Why hasn't science determined what food is optimal for human health...

Propaganda? Who would possibly benefit from peddling this sort of information? Rethink your diction.

I wouldn't cut off carbohydrates, something that people used to think was essential to brain function, without researching it.

>fat (worthless)
nigga what
Dietary fat is not the same as body fat. There are processes in your body that actually need some dietary fat to work properly, including your endocrine system.

If you want to have a serious dicussion about food additives, I'm all up for that and can shed some light. If you want to spam a bunch of stupid comments and regurgitate crap you read on "Dr." Mercola's website and FoodBabe, please proceed to hang yourself.

What exactly are you concerned with regards to food processing, unit operations, and chemistry of food additives?

Yes, I meant it is worthless nutritionally and functionally. Protein is necessary. Cane sugar has no nutrients but simple sugars raise metabolism.

If you want to eat a protein-meat diet, fine. But at least cut out polyunsaturated fat raypeat.com/articles/articles/unsaturated-oils.shtml

I don't have time to convince you he's right, his website has very long, dry articles about nutrition.

In short, you need sugar as the main macronutrient to maintain good gut health. That is what prevents disease and stress.

>telling people to kill themselves and using about 14 buzzwords to up your internet-IQ

kill yourself my pertinacious acquaintance

No. This is my field of study, and can provide information amd refer you to a number of sources. Now, do you have any questions regarding food processing or not?

Because it looks to me like you have nothing to contribute.

>field of study

Give proof and I'll give you questions. If you're wondering why I ask for proof, my field of study is quantum dildo communication.

I'mdefinitely the one looking out for you, not the other way around.

>Humans are meant to eat as our ancestors did.

No. our ancestors, especially those after the Australopithecus bottleneck ate almost exclusively fish, fruits, and starchy vegetables - not the "fibrous greens," almost all of which require extensive processing and cooking before being nutritionally accessible.

I won't go against you on the processed carbs, Though the cancer claims are from a epidemiological study, which are notoriously bullshit.

I'm also not saying that greens are bad, they're really good for you, but pretending like it's "muh paleo diet" is bullshit.

No. Milk has very few useful nutrients to humans, and given that most humans are lactose intolerant (on some level, before some faggot decides to (you) me), you could say that we are actively supposed to not drink milk. in addition, fat is not worthless, it's critical in diets, especially in children undergoing brain development.

Aside from every word, you're right.

Milk has everything except C, an abundance of sugar, protein and calcium. Nobody is lactose intolerant, they just need to warm the milk up and they can suddenly digest it. Or improve thyroid. Or take it in small doses and gradually increase.

Too much fat is unnecessary, 1% milk is safe.

greens are bad, they slow metabolism, have almost no calories, mostly fiber, and inhibit calcium absorption.

Stop being a know-it-all, you prove OP's point

let this be the final reply. any reply after this is a rogue

What about reds, I just ate some red pepper

i think they drink milk to

You need more blues tbqh senpai

Bullshit.

>Milk Has everything except vitamin C
No Iron
No Potassium
No Copper
No Manganese
No Vitamin K
No Vitamin E
Virtually No Niacin
Virtually No B6
Virtually No Folate

The list goes on.

Guess what does have these things? Greens, Meat, fish, starchy vegetables.

But I'll give you one thing - Milk does contain estrogen. enjoy your limp dick and bitch tits.

>Nobody is lactose intolerant, they just need to warm the milk up and they can suddenly digest it. Or improve thyroid. Or take it in small doses and gradually increase.

Bullshit. give me one peer reviewed paper saying as much.

>Too Much Fat is unecessary

Never said that it wasn't. milk-fat is just particularly bad.

>greens are bad, they slow metabolism, have almost no calories, mostly fiber, and inhibit calcium absorption.

also bullshit. some greens are exceptional sources of calcium. and everything needs to be cooked to be bio-available. even milk.

what are you, a skeleton shill?

What about semen?

>nuts, seeds, and beans are bad
Lmfao

Meat is the optimal food for our species, its the only type of food you can eat exclusivelly without having a major deficit.
However eating steaks 24/7 is not optimal, an optimal diet is a different matter.
>it strongly depends on the person
Under physiological conditions this is false.

>Nowhere else on Earth outside of Europe ever domesticated dairy cattle, which is why white people in large are not lactose intolerant.
You fucking idiot, India, Sri Lanka and Africa have domesticated cows for centuries.
In the case of India, Indus Valley Civilisation has had records of cows being domesticated and worshipped.

Cause there is an entire industrie around what we eat that makes millions of dollars, the people who handle our food also invest in science research and fund our education

My dog eats the same food every day, why is this not a thing for humans?

>I'm 400 pounds and just heard about keto and I'm only 2 weeks in but it's working great! Thanks reddit for giving me the support I need!

>fat is nutritionally and functionally worthless

what are hormones
what are fat soluble vitamins

You say all this yet you're wrong about everything.

Iron is bad for you.

Milk has no estrogen.

Try to warm your milk up and prove it.

Greens have all the negatives I mentioned.

you're wrong about it all but you're confident in your opinion

That's why I linked Ray Peat. He did the research, doesn't try to profit at all and he doesn't have a diet, people had to study his writings and figure out what food is best to eat. See my OP pic.

According to USDA Database (and other sources), using IOM RDA/AI for 2400 kcal male, producer milk (3.7 % fat) has:

Potassium: 5663/4700 mg (more than required)
Copper: 0.38/0.9 mg (42 %)
Iron: 1.875/8 mg (23 %)
Manganese: 0.15/2.3 mg (6.5 %)
B3: 3.15/16 mg (20 %)
B6: 1.575/1.3 mg (more than required)
B9: 188/400 mg (47 %)
E: 1.7 or 2.3 /15 mg (11 % or 15 % depending on source)
K: 7.7/120 mcg (6,4 %).

Those are not zero. Two of those are more than enough.

Although I agree with you in the future drop the 'peer reviewed paper' meme. Anybody here who's actually submitted a paper for peer review knows all that review does is check for basic errors.

Papers and their findings are only ever confirmed if you can replicate the process in the paper and arrive at the same conclusion.

>No. our ancestors, especially those after the Australopithecus bottleneck ate almost exclusively fish, fruits, and starchy vegetables - not the "fibrous greens," almost all of which require extensive processing and cooking before being nutritionally accessible.

I would like to read up on this. Could you provide me with some scientific article sauce?

Literally everything causes cancer
Meat, fruit, and vegetables have been linked to cancer
Stop pushing the paleo meme

Humans can eat dog food too

Why the fuck what we eat matters?
Literally all food on earth are essentially made of the same chemicals which break down to the same constituents in out stomachs or further digestion mechanisms. Lipids, fatty acids, all aliphatic chains, proteins all made of the same 20 something amino acids, vitamins, we don't even almost need them that's how little they are required, minerals and water, sure get these from literally anything including water itself. What we eat really shouldn't matter

I have nothing to do with the other guy but I want to learn some up to date information about nutrition in general. Could you refer me to a source that enables me, someone who has never looked into the subject, to understand the subject on a practical level?

Every thread about nutrition on Veeky Forums is a total shitshow rife with pseudoscience and bullshit people heard from someone who sounded authoritative but was actually a bullshitter too.

is mexican coke different from other ones?

this seems like high grade bait

Remember to not eat meat.
It takes out all the calcium and iron from your bones to get processed
No seafood either; full of toxins, metals and parasites
Throw away dairy, milk and seeds; absolutely no nutritional values, all they do is get you fat, tired and ruin your hormonal system
Potatoes, nuts and beans - useless carbs
Greens are just empty fibers, clogging your intestines
Eggs - bad cholesterol and nothing more
Fruits - dangerous acid and sugar, ignore them
Sugar - suicide

That's about it.

Its not because we can't, its because we don't want to.

You are wrong. Nutrition is a shit science because so many studies are inherently flawed. It's incredibly difficult to exactly control someones diet. Most effects of bad or good diet appear over long periods of time and aren't always a factor. At the end of the day we are only sure of a few things such as pretty much in this order. Simple carbs bad, Trans fats bad, low fiber bad, pufas probably bad, vitamins and minerals good.

Speck for your self pal

>pufas probably bad
except every mainstream health organization in the world has concluded the exact opposite

>>pufas probably bad
>except every mainstream health organization in the world has concluded the exact opposite
Is this like how they all concluded that dietary cholesterol correlates with blood cholesterol, or that saturated fat is bad, or that refined carbs should be the main constituent of the diet?

>dietary cholesterol correlates with blood cholesterol
correct, up until a point where intestinal cholesterol transporters are saturated

>or that saturated fat is bad
at excessive intakes yes

>or that refined carbs should be the main constituent of the diet
now you're just making shit up

Veganism is 100% scientifically the best diet for humans.

Im that guy. Im not a nutrionist, and my training is in chemistry, currently doing a postgrad degree in food science in east coast.

I can refer you an EXCELLENT book, it is Fennema's Food Chemistry, and it is the bible for food chemists. It has extensive information on edible muscle tissue, edible plant tissuea, milk, carbohydrates, fats, proteins, enzymes, vitamins, and minerals as well as a number of important interactions and reactions between these macromolecules.

Every chapter addresses most nutritional concerns from a chemistry stand point. If you got any specific questions I can shed some light on them or search my other texts

You are wrong about chemicals breaking down all the way. They don't. For example, there are 2 essential fats (ALA and LA) and we will die without them. Same goes for all the vitamins you eat. They are obviously not broken down to anything when you eat them, otherwise they wouldn't be taken in by the body and used in cells.

Proteins mostly do break down to amino acids, but you still need those amino acids.

There's way too few minerals in any natural or man made water (except for maybe those liquids they pump into your veins in hospitals) for you to survive on them alone. Like several orders of magnitude for most minerals.

There's also the question of how much you are getting stuff relative to each other, so that also makes a difference to what you eat. And then there's all the stuff that you shouldn't eat or eat too much, like mercury in fish and solanine in potatoes/tomatoes and cyanide in apples and all those nasty murderous mushrooms. Too much sugar is also bad for you.

So I read that you need 1000mg of calcium a day. I also read something about Vitamin D and K2 and how certain foods can inhibit the absorption of calcium.

Anyways it seems to me like there are so many interdependencies that you need to be a nutritional scientist to be able to come up with a diet that will give you all the nutrients you need.

So do only very few people get all the required nutrients? How can you even tell if you lack some for sure? Like magnesium. There are supplements but are they really good for you?

What do you think about this?

health.harvard.edu/womens-health/getting-your-vitamins-and-minerals-through-diet

>
>>dietary cholesterol correlates with blood cholesterol
>correct, up until a point where intestinal cholesterol transporters are saturated
Mmmm

Calcium recommendations are probably way off.

Chinese and other non-dairy people have intakes around 300-600 mg calcium per day and they do just fine. Especially when it comes to osteoporosis.

The high recommendation probably comes from the fact that many white people live in high latitudes and get way too little vitamin D and probably too little K2. Both of which are required for calcium to be effective.

IIRC Finland has the highest consumption of milk per capita and also the highest amount of osteoporosis. (Milk has huge quantities of calcium, 1200 mg per liter). We also have lots of heart disease (I'm thinking the calcium deposits itself into our veins and not in our bones, K2 addition would help with this).

I think there's a law being passed against raising children vegan in this state.

>>pufas probably bad
>except every mainstream health organization in the world has concluded the exact opposite
??

For myself I think its fitting that when we started saying saturated animal fat was bad and processed vegetable oils humans couldn't have eaten in large quantities until we developed industrial processes, and carbohydrates, should replace these fats, everyone became obese and got diabetes.
Really makes you think

looking at the article cited

>it might well be that they underestimated the effect of increases in dietary cholesterol on serum lipids when baseline cholesterol intake is low. This is suggested by an earlier meta-analysis conducted by Paul Hopkins (1992). In contrast to other groups, this author used a nonlinear regression analysis including baseline dietary cholesterol content to evaluate the effect of additional uptake of dietary cholesterol on total serum cholesterol.

>According to the Hopkins model, the serum cholesterol concentration could on average be lowered by about 6 mg/dl if the intake was lowered to 100 mg per day.

however

>a further reduction by 60% of the already relatively low intake would call for considerable changes in dietary habits of most Americans

in other words, the author is not interesting in designing perfect health recommendations to lower cholesterol levels, or provide a refutation of the mountain of data from controlled feeding trials demonstrating that a correlation exists, but to balance healthy choices with what they believe is compatible with the american way of eating. in this context, some intake of dietary cholesterol is fine, and this conclusion is supported by some epidemiological data suggesting consumption of one egg per day does not adversely affect health when compared to the background population (however, some suggests otherwise, eg atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150(12)00504-7/abstract which the author choices to ignore most likely it would disort the narrative of his pro-egg opinion piece)

though if the background population has high cholesterol intake, these conclusions can easily be misleading

ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/30/3/427.full

this is acknowledged by the institute of medicine, that has released more prudent recommendations

nap.edu/read/10490/chapter/11
>increased risk may occur at a very low intake level and at a level this is exceeded by usual diets

>It is thus recommended that saturated fatty acid, trans fatty acid, and cholesterol consumption be as low as possible while consuming a nutritionally adequate diet.

See

Isn't Keto really bad for your longterm health?

heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@fc/documents/downloadable/ucm_475005.pdf

>Many who question recommendations to reduce dietary saturated fats rely on studies that the American Heart Association and other organizations believe are limited and therefore less reliable. For example, some claims that saturated fat should not be reduced rely on randomized controlled trials, also known as RCTs. One problem with RCTs to study the diet is that there are challenges with dietary adherence in outpatient intervention trials. Furthermore, many of these studies follow subjects for a limited time period and evaluate only CVD risk factors and not CVD events. However, since the processes underlying atherosclerosis and acute coronary events can take decades to develop, short-term RCTs provide limited insight about event outcomes. As a result, these short term RCTs may not show a significant effect of saturated fat on CVD related morbidity and mortality during the study period.

hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2016/04/13/diet-heart-ramsden-mce-bmj-comments/

another common flaw with these sort of studies from decades ago is that polyunsaturated fat was given in the form of hydrogenated margarine so that it would be comparable to saturated fats like butter. the researchers didn't want the participants to know of any dietary changes, so they had to make the foods as similar as possible, and people would easily tell the difference between unsaturated oil and a saturated spread.

the confounding of trans fats, incomplete data records, and the short-term design make the data very messy and hence why nobody has given a shit about these trials for decades aside from crackpots and fad diet book salesmen

finally, the last line of that wiki picture makes no sense and is a perfect example of why it should not be used as an academic or scientific source. sphingomyelin is not an oxysterol, it's a sphingolipid, and what happens when cells are exposed to it in a petri dish cannot be extrapolated to the in vivo condition. dietary pufa increases muscle mass and muscle protein synthesis and has no effect on fatigue during exercise where muscles are contracting most rapidly

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24550191
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3499967
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19034030

>Really makes you think
like everything from unadjusted univariate analysis on ecological data, it sure does

tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations

>dietary guidelines and obesity rates are as spurious as age of a beauty contest winner and deaths by steam
Somehow I think your contention is misguided

who even followed the guidelines?

anyway, here's some. sure don't look fat and sick to me

andjrnl.org/article/S2212-2672(14)01871-1/pdf
jn.nutrition.org/content/144/5/673.long

>Zero nutritionally and functionality
Do you even know what fatty acids are? Your body can't make all the lipids it needs and fat soluble vitamins need fat too.

what mememaster made the OP image?
>nuts, seeds, beans
>bad 4u
alright
>mexican cola
how is mexico soda different than normal soda?
>watermelon
literally 90% water, can't I just drink water?
>shanks
what the hell is that?
>liver
absolutely disgusting

He almost certainly believes in the denialist conspiracy theory that cell membranes don't exist, advanced by the same crazy person. Remember kids, ice cream is a health food! Never question Ray Peat liturgy!

Interesting that as adherence has improved obesity has continued its rise

as the people not adhering get fatter

>as the people not adhering get fatter
No, prevalence and severity have increased

But we literally have it figured out.

that doesn't contradict my statement

>Although I agree with you
This is a belief you hold. You agree with someone who's also the opposite of correct about this.

That's why I started this thread with Ray Peat's diet. He's the only one who did the research without bias or for profit and if you disagree with him it's because you didn't do any research and are going on belief / intuition / meme diets

Level 10 bait right here

Idk about cola but it is just cane sugar mostly.

As for ice cream, it is milk, eggs and white sugar. As long as it is just that, all the ingredients are healthy.

nuts and seeds are unhealthy because they contain the worst kind of fat in high amounts.

The rest of the list is obscure because those are the foods that he's determined are healthiest without causing you illness. That is why he doesn't list any green vegetables, they are worthless and inhibit metabolism, sit in the stomach due to their high fiber content and prevent mineral absorption,

Again, you only disagree because you don't know better.

Yes it does

>argument by assertion
so convincing

> Why hasn't science determined what food is optimal for human health?

Technically they already did, fish, meat, grain, fruit, vegetables and water are the optimal diet. The issue lies in the particular forms it takes.

Why it hasn't become a global standard is due to culture and branding establishing various foods way before "food science" ever achieved a sliver of legitimacy.

There's also the fact that we can easily fuck up our food through "economically efficient" domestication techniques in raising plants and animals.

The entire field is a crap shoot due to how many cultural and corporate interest are involved. We're actually probably better off requiring all k-12 public schools and undergrad programs to follow a yearly military exercise regimen than a unified universal diet.

I wasn't making an argument. Its self-evident that my statement is true

>ish, meat, grain, fruit, vegetables and water are the optimal diet
That's what I mean, your list is too vague and "water" isn't food, it's bad for you in large amounts especially when you're not sweating.

Ray Peat is the only one who has it right.

Everyone in the thread except for me, the OP, has posted their beliefs but nobody is correct except for me. I'm the only poster who hasn't asserted his beliefs, everyone else doesn't know and is confused, this proves the OP's point.

Veeky Forums.org/faq#shitposting

> your list is too vague

It's only vague because I don't explicitly state particular "forms". Which is the point, because there was never a identifiable "silver bullet" diet established before culture and branding came into play.

> Ray Peat is the only one who has it right.

Arguably as of "now", but if it was globally implemented as the "standard" at least a third of the foods in question would follow a similar fate as the cow and banana (dietary shells of their former selves) due to the need to meet high economic demand. Then what will be the next optimal diet you'll go to?

I mean I see milk and orange juice listed in the pic but both of those products (at least their grocery chain incarnations) are basically bastardize forms prop up by advertising and the government.

Ray Peat's diet isn't really a diet, he studied all the foods and the ones listed are the most optimal. Cheaper, less optimal foods: potatoes and other starches, cereal with added vitamins and minerals, other grains... But the foods outside that list have flaws.

milk is a near-perfect food (like potatoes) because it's very nutritious, one could live off of it for a long time only needing to supplement vitamin A and C. People who own cows could survive off their milk.

Something like spaghetti with lots of additives would be very cheap and has a long expiration date, many people eat this already.

But the flaw with those types of grains is they take a long time to digest and they slow your metabolism. Foods like milk, fruit, sugar and cheese do no harm to you and increase your metabolism.

Many people eat chicken and think it is better than beef. It depends on the chickens diet, if it's fed grains and polyunsaturated fats (common chicken diet) then you'll be eating that. But beef is always healthy because the cow is a ruminant animal so its diet won't effect you.

So people can eat however they want but the rule is you should aim for foods that
#1) don't cause harm and #2) are nutritious.

People do well on diets mainly because they don't eat enough food that's harmful. E.G. eating a lot of McDonalds is bad for you but having it weekly is less harmful.

Disease is easily avoided when you don't eat foods that cause you harm, Ray Peat figured out the foods that don't and that's what the list in the OP shows.

And btw, people with diabetes can't eat lots of sugar... but their illness is caused by eating lots of polyunsaturated fat, not from eating sugar. As a result of eating pufa, their bodies can't process sugar... for them, they'd just need to cut out sugar and eat more protein and some saturated fat.

Vegetable oils are added to most food, they are bad and the cause of much disease. The only good oil is coconut oil, olive oil is 2nd best... But most food has rapeseed, canola and all the other high pufa oils that make people sick.

>what food is optimal for human health
>near-zero interest
>what food is optimal for revenue
>near-maximal interest
it's all about the revenue

Shouldn't the people who want revenue still have interest in actually finding out what is the most healthy diet since they are human themselves?

nope, they're not human. they're dust collectors. a human loves healthy, tasty food. dust collectors are only motivated by green paper and objects it buys.

>Why hasn't science determined what food is optimal for human health?
It has... there are international standards for diet. Most people just don't follow them. There's also a lot of retarded "health science" garbage out there. Just follow the USDA guidelines or your doctor if you have conditions and you're fine.