
Ask HN: What should we eat? - eavc
The USDA recommendations are almost universally considered wrong, perhaps even exactly backwards.<p>You have people like Michael Pollan saying we should eat traditional foods, mostly plants, and not too much.<p>Gary Taubes says we should eat meat, lots of it. Red meat.<p>The prevailing wisdom from nutritional science is--well, I have no idea what it is. I guess it's to eat foods high in polyunsaturated fats, avoid red meat, and avoid refined starches and sugars, but I'm not sure.<p>I hate that I get anxious when trying to decide something so simple as a shopping list for groceries.<p>Based on my experience in fields where I have a measure of expertise, the difference between a persuasive bunch of garbage and the truth can be incredibly hard to discern until someone contextualizes it all for you.<p>Does anyone have any suggestions for books or articles that cut through these various arguments in an authoritative way, explain shortcomings and virtues, and makes a straightforward recommendation based on a full appreciation of the all the arguments involved?
======
snprbob86
"I get anxious"

In my highly unscientific opinion: That's worse for you than anything you
could ever eat.

Stop eating when you are full. Avoid excessive junk food. Try to eat fruit and
vegetables more than occasionally. Reserve the cheeseburgers and onion rings
for the celebration of Friday. Hold that celebration with friends and family
more often than just Friday. Drink some wine or a beer. Laugh about it. Don't
dwell on anything.

Even if you don't live longer, you'll live better.

~~~
eavc
I get your point, and I appreciate it. I could do worse than what you advise.

But I'd prefer to dismiss my anxiety through solid information rather than
abandoning the concern and adopting what seems to be a "sensible" approach to
diet founded on a cultural melange of how we ought to eat and drink.

If I can do something to reduce the chance that I get cancer--or that my wife
gets cancer--then that's worth fretting.

------
pradocchia
This is tangential, but does anyone know of a field of study that specifically
investigates traditional dietary frameworks in different parts of the world?
Not what people actually eat per se, but what local tradition advises? The
comparative philosophy of food, the anthropology of normative diets?

In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others
"cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be
advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.

If one could compile a set of such recommendations, cross reference them, and
control for variations in climate, soil and whatnot, perhaps some interesting
patterns might emerge.

~~~
sliverstorm
> In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others
> "cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be
> advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.

gah... I dated a chinese girl, and she would discuss that with me when she got
sick. It feels like folk medicine, the decision of what makes something 'hot'
or 'cold' and so on seemed so arbitrary.

~~~
meric
Hmm I don't know if its arbitary, I can tell if a food is 'hot' or 'cold' just
by eating it, even if I've never seen it before.

For me, only eating 'hot' foods means I get more ulcers, so I am always
watching out.

~~~
riffraff
if the hot/cold idea is deeply rooted in you, it makes sense that you are able
to tell what is what, but that does not mean it's not arbitrary, just that you
have assimilated the method on a deeper level.

Consider italians, and pasta. Basically everybody knows "instinctively" if a
sauce makes sense with short or long pasta, but in the end it's still
completely arbitrary :)

~~~
kranner
Not sure you have a basis for declaring it arbitrary yet, not even in the
absence of evidence that it isn't.

------
shib71
My tendencies, which seem to work well:

\- Foods with less processing - more fresh stuff, less stuff that needs
preservatives

\- High ratio of vegatables/fruit to meat

\- Less high-carb stuff, and always the low-gi versions (e.g. wholemeal/rye
bread, brown rice)

\- Eat what you enjoy. Find a balance between healthy and tasty you can live
with.

\- Indulging in stuff not on this list is serious business - it has to be
really good, and every mouthful should be savored. Remove the concept of a
"casual snack" from your life.

~~~
modeless
Fine, but personal diet anecdotes aren't what eavc is asking for. What
trustworthy sources are these decisions based on?

~~~
shib71
Unfortunately I have the same problem with sources as the original poster.
Nutrition science has become so sensationalized that it's hard to take any of
it seriously.

I take my cue mostly from an instinct developed over years of paying attention
to how my diet makes me feel. Stuff like CSIRO's book
[<http://www.csiro.au/science/TWD.html>] do influence that instinct - I feel
that their research is somewhat removed from the profit motive.

~~~
modeless
I prefer science to instinct. One human lifetime doesn't provide nearly enough
opportunities for diet experiments to determine all the correct answers for
yourself, even if you could separate real diet effects from personal bias, the
placebo effect, and other influences in your life.

~~~
rphlx
On the contrary, it only takes about 4 weeks to try a new protein/fat/carb
split. Try high protein and high fat, then fine tune whatever worked best for
you.

I agree you can't detect subtle long term health problems this way, though.

------
eavc
I'm surprised and disappointed at how many of the recommendations here are
pure anecdote, intuition, or folk wisdom.

If I wanted to eat based on common sense or a fad diet, I'd do so. I was
hoping to be pointed to something more scientific. Walter Willet's book is
probably a good recommendation, but Pollan (as well as Taubes) have so
impugned the track record of nutritional epidemiology that I think a resource
that directly responds to those attacks is necessary.

I suppose I can continue the search on my own, but it's kind of amazing that
with 74 comments in this thread, even a community as science-minded and
educated as this one is relatively in the dark about this stuff.

~~~
zoomzoom
I'm surprised that you are so naive about what being "science-minded" on this
issue means. There is so much variation in human physiology and digestive
tract composition that a universal "healthy" diet is probably even more
backwards of a notion than the USDA recommendations. What will be best for you
to eat needs to be determined by your experiments with various different diets
and will depend on how much you exercise and many other factors. Until we
understand more about the bacteria that live in our body and how we interact
with them, "science" is not going to be any better than folk wisdom. There is
nothing wrong with eating the foods that have proven to work over 100,000+
years of human society.

I see several themes in the advice on this thread - don't eat too much, eat
whole foods, and drink water. I have to say that this is probably the most
scientific advice you will find.

~~~
eavc
No need to be disingenuous. You don't know me from Adam, so your surprise is
just rhetorical. Mine was genuine and aimed at getting additional responses,
maybe responses more in line with the intent of the OP.

In adjacent sentences, you say that there are no probably no universals,
science can tell us nothing, but that we have certain foods that are proven to
work.

Yes, there are common themes in this thread, and that can be useful sometimes.
But there were common themes in popular opinion about flat earth, Adam's ribs,
and the four humors as well.

Again, without the context provided by an expert, things that are factually
incorrect can seem incredibly persuasive.

~~~
zoomzoom
Look - I think that my sparse history of commenting on HN says more than I can
express here about my stance on flame wars. I don't want to start one.

But this whole food issue is something that I feel quite strongly about. My
surprise is hardly rhetorical, and while I may have treated you as a straw man
for a moment, I think that the larger point is still valid. The attempt to get
scientific about eating strikes me as the problem, and I think that my post
was a response in line with the OP in that sense. What I am trying to tell you
is that I have been in your shoes; I have read all the books about diet; and I
think that asking for more books is not going to give you the answers that you
need.

Your anxiety is not caused by a lack of data - it is caused by an unhealthy
reliance on outside opinion for your mental stability. Nobody who is writing
the books knows enough to give you the answers that you want. Don't rely too
much on scientists and experts. The scientists invented the HFCS that is
giving us all diabetes and lay people in the 1400's didn't think that the
earth was flat - the "experts" did. I am not asking you to rely on common
themes or popular opinion - I am asking you to do some experiments and gather
data - try eating different foods and see what makes you feel best. Don't ask
a scientist what to do - become one.

~~~
eavc
Your strong feelings are evident. Thanks for taking the time to share your
viewpoint.

I disagree with much of what you say, but I want to let you know that I did
read it. Beyond that, we'll agree to disagree.

~~~
zoomzoom
Thanks. And while I am still thinking about it - you might be interested in
reading about Linus Pauling's take on nutrition and health. Something like
this book: [http://www.worldcat.org/title/vitamin-c-and-the-common-
cold/...](http://www.worldcat.org/title/vitamin-c-and-the-common-
cold/oclc/000107441).

------
vitobcn
This is the one I am following, and it's quite the opposite to the USDA
recommendations: * The Paleo Diet ( <http://amzn.com/0471267554> )

I don't know if that's the type of book you were looking for, but the authors'
arguments and conclusions are based on their own scientific research.

~~~
wvl
Yes. This intro (and the whole site) gives a good overview of what a Primal
diet entails: [http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-to-the-
prima...](http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-to-the-primal-
eating-plan/)

------
js2
The best answer I can give you is to spend some time on
<http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/> \-- Stephan's own diet (which you can
divine with a little reading) is based on his survey of food science. He
provides references for everything. The closest thing you'll find to a "diet"
is a list of real foods:

[http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/real%20fo...](http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/real%20food)

Good luck.

~~~
eavc
Cool. Thank you. Another good answer.

------
mbutson
I have been in your situation on many occasions. I have gone vegetarian,
vegan, omnivore, whatever you want to call it I have been there. It is a
questions that can never be finitely answered. Everyone is different and the
human body adapts to what it is given. (An eskimo community in Wales eats 90%
fat)

The most rewarding diet(I hate the term diet because it ensures only short-
term gain) that I have found is the Paleo Diet. <http://paleodiet.com/>
(horrible website I know)

Pretty much you just eat what you would expect to find hundreds of years ago.

Dean Karnazes(One of the best Ultra-Marathoners) swares by this diet. Here is
a PDF of his daily diet plan. <http://cl.ly/26c8cffdcda16a8dd212>

I pretty much follow that regular plan, I do also run marathons, but it is
definitely worth following in a normal phyical environment.

I would also reccomend the green smoothie. 7:3 fruit:greens ratio.

Usual Ingredients:

Strawberries Banana Water (Ice if you want it thicker) Greens

As you continue to get more accustomed to greens you can up the ratio. I LOVE
it.

Best of luck to you man. Don't let my opinion deter you from others. Although
I would NEVER follow Gary Taubes. He is also the guy who questions exercise.
That's just insane.

On that note. It is important to exercise. Start small, and do an activity
that you know you would enjoy.

~~~
adamtj
Dean Karnazes is not the best ultrarunner in the world. He's just the best at
personal marketing.

~~~
mbutson
Corrected. Thanks.

He is still a fucking beast.

------
Roridge
In layman terms: The body requires ATP for power, it is the rawest energy base
unit for your body and is produced from Carbohydrate.

Your body is a machine built for changing fat into carbohydrate and then into
ATP.

If you give your body too much carbohydrate it takes what it needs and
converts the rest into fat. The fat you eat is already fat, so it just stores
that too because it has already taken the raw carbohydrate it needs.

If you reduce your carbohydrate intake and eat more protein and fat (read "red
meat" but also chicken, pork, non root vegetables et cetera) then your body
will stop being lazy and start doing what it did for thousands of years before
we invented preservatives and microwaves and cocacola and take that fat and
make it into carbohydrate.

If you give your body less carbohydrate then you are doing it a massive
favour.

That said, everyone is as genetically different as they are similar, so what
works for some people wont work for others. For instance, Doctors are
currently researching a hormone that comes from your bowls that tells you that
you need carbohydrates, like all hormones they can over produce and make you
crave them even if you aren't hungry, and they are working on a blocker which
will help the super obese and probably reduce the need for any gastric band
surgery.

------
yason
The difficult thing is that it depends completely on the person.

Some might thrive on meat and vegetables while bread and wheat makes them lose
energy. Some really need the grain and the crops and meat makes them feel ill.
Some need something in between and some people balance themselves on a totally
different axis. Moreover, anything you crave for is probably bad for you at
that time.

Eating vegetables seems pretty universal. I've never heard of a person who
couldn't eat vegetables, sans extreme cases of sensitivy or allergies with
regard to specific produce. So, start with vegetables and add what you feel
like.

Personally, I buy fresh ingredients and cook most of my own food. Organic, if
available. Very little bread and if so, it's 100% rye: this one is easy in
Finland. No processed foods unless I'm enjoying the occasion of eating out and
can't really control where the stuff originally comes from.

------
larrywright
As a number of other people have pointed out, the prevailing opinion on what
is good and what is bad changes regularly. I'm inclined to go with Michael
Pollan's advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." as a good place to
start. Skip most processed foods (ie, anything in packaging). Also pass on
refined sugars (HFCS, etc). Drink lots of water instead of soda. Eat fresh
fruit, vegetables, lean meats, eggs, etc. If you live in an area with a
farmer's market, take advantage of it. Learning to prepare food for yourself
is very rewarding.

~~~
eavc
Yeah, that's sort of how I've been leaning as well, but Taubes's book tosses a
wrench in Pollan's indictment of animal proteins for me.

It would be nice to see direct treatment of each of these approaches by
someone with expertise.

------
leif
<http://whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/>

~~~
samstokes
I guess this is getting downvoted for being frivolous, but I think it's
actually relevant (as well as pretty funny). Cooking for yourself is a lot
healthier than always eating restaurant food, ready meals or takeaway. Of
course you have to cook balanced, healthy dishes; the linked site seems to
link mostly to such dishes.

~~~
anthonyb
Actually it mostly seems to link to "Sorry There has been an error processing
your request. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please try again later."

Could just be recipe.com though...

------
lionhearted
Start by trying to identify some foods that are clearly good for you and
increase how much you eat them. EX, oatmeal - fantastic food, almost
universally agreed to be healthy, and has no real potential downsides. Then
find foods that are clearly bad for you and decrease how much you eat them.
EX, Coca-Cola - pretty much no micronutritional value, all you're getting is
sugars and bad stuff.

That's the way forwards. There's some disagreement on certain places, but
definitely increase clearly good foods while reducing clearly bad foods, and
that'll be a good start.

~~~
thesnark
I would just like to point out that oatmeal has a glycemic index of about 50
(out of 100). That's for plain oatmeal with nothing added, not the instant
stuff or the sugar laden version most people end up with.

~~~
lionhearted
Ah yes, use whole oatmeal instead of instant oatmeal - it actually doesn't
take much longer to cook. Definitely stay away from the sugary junk.

The real advantage to oatmeal is that the fiber is quite high - this has many
advantages, a big one being that you'll feel full and satisfied for the first
part of the day. Also, 300 calories of oatmeal is 56 grams of carbohydrates,
but only 1 gram of sugar [1]. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think oatmeal
is pretty much all glucose-based carbs and fiber, which is the healthier form
of carbohydrate. (Fructose/sucrose/sugars being the worse form)

[1] <http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/breakfast-cereals/1597/2>

~~~
chipsy
The ratio of fiber/sugar is high, but by any other index(fiber/total carbs or
fiber/calories) it's terrible. (doesn't stop me from having it on rare
occasions though)

A complete picture of the benefits and drawbacks of oatmeal, like any other
food, has to acknowledge that:

-It's carb-heavy -The carbs are from grain and thus glutenous -Total nutrition is low(compared to say, an avocado)

------
koanarc
(I.A.NOT.A.Dietician/Nutritionalist, so more lay/anecdotal/armchair discussion
follows)

I've had the same problems in trying to sort out truth and nonsense, so I just
try to maintain an elementary understanding of the basic components of our
diets and experiment. List the fundamentals of human nutrition and spend a day
on wikipedia taking notes on what we _do_ know. My rules:

1\. Know my calorie requirements. How many to maintain current weight, to lose
weight, to gain weight?

2\. Pay attention to calorie ratios - Protein/Carbs/Fats. Am I working out
this week? Anaerobic or aerobic? Do I have extra energy stores right now? What
am I burning and what am I storing?

3\. Protein quality & diversity of protein sources. Highly bio-available
proteins? Simple or complex carbs, high or low GI? Saturated, mono-, or poly-
unsaturated fats? No trans fat.

4\. Vitamins and minerals. Where are the major gaps in my diet?

5\. As little processed food as possible.

There's plenty of information out there on these things. Do your own research.
Every week learn exactly what is in one particular food. See what works for
you, then eat what you're knowledgeable about and what makes you feel right.

------
ryanpetrich
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.

~~~
adnam
[http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t....](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t.html)

------
jscore
Easy.

Eat food that our bodies (as hunters and gatherers) are designed to consume.

\- no processed/fast/junk food

\- no soft drinks, etc

\- food that has low-gi carbs (quinoa, buckwheat, whole grains) to prevent
insulin spikes, etc. Insulin spike is fine after a heavy workout.

\- food heavy in fiber (such as whole grain food above)

\- my typical meal: side of veggies, quinoa and wild salmon

Do a month where you only drink water. I typically don't drink anything except
water or tea (green, etc).

I used to weight lift, so I researched heavily what kind of food I should be
consuming.

Sugar is pretty much your enemy due its insulin spikes and glycogen storage.
High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is evil.

~~~
sliverstorm
This idea of 'designed to consume' is ridiculous. We are omnivores, anything
that doesn't kill us on the spot is fair game.

Healthy is a different issue, but as omnivores we are 'designed' to eat
anything we can.

~~~
jscore
Our bodies are extremely resilient and can take a beating from crappy foods.
That's why such food 'does not kill us on the spot'.

That's the justification. If that suits you, that's fine--it's your health.

We are NOT designed to eat french fries made from genetically modified
potatoes.

We are NOT designed to consume soft drinks made from high fructose corn syrup
(HFCS).

Etc Etc

That stuff is not natural. Not for omnivores, herbivores, carnivores or any
other living organism.

~~~
sliverstorm
Of course we aren't designed to digest French fries and soft drinks. But to
say that, simply because our bodies were not created with the preconceived
notion of digesting them, we should not eat them, is silly.

I'm not saying we should eat them, but 'because we weren't designed to' is not
a relevant point. We sure as heck weren't intended to eat potatoes or wheat
either (rather impossible to eat without cooking, which hasn't been around
forever), and they leave the diet a little deficient, yet the Irish sure did
survive on them, and most of Europe built up on wheat. Would you condemn them
as fools for eating something that wasn't tailor made for their stomachs? I
applaud them for surviving and growing where food didn't previously exist.

French fries and soft drinks are terrible food, but the idea that there are
some small collection of 'right foods' that we existed especially designed to
eat is simply silly. The only time that sort of 'right food' idea is relevant,
is with some animals that can only get a given nutrient one way, or animals
that can only successfully hunt one type of prey.

------
tomhoward
I've generally adhered to a "paleolithic diet" this year and have seen a
steady improvement in my health. Meat, eggs, fish, vegetables.

More recently I've become wary of gluten, particularly its harmful effects on
the gut and on the Thyroid.

I found this article very enlightening: <http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-
gluten-thyroid-connection>

I'm now avoiding gluten altogether and plan to stay this way for several
months. So far the results are positive.

------
anguslong
Mark Bittman, food writer at NYT strikes a balance between food hyperbole and
science that appeals to me. (e.g. full appreciation of health, weight,
environment, pleasure trade-offs)

His personal goal of "vegan until 6" is an example. Veggies & fruit during the
day, then a balanced dinner with protein.

A bit more detail and links to his sources (books):
<http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/article967801.ece>

------
plesn
My personal first "contextualisation" about the food industry was a book
called "A Diet for a Small Planet" (the reedition, not the original one). I
liked it because it was the first time I saw some data and graphs about how
and why (hint: profit) our food production is plain wrong.

Now, I try to be as cheap and sane as I can, mostly by cooking more stuff
myself and eating more vegetables (non-industrial whenever possible).

------
grandalf
My take:

Nutrition is probably only about 20% of the picture. You should be exercising,
meditating, stretching, sleeping well, etc.

Humans can survive on all sorts of different foods. I think the optimal diet
contains lots of fresh whole fruit and veggies, kale, and a bit of meat and
fish.

Listen to your body. Does a food make you feel sluggish? Drugged? Energized?
Strong?

------
alexfarran
I recommend Eat Drink and Be Healthy for credible advice grounded in
scientific research [http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-
Harvard/dp/068486...](http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-
Harvard/dp/0684863375)

~~~
eavc
Thanks, Alex. Yours is one of the few answers in the entire thread that
attempts to give me what I'm looking for.

Do you know of any other resources that more directly address the criticisms
of nutritional science set forth by Taubes and Pollan?

~~~
alexfarran
No I'm afraid I haven't read either of those books. On a more general level I
recommend reading Bad Science and Trick or Treatment. They'll equip you with
the tools to form your own opinion on health issues.

~~~
eavc
Thank you.

------
mast
There are some interesting articles here:
<http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=207>

The author of the linked article, "What's for Dinner" favours Pollan's
approach.

------
tzs
I'd go with Pollan, as "In Defense of Food" contains extensive cites to
sources (including a lot of peer reviewed science journals) so you can check
for yourself if he's giving good information.

------
3fiddyz
Bacon, and lots of it :)

~~~
aantix
You don't know how right you are..

------
gensym
This doesn't need to be hard or confusing. Let's start with the basics -

* It needs to be tasty and satisfying, or you won't stick with it. Don't start with some extreme diet: e.g. "only raw food", "only stuff grown within 20 yards of your house", "No X where x is some macronutrient".

* Set a goal of eating zero processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't eat it. If it comes in a can and it isn't just preserved, pure veggies (e.g., canned tomatoes) or fish (e.g., sardines), don't eat it. What can be done in a typical kitchen is about the max amount of processing you should regularly tolerate.

Very few will argue with the above points, unless they have some sort of
agenda or ideology beyond just eating well. If that's all you do, you'll be
eating more healthily than the vast majority of Americans. You'll probably
feel better.

If you want to go further, you can:

* If you're going to eat animals, stick to animals that eat a diet for which they've evolved. i.e., prefer grass-fed beef to corn-fed.

* Prefer a variety of plants, and prefer plants that have been raised without chemical fertilizers or insecticides. We don't have enough data to know, but it seems likely that plants have evolved all sorts of chemicals to protect themselves from their environment that may also help protect us from their environment.

The theme of the above two points is- "let's not fuck with the diet that kept
humans alive since the development of agriculture and cooking. Let's let other
poor saps be the experimental subjects"

I also prefer to do things whose benefits are less obvious, such as eating
very little meat. That's likely healthy, but I do it more to be a decent
neighbor.

That's my reasoning, and how I eat. Changing to eat that way was surprisingly
easy and enjoyable, and I no longer feel like I need to change my diet. I
physically feel better: fewer headaches, better sleep, more energy, better
"digestion". When I started eating that way, I dropped 10 pounds without
trying (I wasn't overweight to begin with, and I'm not underweight now).

Here are the downsides - I expect them to apply to any reasonable diet:

* It's more expensive.

* It's more time-consuming. I cook more. I enjoy it, but it is less convenient.

* It's a challenge to not come across as a snob, especially when around less urban folks. I most frequently compromise on my diet when with family members.

* It's hard to eat that way outside of real cities. Produce at major supermarkets is frequently awful. Chain restaurants sell preprocessed garbage.

~~~
adrianwaj
Canned food is heated or cooked in the can and its plastic lining subsequently
leaks into the food.

------
shin_lao
Here's my diet which works very well for me:

\- I prefer fish to meat

\- I almost never eat red meat,

\- I organize my meals to eat fish/meat only once a day \- Lots of vegetables
and fruits

\- No desert, no cakes, no sweetie, no ice cream, no soda, no sugar (by "no" I
mean on very rare occasions)

\- Very little dairy products, especially no cheese at all. Milk is ok.

\- No butter, ever would it be directly or indirectly

\- No alcohol

\- Avoid processed food

\- Little or no bread

You need to understand there's no universally good diet, depending on the
individual some diet work well and some don't. What matters is to eat
different stuff and of good quality.

~~~
megablast
What do you mean by "it works very well for me"? It hasn't killed you yet?

~~~
wlievens
When I eat bad for a while, I feel unenergetic, I get sporadic bowel cramps
and headaches. When I eat consistenly healthy for a period, I really feel it.
Maybe he means that?

~~~
eavc
I'm addicted to refined carbs and caffeine and junk food, so when I don't eat
those for a while, I feel pretty awful.

How things feel doesn't always give you the best guidance, especially if
you're not good at tracking those things accurately.

------
adin
_The USDA recommendations are almost universally considered wrong, perhaps
even exactly backwards._

I'm not familiar with the USDA recommendations, but from quickly looking at
them[1] I can't see what would be so wrong.

[1] <http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm>

------
physicist
I try to restrict my intake of junk food. Apart from that, I believe a
-healthy- human body is capable of working well on all kinds of food.

------
Devilboy
I figure if you eat things that's been around for thousands of years you'll
probably be OK.

It seems that everyone agrees on:

\- Lots of fruit and vegetables

\- Legumes

\- Fish twice a week or more

\- Red meat but not for every meal

\- Avoid highly processed foods

\- Avoid dairy products

There doesn't seem to be any consensus on wheat products. Rice seems fine, and
potatoes too if you don't deep-fry them.

Of course nobody knows for sure what the optimal diet is, and I guess
'optimal' is also going to depend on your DNA and the specific mix of bacteria
you have in your gut right now.

Your body requires loads of different nutrients to live but many of them can
be synthesized in your body using other nutrients if need be. If you really
want the optimal nutrient mix you could always try cannibalism. Human flesh,
by definition, has the exact mix of amino acids and other nutrients your body
needs. Not sure if you should be cooking your human flesh or not though.

~~~
donaldc
Avoid dairy products is not something everyone agrees on.

~~~
risotto
My body sure agrees on avoiding dairy. I suppose I'm mildly lactose
intolerant, but once I stopped eating dairy I started feeling a lot better.
Less gas if nothing else.

Anecdotal for sure but most of the people I know who take diet seriously agree
that dairy is bad.

I also believe the saying that humans are the only animals that drink milk
after infancy.

~~~
bmj
We're also one of the few animals to actually prepare our food, too. Does that
mean we shouldn't do it?

~~~
Devilboy
Cooking just denatures the proteins. It doesn't change that much. And highly
processed food is indeed worse than fresh food.

~~~
philwelch
Some anthropologists think cooking changes everything--that the invention of
cooking was a vital step in human evolution:
[http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-
society/articles/i...](http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-
society/articles/invention-cooking-drove-evolution-human-species-new-book-
argues)

------
rubashov
Kurt Harris does a great job breaking it down.

<http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/>

I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Taubes. His main message is more that
carbohydrates are bad, and saturated fat is good.

------
tommynazareth
Fruit is delicious and digestible in its natural state. It attracts us with
its appearance and smell. It has incredible amounts of sugar and nutrients. We
should eat mangos and the like.

One very scientific book you can read is The China Study.

------
babyboy808
I personally believe we should be eating raw food. (plant based foods etc) and
not meat, although I still do :|

Some great points are:

\+ Look at our teeth, they are made for eating plants/veggies and not meat,
unlike lions etc.

\+ Cooked foods kill the nutrients, unlike eating raw organic food.

\+ Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant based foods,
compared to a meat eating anmial like a lion, they have a short digestive
tract, so they can process raw meat quickly.

\+ Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol.

Get this movie and watch it: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmV8b1wr10>

~~~
briandw
This is incorrect and naive. Our teeth evolved to eat a wide verity of things,
molars to chew plants, and incisors and canines to rip meat. Look at the diet
of chimps, they eat whatever they can get their hands on, meat included.

"Cooked foods are bad" is a crock. You can over cook foods, and maybe cooking
some foods is bad, but cooking increases the nutritional value of many foods.
Processing makes more nutrients available to the body. Humans don't have a
super efficient digestive system (despite your claims otherwise) and cooking
is one way to pre-digest. Besides the fact that cooking kills off critters so
you don't have to.

Meat might be the only source of cholesterol, but so what? Cholesterol doesn't
enter the body as cholesterol, it's broken down into fatty acid and glycerol,
the liver puts it back together later. You can be vegetarian and have high/bad
cholesterol. What you eat is only one part of the cholesterol story.

This "all food should be raw" crap is just reactionary, anti-science
ludditeism, as are parts of the "organic" movement, specifically the no GMO
part.

~~~
da5e
"specifically the no GMO part"

That's a huge unscientific leap to say that. We don't know GMO is safe. And
it's certainly not logical to say that concerns about them are crap.

~~~
Bdennyw
Whats more unscientific; genetics are scary and we should never intentionally
modify genes for our benefit, or lets investigate what can be done with this
new tool? I'd say that investigation and experimentation would be the
scientific thing to do.

~~~
da5e
Sure experimentation is great, but they're doing it on people. Those food
aren't even labeled as such in the markets in the US and the effect they are
having on agriculture is enormously problematic. e.g. Monstanto suing farmers.
And how do they modify those organism? With radiation. This is not your
father's brand of genetics.

