[ExI] new nutrition thread
William Flynn Wallace
foozler83 at gmail.com
Wed Sep 2 13:59:29 UTC 2015
In any event, like I've been suggesting, looking at individual studies
doesn't seem very productive. I think we need a broader framework to make
sense of the aggregate data about diet and health.
Let's face it: we are just climbing out of the dark ages in medicine (and
psychology, to be truthful). What was poo-poohed 30 years ago is accepted
wisdom today (but may be poo-poohed 30 years from now). And the medical
profession is quite conservative, as it should be, though it takes too long
to see the truth sometimes.
As much as I love learning about people, if I had to do it over again I'd
go into microbiology. As we are just now realizing, microbes control far
more of what we are and what we do than we now know. And they can evolve
in such an incredibly short time.
Nanotechnology is not just machines: it's creating new microbes, or using
'old' ones, to make chemicals, to fight other microbes, and much much more.
This is the future of medicine. The current use of antibiotics will in the
future look extremely primitive, about on the level of drinking willow bark
tea. Will probiotics be added to our food?
Thanks for the thanks, Brian. Too rare on this site. bill w
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 6:01 AM, Brian Manning Delaney <
listsb at infinitefaculty.org> wrote:
> El 2015-08-30 a las 20:18, Jason Resch escribió:
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:29 AM, Brian Manning Delaney
>> <listsb at infinitefaculty.org <mailto:listsb at infinitefaculty.org>> wrote:
>> This study confirms that eating saturated fat raises HDL and LDL levels,
>> which is true. But what wasn't appreciated at the time of the diet-heart
>> hypothesis is that there are many types of LDL, and that the kind of LDL
>> particle that is raised by intake of saturated fat isn't one of the
>> harmful ones.
> Not clear, but could be.
> Another worth reading:
>> Interesting. Thanks for sharing. I am of the opinion that MCT's (medium
>> chain length triglycerides) are among the healthiest calorie sources
>> available to us, and also that PUFA are in-general less healthy than
>> SFA. PUFA are longer chain lengths than most SFA, so there is perhaps
>> something to longer chain fatty acids being progressively less healthy.
> That's my educated guess, but there might be a "sour" (that is, opposite
> of sweet) spot around 14:0 and 16:0, with longer-chained SFAs actually not
> being /quite/ as bad as 14:0 and (especially) 16:0. But context may also
> matter. (Search PubMed for [ palmitic acid cholesterol ] and note the
> studies indicating how context -- presence of non-animal ω-6, for ex. --
> alters the hypercholesterolemic effect of palmitic acid.)
> We don't know very much. In a few decades there'll likely be another Gary
> Taubes-like "oops we were drinking Kool-Aid" moment, but this time about
> something else, or in the opposite direction of Taubes's schtick.
> In any event, like I've been suggesting, looking at individual studies
> doesn't seem very productive. I think we need a broader framework to make
> sense of the aggregate data about diet and health.
> And, far more importantly, at least for me -- as I noted in the thread
> "Online health trackers/storage [Was: Old Nutrition Studies]" -- I would
> love a health tracking system that could handle tons of data and find
> correlations I miss between dietary changes and markers of health. Then,
> the interpretation of the studies becomes less important (to the extent
> that the markers of health I'm using have been sufficiently validated, for
> which, of course, some of those difficult to interpret studies are needed!).
> - Brian
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat