Articles that Confirm My Bias

[alek]

Hi all,

Firefox just recommend this article to me, Are Low-Fat Dairy Products Really Healthier?. I read it, thinking it would not confirm my bias, but it in fact does confirm my bias, so I'm posting it here.

What the Research SuggestsShow

"In studies that have surveyed people about their diets and then tracked their health over many years, researchers have found associations between dairy consumption and lower risks of certain conditions, such as high blood pressure, cardiovascular disease and Type 2 diabetes, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Such benefits, he added, were often present regardless of whether people chose reduced-fat or full-fat yogurt, cheese or milk. And though full-fat dairy products are higher in calories, studies have found that those who consume them aren’t more likely to gain weight.

In one study published in 2018, for example, researchers followed 136,000 adults from 21 countries for nine years. They found that, during the study period, those who consumed two or more servings of dairy per day were 22 percent less likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 17 percent less likely to die than those who consumed no dairy at all. Notably, those who consumed higher levels of saturated fat from dairy were not more likely to develop heart disease or die.

In another large analysis, also published in 2018, researchers pooled the results from 16 studies involving more than 63,000 adults. They found that, across an average of nine years, those who had higher levels of dairy fats in their blood were 29 percent less likely than those with lower levels to develop Type 2 diabetes.

This finding suggests that there may be a benefit to consuming dairy fat rather than avoiding it, Dr. Mozaffarian said.

Of course, these studies can’t prove that dairy products themselves reduce certain risks of disease. That would require long-term clinical trials, which haven’t been conducted, Dr. Mozaffarian said. But shorter-term trials have shown that consuming dairy products, including full-fat dairy, lowered the blood pressure of participants and did not increase weight or raise levels of LDL, or “bad cholesterol” — again suggesting that dairy fat is not harmful to heart health."

I really like dairy, and I consume several servings per day, usually in the form of whole milk and non-fat greek yogurt. Plus I like cheese although I don't eat too much of it.

The article does state that butter can have deleterious effects, but I limit my butter consumption in general.

"Butter and cream do appear to raise blood cholesterol levels more than other sources of dairy fat, Dr. Krauss said, and he recommends limiting them if you have high cholesterol."

[dw]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread but I eat massive amounts of non-fat Greek yogurt, especially when on a cut (it's a good high protein base that you can add things to).

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@alek what is the belief for which you want confirmation bias ? "dairy is good" ? "low fat dairy is better than normal dairy" ? "butter is worse than cottage cheese" ? Something else ?

I do consume quite a bit of dairy (mostly low fat cottage cheese and whey protein). I don't really see why dairy should be a problem in itself: it's high in protein, contains a bunch of vitamins, calcium and so on and so forth.

As far as dairy fat is concerned, I think that while it might be a problem for the general population, it might be fine for you or anybody who eats like a lifter. As far as I understand, it is recommended to limit your intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of your calories (assuming 3000 kcal as your daily intake that would be 300 kcal of saturated fats, about 35 grams, which is about 150g of emmental cheese, or 70g of butter). People who eat like lifters i.e. bro diet will naturally eat low saturated fat (except for the carnivore/low carb crazy people but I doubt these people are worried about their health anyways), so eating a few slices of cheese and putting some butter on their toast will probably not do anything to them but the general population (who tends to eat like shit ...) already eats way too much saturated fats, so adding more fats from dairy might be a problem. Paradoxically it would make sense for lifters to eat full fat dairy and for gen pop to eat low fat dairy, but usually it's exactly the contrary.

Also, dairy saturated fat sources other than butter and cream seem to be less deleterious, so you might eat more than the target of 10% of daily calories.

Here's an article that I saw Austin recommend on the other forum that might interest you:

https://sigmanutrition.com/dairy/

[Hardartery]

@alek what is the belief for which you want confirmation bias ? "dairy is good" ? "low fat dairy is better than normal dairy" ? "butter is worse than cottage cheese" ? Something else ?

I do consume quite a bit of dairy (mostly low fat cottage cheese and whey protein). I don't really see why dairy should be a problem in itself: it's high in protein, contains a bunch of vitamins, calcium and so on and so forth.

As far as dairy fat is concerned, I think that while it might be a problem for the general population, it might be fine for you or anybody who eats like a lifter. As far as I understand, it is recommended to limit your intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of your calories (assuming 3000 kcal as your daily intake that would be 300 kcal of saturated fats, about 35 grams, which is about 150g of emmental cheese, or 70g of butter). People who eat like lifters i.e. bro diet will naturally eat low saturated fat (except for the carnivore/low carb crazy people but I doubt these people are worried about their health anyways), so eating a few slices of cheese and putting some butter on their toast will probably not do anything to them but the general population (who tends to eat like shit ...) already eats way too much saturated fats, so adding more fats from dairy might be a problem. Paradoxically it would make sense for lifters to eat full fat dairy and for gen pop to eat low fat dairy, but usually it's exactly the contrary.

Also, dairy saturated fat sources other than butter and cream seem to be less deleterious, so you might eat more than the target of 10% of daily calories.

Here's an article that I saw Austin recommend on the other forum that might interest you:

https://sigmanutrition.com/dairy/

Concern for saturated fat is bullshit from the 80's. The only concern someone should have regarding fat is overall calories from it as it is fairly calorie dense. That the sort of antiquated nonsense that led to things like fat-free diets and products. There is a zero percent chance that naturally occurring fats in foods are killing anyone early, that goes in the same basket as blaming "Type A" personality for heart issues, invented bullshit to distract people from the thing corporations are selling you that is actually killing you.

[alek]

I'm not sure I understand the point of this thread but I eat massive amounts of non-fat Greek yogurt, especially when on a cut (it's a good high protein base that you can add things to).

I'm not that sure either. When I clicked on the article, I expected it to be some kind of tripe, but it was actually a decent article with a clickbait title. It did say more or less what I had already read/watched about dairy from, in my opinion, reputable source, so I considered by bias thoroughly confirmed.

I had thought about posting it in the Traveling While Fat thread below, but it didn't quite fit. I did think it was a good article worth sharing, so I shared it here with a clickbait title of my own.

I think I may use this thread as some sort of repository of articles about nutrition that I come across, like, and think are worthy of being read by others.

And yes, I love Greek yogurt--fatly and non-fat. I usually eat the non-fat kind because I want to save the calories for other stuff like beer and chocolate.

[alek]

alek what is the belief for which you want confirmation bias ? "dairy is good" ? "low fat dairy is better than normal dairy" ? "butter is worse than cottage cheese" ? Something else ?

Pretty much this.

I do consume quite a bit of dairy (mostly low fat cottage cheese and whey protein). I don't really see why dairy should be a problem in itself: it's high in protein, contains a bunch of vitamins, calcium and so on and so forth.

As far as dairy fat is concerned, I think that while it might be a problem for the general population, it might be fine for you or anybody who eats like a lifter. As far as I understand, it is recommended to limit your intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of your calories (assuming 3000 kcal as your daily intake that would be 300 kcal of saturated fats, about 35 grams, which is about 150g of emmental cheese, or 70g of butter). People who eat like lifters i.e. bro diet will naturally eat low saturated fat (except for the carnivore/low carb crazy people but I doubt these people are worried about their health anyways), so eating a few slices of cheese and putting some butter on their toast will probably not do anything to them but the general population (who tends to eat like shit ...) already eats way too much saturated fats, so adding more fats from dairy might be a problem. Paradoxically it would make sense for lifters to eat full fat dairy and for gen pop to eat low fat dairy, but usually it's exactly the contrary.

Also, dairy saturated fat sources other than butter and cream seem to be less deleterious, so you might eat more than the target of 10% of daily calories.

Yep, I'm in agreement with pretty much all of this.

Here's an article that I saw Austin recommend on the other forum that might interest you:

https://sigmanutrition.com/dairy/

Alek, reading this post while taking his second poop of the day, "Let's click on this article... who's the author? Hah! That's funny."

By the way, why is Alek still talking about poop?

I see your article written by Alan Flanagan, and raise you this one: Is Saturated Fat Worse for You Than Sugar?, which contains probably my favorite line about nutrition.

"In the context of food-based recommendations, let’s end with this statement: we know what diet patterns maximally benefit human health. Those diet patterns are high in unsaturated fats from fish, nuts, seeds, and vegetable oils like extra-virgin olive oil or rapeseed oil, they are high in complex carbohydrates from legumes (lentils, chickpeas, various beans) and whole grains (oats, bulgar, couscous, pasta, polenta, and breads from whole grain sources), they are rich in a variety of non-starchy vegetables, and include plenty of fruit. Movements in nutrition that mount spurious claims about diet and health obscure the simplicity of this truth. "

[alek]

@alek what is the belief for which you want confirmation bias ? "dairy is good" ? "low fat dairy is better than normal dairy" ? "butter is worse than cottage cheese" ? Something else ?

I do consume quite a bit of dairy (mostly low fat cottage cheese and whey protein). I don't really see why dairy should be a problem in itself: it's high in protein, contains a bunch of vitamins, calcium and so on and so forth.

As far as dairy fat is concerned, I think that while it might be a problem for the general population, it might be fine for you or anybody who eats like a lifter. As far as I understand, it is recommended to limit your intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of your calories (assuming 3000 kcal as your daily intake that would be 300 kcal of saturated fats, about 35 grams, which is about 150g of emmental cheese, or 70g of butter). People who eat like lifters i.e. bro diet will naturally eat low saturated fat (except for the carnivore/low carb crazy people but I doubt these people are worried about their health anyways), so eating a few slices of cheese and putting some butter on their toast will probably not do anything to them but the general population (who tends to eat like shit ...) already eats way too much saturated fats, so adding more fats from dairy might be a problem. Paradoxically it would make sense for lifters to eat full fat dairy and for gen pop to eat low fat dairy, but usually it's exactly the contrary.

Also, dairy saturated fat sources other than butter and cream seem to be less deleterious, so you might eat more than the target of 10% of daily calories.

Here's an article that I saw Austin recommend on the other forum that might interest you:

https://sigmanutrition.com/dairy/

Concern for saturated fat is bullshit from the 80's. The only concern someone should have regarding fat is overall calories from it as it is fairly calorie dense. That the sort of antiquated nonsense that led to things like fat-free diets and products. There is a zero percent chance that naturally occurring fats in foods are killing anyone early, that goes in the same basket as blaming "Type A" personality for heart issues, invented bullshit to distract people from the thing corporations are selling you that is actually killing you.

I disagree with you about this one. Trans fats at any amount lead to worse health and increased risk of CVD, and lots of good quality research has shown that diets that consist of more than around 12% of calories from saturated fat also increase risk of CVD. Now, some will claim that any amount of SFA is bad, but that's bullshit; there appears to be no benefit of reducing your SFA consumption to less than 8% to 10% of calories.

The article that I just linked above is a good read.

[Hardartery]

@alek what is the belief for which you want confirmation bias ? "dairy is good" ? "low fat dairy is better than normal dairy" ? "butter is worse than cottage cheese" ? Something else ?

I do consume quite a bit of dairy (mostly low fat cottage cheese and whey protein). I don't really see why dairy should be a problem in itself: it's high in protein, contains a bunch of vitamins, calcium and so on and so forth.

As far as dairy fat is concerned, I think that while it might be a problem for the general population, it might be fine for you or anybody who eats like a lifter. As far as I understand, it is recommended to limit your intake of saturated fats to less than 10% of your calories (assuming 3000 kcal as your daily intake that would be 300 kcal of saturated fats, about 35 grams, which is about 150g of emmental cheese, or 70g of butter). People who eat like lifters i.e. bro diet will naturally eat low saturated fat (except for the carnivore/low carb crazy people but I doubt these people are worried about their health anyways), so eating a few slices of cheese and putting some butter on their toast will probably not do anything to them but the general population (who tends to eat like shit ...) already eats way too much saturated fats, so adding more fats from dairy might be a problem. Paradoxically it would make sense for lifters to eat full fat dairy and for gen pop to eat low fat dairy, but usually it's exactly the contrary.

Also, dairy saturated fat sources other than butter and cream seem to be less deleterious, so you might eat more than the target of 10% of daily calories.

Here's an article that I saw Austin recommend on the other forum that might interest you:

https://sigmanutrition.com/dairy/

Concern for saturated fat is bullshit from the 80's. The only concern someone should have regarding fat is overall calories from it as it is fairly calorie dense. That the sort of antiquated nonsense that led to things like fat-free diets and products. There is a zero percent chance that naturally occurring fats in foods are killing anyone early, that goes in the same basket as blaming "Type A" personality for heart issues, invented bullshit to distract people from the thing corporations are selling you that is actually killing you.

I disagree with you about this one. Trans fats at any amount lead to worse health and increased risk of CVD, and lots of good quality research has shown that diets that consist of more than around 12% of calories from saturated fat also increase risk of CVD. Now, some will claim that any amount of SFA is bad, but that's bullshit; there appears to be no benefit of reducing your SFA consumption to less than 8% to 10% of calories.

The article that I just linked above is a good read.

Too much of anything is a bad thing, past that I really don't trust nutrition experts anymore. I think they really are just scratching the surface but act like they have reached the bottom of the well as far a knowledge. I know that I run low carb because it's better for my blood sugar (A1C in particular) and my paternal family is full of type 2 diabetics. It probably has negative consequences in other ways, but those things don't outweigh the diabetes thing. There are a lot of people who have eaten diets full of saturated fat, and there still are plenty that do in the world and they do not have the negative health outcomes that the West associates with those diets. I think the real problem is not what we eat (And I sound like a Hippy here but I believe that more processed = less good) it's the lack of movement. A guy working the farm can eat whatever the hell he wants and stay in better health than the guy micromanaging his doet but sitting in an office all day. IME.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

@alek the article is good. Also, the quote is very good. I mean I think most people kind of know how to "eat well" at the abstract level (lots of fruits and veggies, lots of fiber, legumes, enough protein, not too much saturated fats, not too much sugar, reasonable portions etc) , but still eat like crap because they have trouble implementing this in their daily habits, for various reasons.

[alek]

alek the article is good. Also, the quote is very good. I mean I think most people kind of know how to "eat well" at the abstract level (lots of fruits and veggies, lots of fiber, legumes, enough protein, not too much saturated fats, not too much sugar, reasonable portions etc) , but still eat like crap because they have trouble implementing this in their daily habits, for various reasons.

Oh I definitely agree that it's not a knowledge problem. I think it amounts to a behavior problem.

Nutrition isn't the only place we see the same phenomenon, meaning a low-knowledge barrier to success. Pretty much everyone knows what behaviors are healthy. Pretty much everyone knows which behaviors increase their wealth/net worth/etc. Pretty much everyone knows how to do well in school/university/etc.

The problem isn't the knowledge, it's getting people to do the things they know they should do.

[alek]

Not an article exactly, but it sure as shit confirms quite a few of my biases.



Maybe I should change the title of the thread to “Artifacts that Confirm My Bias”…

[KyleSchuant]

Of interest, the Australian Heat Foundation now says that while you should limit red meat to not more than 350g per week, go ahead and scarf down as much full-fat dairy and eggs as you like - unless you already have heart disease or type II diabetes. And eat more vegies, beans, etc. They're an independent group.

In contrast, the Australian Dietary Guidelines from the government say your dairy should be "mostly reduced fat", and as for red meat, they say, not more than 7 serves of ~65g cooked (ie 90-100g raw) weekly, or 700g - and lean.

So there's a bit of a contradiction. I imagine it's just the usual thing of the government being some years behind everyone else. I can only speak to my personal experience, and those of people I train. And those of us who track our food and get bloods done now and then, generally what we find is that we can have the full fat dairy, lots of eggs and all that, and still not have high cholesterol etc - if and only if we're also having lots of fruit, vegetables, beans and wholegrains. The saturated fat in a Mac & fries seems to have a different effect on your body to the saturated fat in a rump steak with some roast potatoes, grainy bread and salad - even with the latter having more total saturated fat in many cases.

[broseph]

Not an article exactly, but it sure as shit confirms quite a few of my biases.

SpoilerShow

Thanks for this. It was bias confirming for me as well.

About Lustig, Norton mentions that he leans really hard on individual biochemical processes and mechanisms, while ignoring clinical outcomes. Which is how I've often felt about Huberman (though Norton says he likes Huberman). Maybe he doesn't ignore clinical outcomes, but he puts a lot of passion and confidence in isolated mechanisms, which I think ends up being misleading.

[alek]

Of interest, the Australian Heat Foundation now says that while you should limit red meat to not more than 350g per week, go ahead and scarf down as much full-fat dairy and eggs as you like - unless you already have heart disease or type II diabetes. And eat more vegies, beans, etc. They're an independent group.

In contrast, the Australian Dietary Guidelines from the government say your dairy should be "mostly reduced fat", and as for red meat, they say, not more than 7 serves of ~65g cooked (ie 90-100g raw) weekly, or 700g - and lean.

So there's a bit of a contradiction. I imagine it's just the usual thing of the government being some years behind everyone else. I can only speak to my personal experience, and those of people I train. And those of us who track our food and get bloods done now and then, generally what we find is that we can have the full fat dairy, lots of eggs and all that, and still not have high cholesterol etc - if and only if we're also having lots of fruit, vegetables, beans and wholegrains. The saturated fat in a Mac & fries seems to have a different effect on your body to the saturated fat in a rump steak with some roast potatoes, grainy bread and salad - even with the latter having more total saturated fat in many cases.

Yeah, my bias is that the bolded above is really important. That's what Layne talks about in this video



which is based upon this paper: Co-consumption of Vegetables and Fruit, Whole Grains, and Fiber Reduces the Cancer Risk of Red and Processed Meat.

[alek]

Thanks for this. It was bias confirming for me as well.

About Lustig, Norton mentions that he leans really hard on individual biochemical processes and mechanisms, while ignoring clinical outcomes. Which is how I've often felt about Huberman (though Norton says he likes Huberman). Maybe he doesn't ignore clinical outcomes, but he puts a lot of passion and confidence in isolated mechanisms, which I think ends up being misleading.

You're welcome. I have found that the longer I pay attention to nutrition stuff, the more I'm quick to notice if someone is just talking/writing about mechanisms without discussing outcomes. I attribute that to both Layne and Austin.

I've never gotten into Huberman; he always seemed like someone interested in biohacks and the like, which I generally avoid like a sick kid that's not my own.

[CheekiBreekiFitness]

After consuming content about nutrition for a long time, I've developed my own classification algorithm (in my mind, of course) to detect quacks. Part of the logic goes as follows:

If X says that you can lose/gain weight without being in a calorie deficit/surplus
OR
If X says that some isolated nutrient (sugar, fats, fiber, whatever) is so bad for you that it should be eliminated from your diet
OR
If X talks about insulin and testosterone and cortisol to justify their dietary recommendations
OR
If X refers to some obscure group of people (prehistoric men, massai warriors, okinawan grandmas, whatever) who eat in some unusual way and supposedly enjoy vastly superior health to the general public
OR
If X recommends either all animal products or or zero animal products
THEN
Then X is a quack with high probability.

I'm not sure why Layne spend an hour on Lustig, I'm sure 5 minutes would have sufficed.

[KyleSchuant]

Yeah, my bias is that the bolded above is really important.

What I often think of is things like how calcium is better-absorbed by the body in the presence of vitamin D, and vice versa. And then we look at - when people are getting foods from hunting, gathering and farming, where do we find calcium? In eggs, fish and so on - where there's also a lot of vitamin D. It's almost as if the body evolved over a million years to digest food rather than supplements.

Likewise, there isn't really solid evidence of a "true" human diet (which is what "palaeo" really means to people, let's be honest), in that it seems people just ate whatever was available, in the greatest quantities available. And the areas which got the largest human populations tended to be the ones where they could get a wide variety of food - some grain, some meat, some fish, some nuts, and so on. Areas with a smaller variety of food where they were confined to just fish and reindeer or whatever had much smaller populations, humans didn't do as well.

So it's unsurprising that we seem to do well with a variety of foods in us. Now, there are some things which might make a small difference, like 2-3 years' life expectancy, and something like whether you have 9.8% or 14.2% of your calories from saturated fat (all other things being identical) is probably among them. But those 2-3 years are also going to fall in the random variation of your genetics, your family history of having naturally higher or lower blood cholesterol, etc. Lost in the noise there.

I'm not too worried about those things, I'm more concerned with the things that make 10-20 years' difference, like smoking, drinking, social isolation, and eating mostly processed foods. The 20% of things that make the 80% of difference to your quantity and quality of life. And now I can hear the voices of Rip et al, "but is it optimal?" and I'm not that worried, because so few people get that 20% right that it just doesn't matter. I'm still working on it myself - generously, I've got 15 of the 20 right.

Edit:

here's an article on "palaeo" diet - "Hunter-gatherers as models in public health" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /obr.12785

and for lols,

"Achieving Hunter-gatherer Fitness in the 21st Century: Back to the Future" - https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0463-8/pdf

[Hardartery]

Yeah, my bias is that the bolded above is really important.

What I often think of is things like how calcium is better-absorbed by the body in the presence of vitamin D, and vice versa. And then we look at - when people are getting foods from hunting, gathering and farming, where do we find calcium? In eggs, fish and so on - where there's also a lot of vitamin D. It's almost as if the body evolved over a million years to digest food rather than supplements.

Likewise, there isn't really solid evidence of a "true" human diet (which is what "palaeo" really means to people, let's be honest), in that it seems people just ate whatever was available, in the greatest quantities available. And the areas which got the largest human populations tended to be the ones where they could get a wide variety of food - some grain, some meat, some fish, some nuts, and so on. Areas with a smaller variety of food where they were confined to just fish and reindeer or whatever had much smaller populations, humans didn't do as well.

So it's unsurprising that we seem to do well with a variety of foods in us. Now, there are some things which might make a small difference, like 2-3 years' life expectancy, and something like whether you have 9.8% or 14.2% of your calories from saturated fat (all other things being identical) is probably among them. But those 2-3 years are also going to fall in the random variation of your genetics, your family history of having naturally higher or lower blood cholesterol, etc. Lost in the noise there.

I'm not too worried about those things, I'm more concerned with the things that make 10-20 years' difference, like smoking, drinking, social isolation, and eating mostly processed foods. The 20% of things that make the 80% of difference to your quantity and quality of life. And now I can hear the voices of Rip et al, "but is it optimal?" and I'm not that worried, because so few people get that 20% right that it just doesn't matter. I'm still working on it myself - generously, I've got 15 of the 20 right.

Edit:

here's an article on "palaeo" diet - "Hunter-gatherers as models in public health" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /obr.12785

and for lols,

"Achieving Hunter-gatherer Fitness in the 21st Century: Back to the Future" - https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0463-8/pdf

I don't disagree with your angle, or your rant, but I would add that it is a bit of a lie to say you absorb calcium better with Vitamin D, You absorb it just fine, you just can't really use it without Vitamin D. We never really hear the actual story of the calcium cycle or how it works in any of the videos or writings, they only provide a superficial not really accurate story.
Nobody ever mentions PTH, or the difference between D-25 and D-125 or ionized calcium versus the standard blood serum measurement or how your calcium levels are ACTUALLY controlled by the parathyroid glands.

[alek]

Yeah, my bias is that the bolded above is really important.

What I often think of is things like how calcium is better-absorbed by the body in the presence of vitamin D, and vice versa. And then we look at - when people are getting foods from hunting, gathering and farming, where do we find calcium? In eggs, fish and so on - where there's also a lot of vitamin D. It's almost as if the body evolved over a million years to digest food rather than supplements.

Likewise, there isn't really solid evidence of a "true" human diet (which is what "palaeo" really means to people, let's be honest), in that it seems people just ate whatever was available, in the greatest quantities available. And the areas which got the largest human populations tended to be the ones where they could get a wide variety of food - some grain, some meat, some fish, some nuts, and so on. Areas with a smaller variety of food where they were confined to just fish and reindeer or whatever had much smaller populations, humans didn't do as well.

So it's unsurprising that we seem to do well with a variety of foods in us. Now, there are some things which might make a small difference, like 2-3 years' life expectancy, and something like whether you have 9.8% or 14.2% of your calories from saturated fat (all other things being identical) is probably among them. But those 2-3 years are also going to fall in the random variation of your genetics, your family history of having naturally higher or lower blood cholesterol, etc. Lost in the noise there.

I'm not too worried about those things, I'm more concerned with the things that make 10-20 years' difference, like smoking, drinking, social isolation, and eating mostly processed foods. The 20% of things that make the 80% of difference to your quantity and quality of life. And now I can hear the voices of Rip et al, "but is it optimal?" and I'm not that worried, because so few people get that 20% right that it just doesn't matter. I'm still working on it myself - generously, I've got 15 of the 20 right.

Yep to all this.

Edit:

here's an article on "palaeo" diet - "Hunter-gatherers as models in public health" - https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/ful ... /obr.12785

alek, as he reads the title, "Huh, I wonder Pontzer would think of this..." And Pontzer is the author of the article. "Nice."

If you haven't read his book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.

and for lols,

"Achieving Hunter-gatherer Fitness in the 21st Century: Back to the Future" - https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-93 ... 0463-8/pdf

Oh boy!!

[broseph]

If you haven't read his [Pontzer’s] book, Burn, then I think you'd like it.

Can confirm.

I almost want to see some good evidence against his constrained expenditure model, because it is so contrary to everything we “know” about exercise and calories. But his evidence and claims are pretty convincing.

It’s how I now approach dieting/recomp for myself and others.