RE: Consensus diet? RE: Experiences with Atkins diet

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 10:15:55 MDT

  • Next message: gts: "RE: Experiences with Atkins diet"

    Eliezer S. Yudkowsky wrote,
    >
    > Harvey Newstrom wrote:
    > >
    > > - Sources of food are unimportant if they contain the same nutrients and
    > > other chemicals. (Protein is protein, whether it comes from meat or
    > > vegetables. Nutrients are equivalent whether they come from
    > "natural" or
    > > "unnatural" sources.)
    >
    > This strikes me as controversial. I seem to recall quite a number of
    > studies which claim differential absorption of a given nutrient depending
    > on various context variables, including what you ate along with
    > it, or how
    > the nutrient was embedded in the food.

    I agree totally. (My nutrition book listed "helpers" and "inhibitors" that
    affected absorption of each nutrient.) What I meant to counter was claims
    that specific chemical molecules were different than other molecules of the
    same kind from a "natural" source. For example, some people think ascorbic
    acid from cherries is better than ascorbic acid from a laboratory, even if
    both are pure ascorbic acid. I was trying to refute this "religious
    naturalism." I agree that natural vitamin C mixed with bioflavinoids and pH
    buffered in food is much better than pure acidic ascorbic acid. I also
    consider these to be difference substances that can be distinguished
    scientifically and described with different chemical recipes.

    > > - Monounsaturated fats are best, polyunsaturated fats are good,
    saturated
    > > fats are bad.
    >
    > This also strikes me as controversial. I seem to recall things being a
    > lot more complex than best-good-bad. And what happened to Omega-6 and
    > Omega-3?

    Controversial as in wrong, or just simplistic? Omega-6 and Omega-3 are
    found in the polyunsaturated fats which I called "good". They are not
    "best" because I see no need to maximize these as much as possible after
    nutritional needs are met. Most nutritionists agree that monounsaturated
    fats should provide the bulk of unsaturated fats. Likewise, they are not
    "bad" because they should not be minimized either. They are certainly
    required in the diet.

    What specifically would you change about the order of monounsaturated,
    polyunsaturated, and saturated? Or what do you think should be changed in
    my categorization of omega's as "good". Should they be "best", meaning
    substitute olive oil for pure omegas as much as possible? Or do you have
    something else in mind?

    For simplicity, I try to group foods together. Omega-3 and Omega-6 are
    found in the same oils. While nutritional scientists need to distinguish
    them to study them, most people can just lump the these together into the
    "polyunsaturated group". Therefore, I thought referencing the group in our
    "consensus diet" would make more sense then getting into individual
    nutrients here. If you eat this group, you get both omega-3's and
    omega-6's. If you don't eat this group, you won't get either. This is my
    motivation for lumping these together as a group and calling it "good".

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP
    <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 10:29:56 MDT