How good is the scientific understanding of nutrition?

Would take too long to talk about entire diets, but an ample supply of choline and long chain pufas can enhance brain development and protect against certain mental disorders (like schizophrenia) but increase the risk for age-related diseases like prostate cancer.

You can find similar stuff by researching the antagonistic pleiotropy of aging.

There's very few things that everyone agrees on when it comes to nutrition, but I do believe daily intake of Vitamin D is generally agreed upon as a good thing.
Vitamin D is associated with -
Lowering your risk for colorectal cancer
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17296473
Lowering risk for cardiovascular disease
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18574092
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20031348
Increasing bone density (elderly)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307517
Reduced chance of getting influenza A (children)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20219962

It's in fatty fish and egg yolks. Vegans are going to need supplementation unless they eat a ton of mushrooms treated with UV rays daily.

Talking about supplements: what are your opinions on them? It seems like you need a highly specialized diet if you want to get all nutrients.

>Vegans are going to need supplementation
White people produce vitamin D when exposed to sunlight though

true, but white people account for only 20% of the world's population... but then again I bet that the world's vegan population is probably 90+% white, so you do have a point there.

A couple years ago, I had this same question OP and stared to do online research, on popular fitness sites, medical sites, and academic journals. I was surprised and appalled at how little we understand about nutrition. It seems there is no consensus on even some basic assumptions, such as how harmful fats are or are not. Even sodium effects seem more dependent on an individual's makeup than on absolute levels. Heck, even alcohol intake seems an open question besides liver issues.

About the only thing there seems to be agreement on is that refined sugar is poisoning us.

I'll get crucified for saying this on here, but it should be a much higher priority to study nutrition and physiology than space travel and particle physics.

Supplements are mostly useless. Mostly... but there are exceptions.
examine.com/
The above website goes in-depth with almost every single supplement on the market and uses science to back up its claims. The consensus is that most shit just simply doesn't do anything. There's also tons of nutrition faq's on there with science-based answers.
But the sad truth is that you'll find that is right. We don't know shit.

>examine.com/
Who runs this site anyway? How do you know their study selection is unbiased and exhaustive?

I am kinda shocked how hard to come by some nutrients are. Like Calcium. It looks like you need a specialized diet to get the recommended daily amount.

>I am kinda shocked how hard to come by some nutrients are. Like Calcium. It looks like you need a specialized diet to get the recommended daily amount.
Idiot. Look at the amount of calcium in the quite commonly available egg shells or bone. Humans would have had no trouble acquiring either, and likely little qualms with consuming them.

How many white people spend at least half an hour a day in the sun with proper skin exposure to UV and live in a place that has adequate sunlight year round?

And the idea that only vegans need Vitamin D supps is a joke.

nutritiondata.self.com/foods-000102000000000000000.html

nutritiondata.self says the top food for Vitamin D content is atlantic herring, 2000 IU IS a lot, some other fish like salmon it says have about 900-1000 per serving, Again, decent. But nobody really eats much fish, and these are some pretty niche fish that most people do not really enjoy eating either. And this is per serving, these are pretty good servings, for a meat so rich.

A person maxes out at 10,000 IU of vitamin D per day from UV light. Who eats 5 servings of herring a day?

Without adequate UV light exposure, which most North Americans and many Europeans (even white ones) are not getting, you do not have optimal Vitamin D levels. Not exactly deficient, but not ideal for health.

Supplementation is necessary, or exposing yourself to UV (e.g. tanning bed or actually spending good amount of time outside, depending on where you are though, this is not an option in some months), or going out of your way to eat 5 servings of salmon a day (blegh).

5 servings of salmon a day is an express ticket to mercury poisoning.

I agree that vitamin D supplementation is probably a good idea for anyone who works indoors, especially for darkies living outside of africa. Don't really understand its relevance to vegans to be frank.

From their site:
examine.com/about/

>Director
>Kamal Patel is a nutrition researcher with an MPH and MBA from Johns Hopkins University, and is on hiatus from a PhD in nutrition in which he researched the link between diet and chronic pain. He has published peer-reviewed articles on vitamin D and calcium as well as a variety of clinical research topics. Kamal has also been involved in research on fructose and liver health, mindfulness meditation, and nutrition in low income areas.

>Disclosure
>Examine.com is an unbiased nutrition and supplement resource. We are not influenced by commercial interests, product manufacturers, or any other organization, and we will not advertise products or brands. Examine.com does not accept donations, third-party funding, or sponsorship of any kind. One hundred percent of our revenue is generated through our three products: the Examine.com Research Digest, Supplement-Goals Reference, and the Supplement Stack Guides

They make their money by compiling information, however the information on their site is free. Seriously just look something up and you'll see the type of information they give. They aren't going to claim anything without citing a peer reviewed double blind study. And if they claim something from an uncontrolled or observational study, they will make that clear as well. It's an extremely transparent site with tons of info, but I encourage you not to take my word for it and to find that out for yourself.

The relevance for vegans was mentioned since there are few sources of Vitamin D that are vegan. Fish, eggs, fortified milk, cheese, beef liver, etc..

>few sources of Vitamin D that are vegan.
Sunlight is vegan afaik. Coincidentally the major source of vitamin D.

Wow they say they're unbiased and not influenced by commercial interests. Nobody lies on the internet right?

It is hard because it is one of the few things that can't be a science because you can't even reproduce the same results in the same person half the time simply due to them aging, let along reproduce the same results in other people or people in other cultures or in different races. The human body is way too unstable for it.

However, no one is rushing to test any of the scientific studies that have already been done. There's no money in doing that after all.

The best you can do it to eat as little processed foods as possible and eat it as close to its original form as possible and stay away from "diets".

You can get lots of D2 from mushrooms, but not D3. Sunlight is D3 and the best bet. You only need like 15 mins 2-3 times a week, of sunshine, to get enough D3 for over a month.

health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/chapter-1/a-closer-look-inside-healthy-eating-patterns/

As recommended by the IOM,[24] individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible while consuming a healthy eating pattern.

isnt this essentially saying everyone should go vegan??

>individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible
Hasn't this been found to be bullshit?

>Hasn't this been found to be bullshit?

It really depends on what company is lobbying the government at the time.

Good times. I hope the next grand experiment preemptively bans corporate lobbying in its equivalent of a constitution

Like I said, everything they claim on their reports is backed up by links to scientific studies with full disclosure. It's very easy to make a sarcastic straw-man argument against them, but the truth is that it would be very hard for them to lie given the nature of the information they supply,

yes
US gov is just very slow to change their view on nutrition and such

US is slow and retarded, like FDA takes 10 years to approve drugs and food product

>like FDA takes 10 years to approve drugs and food product

That really depends on how much you are lobbying them and who is on their payroll that used to work for you.

They could simply cherry pick studies really

just chiming in to agree that examine.com is probably the best resource out there right now. they cite their sources, don't flog products, and are near exhaustive. i understand caution about reliable info ojnline, but i'l take examine over any other site out there.

is it just one guy in this thread shouting this lobbying meme? god damn.

Given I'm one of them I'd say there's at least two. Are you claiming corporate lobbying don't real?

No, these are mine,

I can't help that it is true. More in the world is influenced by money than anything else.

bump

desu just eat meat/not meat 1:2 on your fucking plate and eat until you're full 3x a day and dont always eat the same and you're totally fine

The problem with nutrition is that it carries a ton of political/financial/social/emotional baggage that encourages bad studies and misinterpretations.

People don't like being told that their favorite foods are unhealthy.
Corporations don't like being told their products are unhealthy.
You can make a lot of money twisting evidence to say it actually is healthy.

People want miracle foods that will get rid of their acne and give them a bigger dick.
People want to feel edgy, like they're part of a small group that knows what's REALLY good for you, unlike the government/mainstream media/plebs/etc.

See keto/low carb/meme foods like coconut oil/Peat/Paleo/kinds of veganism
Some of these are definitely better than the standard american diet, but they do in some ways depend upon the secret knowledge/food you like is good for you/miracle cure/corporate studies

enjoy cancer idiot lol

meat protein should be as rare as candy in a good diet

spotted the college retard

t. vegan

So how much fiber do you need?

One site says 38g, other says 30, another says 25, a different one says 14g per 1000kcal.

So who is right? Since fiber isn't a nutrient it would make sense to me that it would depend on your calorie intake.

idgaf about good diets. I eat so I feel comfortable, I work out fromt time to time and so far Im perfectly healthy. I only lack a bit of magnesium from time to time.
fuck off with your hipster shit

No. It is 100% run by the food industry. Once again politics has hurt science.

Bump.

>1/2

The literature is out there, but registered dieticians tend to be uneducated in their respective field.

Here is a general overview of nutrition if you are interested:

Calories supply the body with energy and come from 3 sources: proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. Proteins are not metabolized for energy as efficiently as fats and carbohydrates, and thus fats and carbs make are the main source of energy. Fats and carbs are basically interchangeable as neither are actually essential, There are a few exceptions however, for example carbohydrates are essential in small amounts, but they can be synthesized via gluconeogensis if there are no dietary carbohydrates. Polyunsaturated fatty acid metabolites are required in small amounts. This is why fish oil supplements are praised by the media, the typical western diet lacks essential OMEGA 3 metabolites EPA and DHA.

So basically, eat lots of protein so it can do protein functions. Neither fat nor carbs are inherently bad, although many modern diet approaches favor extremes. For example, the keto and atkins diets emphasize low carb, high fat, whereas the USDA and most registered dieticians recommend high carb/ low fat approaches. What appears to have an inherently negative effect on health is gaining weight. Blood lipids tend to be negatively impacted when gaining weight, though this may depend on specifically what is being eaten.

SUGAR
Sugar is shit on by the media and I often here to it referred to as >nutritionless.
This is a hilariously uninformed attitude as sugar is literally a nutrient. Most sugars will be metabolized as glucose, and so their isn't really a major difference on weather the sugar is complex or simple. Complex sugars appear to have some advantages over excessive consumption of simple sugars, but overall sugar is not the devil.

>2/2

Sugars or fats tend to be used as a scapegoat for multitudes of health problems, including cancers and whatever else the Michelle Obama is pissed off at today. This doesn't make sense logically. as I have said before sugars and fats are our sources of energy.

I believe the issues with obesity and poor dieting stem from misunderstanding of what entails a proper diet. Fats and fibers keep food in the gut longer, allowing for longer satiation, and prevent overeating. Snacks that are high in high fructose corn syrup are not bad because of high fructose corn syrup itself, but because they are not balanced. The majority of these snacks are 99% carbs, and as a result they are not filling. Then people can binge on 2000 calories of it in one sitting. Furthermore, caloric beverages do not appear to provide long term satiation as does a more nutritious drink such as milk (milk contains fats, carbs, and proteins). Thus they allow for excess calories to be consumed with relatively minimal effort. The western diet also lacks some essential nutrients, such as EPA/DHA as I stated before. I will also go out on a limb and say the average adult does NOT eat enough protein. A healthy adult male should be eating far more than the USDA recommend 50g a day.

Anyone have any questions before I head off to the gym?

>Anyone have any questions

>ITT THE PROBLEM OF INDUCTION

I will never get an answer to this won't I?

Monks in mount Athos - eat little to no food mainly vegetables with some sea food.

A great deal of them only eat dried bread once or twice / day and live much longer than the average - also have little to no cancer or diseases.

I recommend reading"Professor John Judkin's book PURE WHITE AND DEADLY,the title speaks for itself.

Could the air have something to do with it and how devoid of stress their life is?

There is another issue: D from fish is not the same D as the one the skin produces. The only thing that seems to actually produce D3 is what... schrooms exposed to sunlight?
So eating fish or drinking cod oil would make you healthier, and increase your gain from sunlight. Or so it would appear.

Sunlight still needs some substances to be in the skin, in order to make the conversion work.

Most likely their ability to digest is either insane from their diet, or they literally drown their nutritional sorrows in alcohol.

What I don't understand is why so many Asians get diabetes. Even Indians who are veggan.

latimes.com/health/la-me-asian-americans-diabetes-20160419-story.html

I'd say around 40g a day, but daily fiber intake needs to be kept constant. So if you're currently eating 15g a day you should slowly work your way up. You will shit your brains out by increasing fiber intake by too much in too short a period of time

>I'd say around 40g a day

How did you arrive at this number?

And how do you get so much without eating wheat or legumes?

>how did you arrive at this number
Their isn't much data on fiber. It just seems to be a good number. But as I said before, consistency is more important.

>without eating wheat or legumes
you eat wheat and legumes

>you eat wheat and legumes

But I've seen advice against eating wheat and legumes.

He didn't. And even inside fiber, the general trend seem to be
Sourdough > Mixed Grains > Whole > Fine/white

Why would mixed grains be better than whole?

I wish people would explain their statements.

Different grains have different nutrition profiles. Different grains digest differently.
The main reason sour dough is listed so high, is that we had the entire span from developing bread to modern to adapt to its nutrition profile. Which by itself means beer yeast made bread is "too hard" for bread eaten normally, or at the least the gluten.

I think I agree with you, whole is superior to mixed. Or in worst case its Whole mixed = Whole > Mixed

Those are the bullshit extremist attitudes. I'm assuming you are referring to the paleo and keto dudes. They base their claims on fallacious logic which assumes that our ancestral diet did not include them, therefore they are harmful. The facts are this: wheat and legumes will be digested like any other foods for their macro and micronutrients: fat, carbs, protein, vitamins and minerals. As I said before, nutrient composition is a FAR more important factor than the food source itself.

The paleo-dudes like to ignore research and ascertain that they have any idea what the ancestral diet was composed of.

Here is a simplified example of their fallacious logic applied to enhance the point I am making:

Cavemen didn't have antibiotics, therefore antibiotics we should not use antibiotics.

See what I mean?

salmon doesn't accumulate mercury, it's tuna that does that

So how true is this?

1/?

>1 low nutritional value
This point they are making demonstrates a poor understanding of nutrition. A macronutrient refers to fat, carbs, or protein. Legumes have all 3, therefore saying low in nutritional value is simply wrong. However, I believe they particularly mean micronutrients, but literally get those from every single thing you eat, and this includes legumes. Also, a vitamin supplement can cover micronutrient requirements.

>2 phytates
I've never actually heard of a phytate before, but I can tell you this. Fiber can decrease absorption of nutrients as well, yet it has multitudes of health benefits. This "reason" they give does not state how much it may impair nutrient absorption, nor what nutrient absorption would be impaired. This sounds shaky to me, so I wouldn't trust it unless you can find some studies to back up their claim.
After a quick wiki reading of phytic acid it seems as though it would impair micronutrient absorption, not macros. So, I would go ahead and say that this may be somewhat truthful, but the research is not detailed enough, however it seems as though this would simply reduce absorption, not inhibit. Therefore, phytic acid should NOT be an issue if proper diet and vitamin supplementation is achieved. Don't worry about it.

>3 lectins
They literally say that this won't be an issue if you cook them, so I'm not even going to bother looking this up. I remember hearing about it years ago and believing there was some truth to it, but like I said with phytates this is likely just something so minor and minimal that you should not be concerning yourself with it unless you are eating 5 pounds of legumes a day.

>4 protease inhibitors
as I said before, just EAT ENOUGH protein, I cannot see how this would be an issue unless it was coupled with a nutritionally deficient diet. Also, you will only have allergic reactions IF YOU ARE ALLERGIC. which you probably aren't.

2/?

>5 carbs stall weight loss
kek. This is just completely wrong. Carbohydrates provide 4 calories per gram. Weight loss/gain is dependent on caloric intake, plain and simple. 400 calories of carbs provide the same amount of energy as 400 calories of fat. Neither will make you gain more weight than the other. Now, this is a bit of a generalized statement, as calories from protein and a daily caloric excess can promote muscle gain when coupled with exercise, so the types of calories would affect what is gained in this scenario. However, it seems as though carbs and fats are generally interchangeable as caloric sources as long as their is balance (i.e no extreme leaning toward one nutrient over the other, for reasons I beyond the scope of this post). This is reason is complete nonsense.

>6 phytoestrogens
Okay this one I actually believe is true, but phytoestrogens are in many other things in your daily life. Plastics, so water bottles. Possibly even your water supply. Like phytates and lectins, this is not significant enough of a reason to avoid eating legumes.

>7 cans contain BPA
This is essentially reason 6 spelled out in a different manner so as to appear as a 7th reason. The issue with BPA is that it IS a phytoestrogen. And obviously if you don't get canned legumes it may not have BPA. This is NOT a good reason to avoid legumes, but rather cans containing BPA.

>8 protein isn't as good
This is somewhat true, but not an issue if you have a balanced diet. Legumes typically do not contain complete proteins, meaning their proteins do not contain all the essential amino acids that humans require. Obviously, this simply means you need to have balance in your diet and eat foods that do have complete proteins, such as milk and meat. Notice how they say that this is only an issue if you are vegan. That is because those diets typically do not contain sources of complete proteins. Of course, you can medically supplement these.

3/3

>9 saponins
They seem to keep bringing up "leaky gut" which sounds vaguely familiar, but I'm going to go ahead and do a quick google search for you. From wikipedia
>Leaky gut syndrome is a hypothetical, medically unrecognized condition which some alternative health practitioners claim is the cause of a wide range of serious chronic diseases, including diabetes, lupus, and multiple sclerosis
>The "leaky gut" hypothesis is vague and largely unproven, and the scientific community continues to debate whether "leaky gut syndrome" exists at all. There is no credible evidence that any chronic diseases are caused by a "leaky" gut, nor that any remedies marketed for its treatment bring the benefits they claim.
Okay, this is obviously just not factual. This should help you to understand how wrong this infographic is.

>10 fodmaps
Sorry, but I don't know much about these. I read about them years ago, but it just seemed like incomplete science. It may have some validity and if you are interested I encourage you to look for studies.

Tl;DR
>this infographic is bullshit. It is based mostly on false and unsupported claims. Do not be scared of legumes, modern health issues come from generally poor nutrition and lack of exercise, not from specific food sources. To answer your question, this infographic is not true in the slightest.

They are accurate (insomuch as you believe the labeling), in that, yes, an ounce of the stuff heats up predictably.

They are meaningless, in that the body makes rapid chemical changes in food from the time it touches your tongue on.

For instance, potato chips... Your average package reads maybe 14g of Carbs per serving, yes? Doesn't sound that bad?

The problem is, it's thinly fried starch, which turns to sugar as soon as it mixes with your saliva... So the real number is closer to 48g of sugar per serving.

Sour Cream, 0 carbs, right? Wrong, guess what lactose turns into?

Calories similarly change as some substances break down easier in bodily chemicals than others. Calories only measure how much energy it takes to burn. Not what your body chemistry does with it.

All in all, nutritional labels are fairly meaningless, and sadly, the food industry means to keep them that way, and kinda discourages any science on the subject, save that which is in their favor. The remainder of nutritional science is done by "anti-corporate" hippies that think anything natural is good, just because it is natural - ignoring the fact that Mandrake is natural. ...Thus the whole field of nutrition is pretty damned broken in both directions.

Sadly, no idea how to fix that.