Thu, Sep-10-15, 19:24
|
|
Every moment is NOW.
Posts: 23,064
|
|
Plan: LC (ketogenic)
Stats: 520/381/280
BF: Why yes it is.
Progress: 58%
Location: Ozarks USA
|
|
I stumbled on this snippet of something I'd said to a friend on another private forum once, that this thread made me think of.
Quote:
This is very generalized (accuracy is loose, lol).
So: calories are bad!
They found that restricting protein had the same effect as CR, even if calories were the same.
So: calories are ok. Meat is bad!
Then they found that actually, just restricting the amino acid methionine had the same effect even if calories and protein were otherwise the same.
So: meat is ok. Muscle meats and eggs are bad!
Then they found that actually, just increasing the amino acid glycine had the same effect, even if calories and protein and methionine were the same.
So: Oh. So apparently we are chronically deficient in Glycine, which we'd get a lot more of (compared to others) if we ate like humans always have instead of how we eat the last century, especially the last 70 years.
(I feel like this is a nutrition science version of There was an old lady who swallowed a fly...)
... So in the end, this is a fabulous example of science and why making any decision about what's real always has to stand the test of time.
The CR studies had a point, as did the protein restriction studies, but it turned out it was something far more specific.
... I think in retrospect what nutrition science will teach us -- the hard way, sort of like being funny but only by accident -- is that "reductionism" is completely inappropriately applied to nutrition. Like all tools, and 'perspective' is a tool, there is a place for it; and not.
|
PJ
|