From: Ramez Naam (mez@apexnano.com)
Date: Tue Apr 15 2003 - 18:22:40 MDT
From: Eliezer S. Yudkowsky [mailto:sentience@pobox.com]
> Ramez Naam wrote:
> > Optimized for what? For rapid growth? For least energy used in
> > breaking down the food? For greatest free glucose to feed
> > the brain? For largest energy supply to hunt and fend
> > off predators? For longest life in our ancestral environment?
> > For longest life today?
>
> You're overshooting the ability of modern dietary science to
> handle that class of problem. Start with simple things, like:
> "On a hunter-gatherer diet it is very nearly impossible to get
> *more* sodium than potassium, with a typical hunter-gatherer
> intaking perhaps ten times as much potassium sodium. Today,
> salt is added to nearly all processed foods. What does the
> violation of this assumed metabolic invariant do?" And so on.
On a hunter-gatherer diet it is very nearly impossible to get the
levels of micronutrients that I consume in my once a day vitamin.
Does that mean they're bad?
On a hunter-gatherer diet it's very nearly impossible to consume
antibiotics. Should I stop using them if I have an infection?
If my examples are off the mark, then how do you differentiate good
examples vs. bad ones?
Our hunter-gather ancestors frequently died of *famine*. They had
much higher levels of physical activity than is the norm for today.
They were at radically greater risk of death from infectious diseases
than we are. They virtually never experienced heart disease, cancer,
or stroke because they were almost all *dead* before the age at which
those became risk factors. 75% of them were dead by age 18! So this
line of argument about what they're adapted to eating is interesting,
but its relevance to humans in the modern world is murky, at best.
mez
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Apr 15 2003 - 18:29:50 MDT