a history of eating
particular food. On top of that we're a geographically large nation with lots
of different food staples throughout different regions. And as modern progress
has sped the production of new ways to make and consume food, our culture has
embraced the cheap-and-easy mode of bulk consumption that encourages we pay an
additional $0.50 for another 10 ounces of soda. It's just too damn easy to eat
unhealthy crap in our country, and we're almost proud of that. Compare that to
nations that have eaten the same way for centuries and don't have the same
history of new food businesses pioneering ways to produce crappy food, and you
can see how our way of eating is more of a popular novelty than a real food
culture.

I'll leave the food influences by religion of a region to someone more
familiar with that, but it's safe to say that religion has influenced diet for
thousands of years.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
_I'll leave the food influences by religion of a region to someone more
familiar with that, but it's safe to say that religion has influenced diet for
thousands of years._

I'd say the major way has been by affecting alcohol consumption. My religion
bans various little things, but the _big_ change in diet in becoming
religiously observant (I'm mostly not, mind you) is the sheer number of ritual
meals involving rather large glasses of wine, usually red.

Given the heart-health effects of wine, it might almost cancel out how fat the
Orthodox tend to get from sitting around studying religious law all the time.

------
scythe
So the major factor here is generally proposed to be dietary fiber. People on
a high-fiber diet are healthy, and that's really the major separating variable
between laboratory diets like the one in this article and real diets that make
you fat. Going off the description of dishes in the article, I'd estimate the
subjects had a daily fiber consumption of 40-60 grams, most of it soluble.

Studies that look at meat consumption generally do not control for fiber,
though they usually mention the correlation in many populations between
increased meat consumption and less fiber consumption. Of course there are
correlations with fiber and CAD and cholesterol. But we already knew _that_.

It's a rather significant confounding factor when anyone uses an extremely
high-fiber test diet to argue for the health value of various other
characteristics of said diet. This author does it all over the place. Frankly,
a mere 12 pound loss over five years may not really be too impressive,
depending on where they're starting. I imagine Mark Sisson could post better
results than that. Similarly, I imagine the guy who wrote _The China Study_
could post better results than that... most diets will!

What they've got statistically significant, but pretty much _any_ diet that
cuts out processed foods alone will show statistically significant changes...

The sole really impressive thing is the prostate cancer improvements: but
there are too many confounding factors to determine what, precisely, is
causing the improvements. Maybe there's some anticancer compound in a
vegetable emphasized in the diet. Diindolylmethane comes to mind, or beta-
caryophyllene.

~~~
tocomment
Is it worth taking fiber supplements? It seems tough to get enough fiber even
with some fruits and vegetables every day.

~~~
astral303
Forget the supplements. Eat the real thing. There's more to a natural
vegetable than a supplement. There might be undiscovered nutrients that aren't
in a supplement.

For example, omega 3 fatty acids and the benefits of some antioxidants are
relatively recent discoveries. SO now, we have supplements w/ those nutrients
in it. But the science might still be missing an interaction between nutrients
or a difference in how nutrients are absorbed.

------
dlytle
I've personally lost 35 pounds in 5 months on keto, and I've had all my
cholesterol levels drop, along with my blood pressure. (Which probably has
more to do with my weight loss than the meat-based diet.) I literally can't
lose weight while eating any amount of carbs; I ate 1250 calories a day for 2
months, lost 5 pounds, and was miserable. (Yes, 1250. I was super anal about
calorie counting, and only drank water + black coffee. It sucked.)

The long and short of it is that every person has a slightly different
combination of body chemistry quirks, so there's never really a one-size-fits-
all method for losing weight. You've got to find something that works for you,
considering both weight reduction and quality of life. If I didn't love meat
so much, I'd probably be in a tough situation.

~~~
manmal
I was in a similar situation to yours, until I took MSM (review:
<http://www.vitaflex.com/res_msmreva.php>). It's a little-known, little-
researched substance (my link only contains refs to veterinary studies), but
reportedly contained in raw meat and vegetables. Once I began taking 3-5g a
day (powder form), I have been almost unable to put on bodyfat, and already
lost a good deal of it. People say it changes carbohydrate metabolism, but I
suspect it's also got to do with detoxification (bodyfat stores toxines -
can't find studies for that) and the fact that it does away with candida.

~~~
biot
For a counterpoint:
[http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/msm.ht...](http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/DSH/msm.html)

~~~
singular
Hm the conclusion there appears to be that claims for it aren't based on
research as there is very little, which the parent acknowledges.

The weight loss claims here are of course anecdotal, but it certainly seems
worth a try, given that it seems perfectly safe. Presumably the worse that can
happen is you simply pass it out of your system and it does nothing.

~~~
biot
According to the research, unused MSM is processed by the renal system. In
relatively high doses, no adverse effects were _observed_ but I'd be cautious
about effects which didn't get observed, especially from prolonged use for
which there are inadequate studies. So the worst that can happen in passing it
out of your system might be: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renal_failure>

~~~
singular
Ah, point taken! That wouldn't be such a good outcome :-)

I slightly regret the response now actually, I was being quite majorly hand-
wavey, I guess the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty here and the
promise of easy weight loss has combined to provide some bias here :-)

~~~
manmal
There is no indication (neither anecdotal nor peer-reviewed) that this poses a
problem. All the quackwatch page says is "Well we found no objections, but be
careful nonetheless, even though there is no indication that it it's dangerous
to take MSM". That's a speculative conclusion based on assumptions, not
exactly what I would expect from someone debunking quack myths based on
scientific reasoning.

~~~
biot
This part is also notable:

    
    
      In October 2000, the FDA warned [Karl Loren] that the long list
      of therapeutic claims he was making for these products made them
      drugs would be illegal to market without FDA approval. The letter
      stated that the FDA had seen no evidence that the products were
      safe and effective for their intended uses.
    

Absence of evidence that it's safe doesn't necessarily imply that it's unsafe.
However, one should be cautious until peer-reviewed research on the long-term
effects have been studied.

------
fingerprinter
This is just a terrible, terrible article. It's not actually saying anything.

Here is how I've looked at this and I think most people would do well to do
the same.

What are your goals? Are you obese and looking to lose a massive amount of
weight? Are you a bit overweight and looking to lose the last 10 lbs? Are you
looking to "look better naked"? Are you looking to gain muscle? Are you
looking to get better at x, y or z sport? Are you looking to just have a
decent lifestyle? Are you looking to maximize your lifespan?

There are others, but you get the idea. Without knowing the goal, you can't
know how to eat. There are quite different approaches to all of the above and
if you just choose one approach, it probably won't be optimal for the goal you
have.

I hate articles like this, they paint every approach with the same brush and
you can't possibly do that. Know your freakin' goal and then optimize your
eating to support that goal.

If anyone wants some suggestions on what/how to eat, just state your goal and
we an riff from there. It really isn't that tough.

~~~
edtechdev
I guess you didn't read much of the article - the goal is stated in the title.

There's a ton of stuff out there on plant-based diets like the one described
here. See the video Forks Over Knives on Netflix.

------
Nav_Panel
[http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-
ornishs-...](http://www.awlr.org/1/post/2012/09/response-to-dean-ornishs-new-
york-times-op-ed.html)

Fascinating response piece highlighting many of the issues in the linked op-
ed. Definitely worth reading.

------
enraged_camel
Some good discussions taking place here, and I responded to some of the
individual points made, but I wanted to chime in and say that the Paleo mode
of thinking, which suggests that we should eat only what we "evolved" to eat,
is bullshit.

There are a multitude of problems with the assumptions underlying the Paleo
diet. First, the statement that the human genome evolved during the
Pleistocene period rests on the gene-centered view of evolution, which is
described by prominent biologists as excessively reductionist. It's akin to
"Darwinian fundamentalism", and as with fundamentalism of any kind, it's
dangerous thinking.

Second, the idea that 10,000 years is not enough to ensure an adequate
adaptation to agrarian diets is questionable. For example, humans got a _lot_
better at tolerating lactose just a few thousand years after animal husbandry
was invented. Similarly, scientists have observed increases in the number of
copies of the gene for amylase, which digests starch. This appears to be
related to agriculture. Both of these changes in human physiology suggest that
400-500 generations may be enough to sufficiently adapt to changes in the
environment.

Third, we have evidence to suggest that the diet of Stone Age humans did in
fact include refined starches and grains that are excluded from the Paleo
diet. This evidence shows Paleolithic societies processing cereals for food
use at least as early as 30,000 years ago, and possibly even as early as
100,000-200,000 years ago.

The bottom line is that the Paleo diet is based on a misunderstanding of
biological evolution and seems to be inspired by a naive adaptationistic view
of life.

------
Diamons
Sometimes it just doesn't work, no matter what. Sometimes you're just meant to
be big. I am a former wrestling local city champion, currently a kickboxer,
and also practicing jujitsu. I move fast and sprint like I'm 140 pounds, I can
roundhouse kick someone that's 5'9 in the head, and I'm almost at a split. I
can do 50 pushups, 12 pullups, once ran 8 miles, and have done high intensity
cardio 5 days a week for 2 hours everyday. Yet I'm 250 pounds and a huge gut.

My diet? Eggs, veggies, rice, fruits. No sugar at all, and yet I have not been
able to lose weight for the past 2 - 3 years. I have slowly watched the scale
climb up no matter how many calories I cut or how many carbs I don't eat.
Sometimes you just can't fight your body and you're meant to be who you are.

~~~
andyakb
Without logging your caloric intake (no estimates, logging everything you eat
as it actually is), it is very easy to convince yourself you arent eatng too
many calories. Hoewever, for practical matters, if you do not have a
significant health issue, if you eat less calories than your body burns you
will lose weight. In the vast majority of cases, it really is that simple.

Find an app or website that is easy for you to use and try logging all your
food (include snacks and things that you may consider to be "little"). Figure
out based on your weight and activity level (be conservative) what you need to
eat to lose 1-2 pounds a week and hit the goals If you do this honestly for an
extended period of time, you will lose weight.

~~~
littledude
yes buy a gram scale and keep it on your kitchen counter then use
<http://www.myfitnesspal.com/> or <http://www.fatsecret.com/> to measure all
food

best investment i;ve made trying to put on muscle

------
jvoorhis
This:

"WHAT you eat is as important as what you exclude — your diet needs to be high
in healthful carbs like fruits, vegetables, whole grains, legumes, soy
products in natural, unrefined forms and some fish, like salmon. There are
hundreds of thousands of health-enhancing substances in these foods. And
what’s good for you is good for the planet."

can't possibly be right for everyone. I've read (and read the debunking of)
plenty of points of view, but I'm fairly sure a soy-based diet isn't right for
me, and all of the neatly packaged dietary points of view (keto, Sisson,
Mediterranean, Weston Price, veg-*) aren't universal. Nutrition still has a
long way to go, and this reads like a brochure.

~~~
manmal
Yep. Grains is proven to be suboptimal, causing inflammation in the intestines
and the rest of the body
(<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2821887/>). And soy acts like
estrogen in one's body, not exactly what I would like - it might even be that
this is the reason for less prostate cancers (prostate cancer patients are
even given estrogen as treatment).

I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting fruit
entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten them.
Also, eating immense amounts of red meat seems to be related to all sorts of
illnesses. I have adapted another view: If it's fresh and organic, it can't be
wrong, and the occasional rice bowl or apple is cool. Junk food or processed
food containing transfats or shredded soy should be restricted (like, one day
per week).

UPDATE: Processed food is literally everywhere if you don't cook yourself -
most restaurants use ready-made "components" to achieve speedier meal
preparation. I think it's hard (or expensive) for people eating out to get a
healthy meal, especially in the US.

~~~
enraged_camel
>>I do agree though that low-carb diets don't cut it health-wise, omitting
fruit entirely just does not seem right, considering humans have always eaten
them.

This is very dangerous line of thinking that is unfortunately popularized by
Paleo diet nutjobs. While it's true that our ancestors ate fruit, we don't
know how much of it they ate. Furthermore, even though they ate fruits, they
had very active lifestyles. They were nomads who very rarely stayed in one
place for very long, and all the activity they did (carrying heavy things,
walking/running everywhere, hunting, etc.) allowed them to efficiently utilize
(rather than store) the sugars in fruits.

Compare that to today, where most fruit eaters are sedentary individuals who
sit in front of the TV or the computer all day. For them, eating something
that is high in sugar is not going to be healthy.

It's worth pointing out that the main thing that makes fruits "healthy" is
anti-oxidants and fiber, both of which can also be found in veggies. Except
veggies have very little if any carbs, and are therefore far superior for
weight management.

~~~
manmal
Veggie != veggie, starchy vegetables like peas or potatoes (hm, are potatoes
veggies at all?) are high in carbohydrates. My mention of fruit was meant as
moderate use. I for one don't respond so well to fructose, and generally don't
eat much fruit - say, a banana after gym. But I would not leave out fruit
entirely (when not on a low carb diet).

------
ghshephard
I find it distressing that all of these very well educated, well researched,
and up-to-date authorities on Diet continue to write OpEds for the NYT with
basically polar-opposite positions.

Here we have Dean Ornish basically coming out with a position almost
completely contrary to Gary Taubes.

Perhaps, one day, someone will do some long term randomized trials with a
unbiased observer and we'll discover the truth.

~~~
Tichy
I don't know about Dean Ornish, but Gary Taubes is a journalist, as far as I
know, not a nutrition expert. Maybe his research on his books turned him into
an expert, not sure.

I have to admit the Good Calories, Bad Calories book seemed a bit unstructured
to me. In the end it was just listing a load of studies in favor of his
thesis. It left me wondering if perhaps he only selected those that supported
his claims.

The problem with researching diets is probably the long term aspect of it. How
do you make people stick to a diet you randomly assign to them for 20 years?
It also has an ethical component, because you might assign unhealthy diets.

~~~
enraged_camel
Gary Taubes is not just a journalist. He is a _science_ journalist with a
background in physics. This is an important distinction because he has the
necessary training to _correctly_ interpret scientific studies. That's what
his book is about: it's a huge meta-study that explores the history and the
current state of nutrition science. And his ultimate finding is that
mainstream nutrition science is wrong and it's carbs that should be avoided,
not fats.

~~~
Tichy
But ultimately why believe him instead of some other scientist? Because his
book is thicker? I also noticed that he had a bit of a tummy when I saw a
YouTube video of him.

I've read another thick book advocating plant based diets and metaanalyzing
lots of studies, The China Study. GC,BC is a bit thicker, though.

~~~
enraged_camel
I think I already gave you the answer: Taubes' book is a comprehensive meta-
study that examines the merits and pitfalls of most prominent studies in the
field of nutrition science. This allowed him to draw broader conclusions than
any specific study.

Really though, you just have to read it, apply your critical thinking skills
to it, and make up your own mind.

------
chriseidhof
I really would like to eat healthy. I already exercise a lot and have a good
body weight. I'm not looking to lose weight, but to optimize my quality of
life (e.g. feeling good, being productive, have the energy to exercise). All
the "scientific" diets seem to do that. I know bits and pieces about Paleo,
read parts of Taubes' book, have vegan friends, and now this. They all claim
to be scientific and healthy. I have a hard time figuring out which is true,
and end up making my own rules. Does anyone have a good framework for
evaluating these health recommendations?

~~~
VLM
"Does anyone have a good framework for evaluating these health
recommendations?"

Its stomps all over certain religions, so we can't talk about it in public,
but here on hacker news, if your ancestors evolved for millions to hundreds of
thousands of years eating it, its probably an excellent biochemical match to
you today, plus or minus recent dental issues WRT to cooked vs raw. If you
think your ancestors were drinking beer, corn syrup sodas, pizzas and big macs
a million years ago, or that the earth is only 6000 years old and humans have
always eaten rice grains and beans because god told them they have to (LOL),
you're going to have very serious issues with this advice.

Eat what your ancestors ate. And I'm talking pre-agricultural revolution not
mom and dad. Cooking is OK because your teeth have evolved to support it. I
wouldn't advise going much beyond that other than "special snacks and special
events".

------
pragmatic
Some may remember Dr Ornish for his involvement with Steve Jobs' cancer
treatment:

[http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-
and...](http://www.bulletproofexec.com/steve-jobs-dr-dean-ornish-and-
vegetarian-cancer/)

------
Ensorceled
"Being overweight is not necessarily linked with disease or premature death."

This article lost me right here; I thought "fit but fat" had been debunked and
that controlled studies showed that just being overweight was, by itself, a
health risk. You need citations for this kind of bold claim.

------
minikites
How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory and
anti-nutrient compounds?

[http://www.direct-
ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20S...](http://www.direct-
ms.org/pdf/EvolutionPaleolithic/Cereal%20Sword.pdf)

>we have seen that patients who ate mostly plant-based meals, with dishes like
black bean vegetarian chili and whole wheat penne pasta with roasted
vegetables, achieved reversal of even severe coronary artery disease. They
also engaged in moderate exercise and stress-management techniques

How much of that health improvement is from diet and how much is from
exercise?

~~~
VLM
"How true is the paleo assertion that cereal grains contain inflammatory ...
compounds?"

Ask any of the 1% or so of the population medically diagnosed with celiac
disease. If wheat was "invented" today instead of being a popular historical
ethnic food, there's no way the USDA / FDA would allow it to start being sold
knowing it makes so many people very ill.

~~~
debacle
You could say the same of peanuts or milk products or shellfish.

Wheat isn't dangerous, it's just not very good for you.

------
jdietrich
Eat food, mainly plants, not too much. Is that so hard?

