Genetics vs how you treat your body.

[Fascinate]

Some people can eat whatever they want and live for 100 years with little to no negative side effects. Other people can eat "great" their entire lives being seemingly healthy people and die of a heart attack at 57.

I think the key here is some people react better to "unhealthy" foods because of their genetics. How else would you explain a southerner living to 105 eating fried foods literally every day of their lives.

I am not here trying to tell people to start eating donuts everyday, but what i am saying is simply listen to your body and if makes you feel good its probably ok to eat it.

The "health industry" literally knows nothing about how foods affect the body. I am only 35 years old but in that short time span i have read no less than 4 different articles discussing if eggs are good or bad for you lol, swapping back and forth each time. Well the answer is, it depends on the person and their genetic makeup.

Edit:
The reason i made this thread was to address the people who get absolutely infatuated with what they should or should not be eating. This is not a cut and dry subject, it truly depends on each individual person and like above the best advice i can give is if you feel good and satisfied with no sick feelings afterwards, its likely fine to eat it. I like hungry mans slogan as well, its good to be full

[PosPosPos]

Some people can eat whatever they want and live for 100 years with little to no negative side effects. Other people can eat "great" their entire lives being seemingly healthy people and die of a heart attack at 57.

I think the key here is some people react better to "unhealthy" foods because of their genetics. How else would you explain a southerner living to 105 eating fried foods literally every day of their lives.

I am not here trying to tell people to start eating donuts everyday, but what i am saying is simply listen to your body and if makes you feel good its probably ok to eat it.

The "health industry" literally knows nothing about how foods affect the body. I am only 35 years old but in that short time span i have read no less than 4 different articles discussing if eggs are good or bad for you lol, swapping back and forth each time. Well the answer is, it depends on the person and their genetic makeup.

You can probably find someone out there who can survive on radioactive waste, that doesn't mean anything but a statistical anomaly.

[Elegiac]

Humans are not so dissimilar that certain trends cannot be identified. It's generally a bad idea to ingest mercury salts, for instance, though 'genetics' will determine your tolerance.

[Fascinate]

Where did i ever talk about mercury salts or radioactive waste in my post? I am talking about common sense eating, and how some people have drank the cool aid of the mass media and stray away from delicious foods that could likely be eating on a regular basis.

[Elegiac]

Where did i ever talk about mercury salts or radioactive waste in my post? I am talking about common sense eating, and how some people have drank the cool aid of the mass media and stray away from delicious foods that could likely be eating on a regular basis.

"Common sense eating" implies that there are recognizable trends in diet that are shared between individuals, something that you claim didn't exist.

Sorry, did I interrupt the hipster tirade about the lugenpresse saying cholesterol is bad?

[Fascinate]

"Common sense eating" implies that there are recognizable trends in diet that are shared between individuals, something that you claim didn't exist.

Sorry, did I interrupt the hipster tirade about the lugenpresse saying cholesterol is bad?

What i meant by common sense eating i did mention but not by name:

the best advice i can give is if you feel good and satisfied with no sick feelings afterwards, its likely fine to eat it. I like hungry mans slogan as well, its good to be full

There are just so many people (kids mostly) that are so worried about their health today who eat nuts and berries with some sort of protein shake it makes me nauseous. It really isnt hard, listen to what your body tells you not some person you follow on twitter.

[PosPosPos]

Where did i ever talk about mercury salts or radioactive waste in my post? I am talking about common sense eating, and how some people have drank the cool aid of the mass media and stray away from delicious foods that could likely be eating on a regular basis.

It's called "analogy", try the dictionary sometime.

[Dezerte]

I think I rather stick with science on this one rather than my gut feeling (ha ha ha).

[Fascinate]

It's called "analogy", try the dictionary sometime.

Problem is the two examples here do not apply. I did not insinuate radiation or some other extremely volatile substance would affect people differently, talking about food here...

- - - Updated - - -

I think I rather stick with science on this one rather than my gut feeling (ha ha ha).

That is literally the gist of this thread, listen to your gut you WILL live longer. That is the only way to explain how some people can be drunks who eat fried foods and smoke cigarettes can live to be 100. If science was right these people would not exist, and there are plenty of them.

[Elegiac]

That is literally the gist of this thread, listen to your gut you WILL live longer. That is the only way to explain how some people can be drunks who eat fried foods and smoke cigarettes can live to be 100. If science was right these people would not exist, and there are plenty of them.

Checkmate, atheists.

[PosPosPos]

Problem is the two examples here do not apply. I did not insinuate radiation or some other extremely volatile substance would affect people differently, talking about food here...

The simple point of which you don't get, is that you can always find examples of humans ingesting very harmful substances in large enough doses and living to tell the tale another day.

[Fascinate]

The simple point of which you don't get, is that you can always find examples of humans ingesting very harmful substances in large enough doses and living to tell another day.

Even if i was to agree with that assessment of your analogy, it really isnt applicable because who ingests such things on a regular basis? Genetics are a very powerful thing, and people need to realize just because you eat a diet that works for man A to live to 100 does not mean it will work for you. Genetics are in fact so powerful that even if you do listen to your body on what to eat you could still die at an early age, but listening to your body is the way to live the longest life possible.

[PosPosPos]

Even if i was to agree with that assessment of your analogy, it really isnt applicable because who ingests such things on a regular basis? Genetics are a very powerful thing, and people need to realize just because you eat a diet that works for man A to live to 100 does not mean it will work for you. Genetics are in fact so powerful that even if you do listen to your body on what to eat you could still die at an early age, but listening to your body is the way to live the longest life possible.

Why not? There are people still drinking unfiltered Flint water.

This isn't unheard of, just that you are living under a rock or something.

[Dezerte]

That is literally the gist of this thread, listen to your gut you WILL live longer. That is the only way to explain how some people can be drunks who eat fried foods and smoke cigarettes can live to be 100. If science was right these people would not exist, and there are plenty of them.

My gut feeling also tells me to trust science.

[Deleted]

Well you could listen to your gut and live to be 100 or you could also listen to your gut and then get fat like me and most likely have a hearth attack when you're 30. As other people pointed out there are things like statistical anomalies. If you want to base your lifestyle on the off chance you'll be one of them then feel free to but don't try and find arguments in favour of it as there really aren't any. You're pretty much playing the lottery.

[kamuimac]

Some people can eat whatever they want and live for 100 years with little to no negative side effects. Other people can eat "great" their entire lives being seemingly healthy people and die of a heart attack at 57.

that is simply not true - it may be partialy true if someone is 18 years old but once you hit 30-40 the effect of junk food come out very easily when metabolism naturaly slows down .

[Fascinate]

My gut feeling also tells me to trust science.

I am only suggesting to use your intuition, as i dont feel nutrition facts are actually facts it really depends on a persons individual genetic makeup.

[Bigbazz]

The most important bit of information about "trusting" science is that science doesn't have all the questions answered, and some of the "science" is not science at all but widely distributed nonsense, sifting through what is real and what is rubbish is the hard part. A lot of stuff considered considered known and common information 20 years ago is being unravelled now and this is happening on a yearly basis to the degree that you can think "everything we thought we knew was wrong".

Technically you should trust science, the problem is that statement means nothing when you're not an expert in the field with first hand experience and knowledge/understanding, so you don't really know where the information came from nor do you have a good enough understanding/expertise in the area to really have an educated opinion or understanding.

A popular recent example is the effects of salt on your blood pressure, I'm no expert but there are some educational videos on youtube around the subject. The point is though, saying "i trust science" is pointless when all of the important details are vague, supporting evidence may be vague or limited and your understanding of said science is severely lacking.

[llandrywyn]

See, this is what happens when basic science literacy isn't addressed in school programs. I don't mean teaching kids that "the mitochondria is the power house of the cell", I'm talking about systematic education on what science is, and is not.

No scientist in their right mind, myself included, will actually tell you that we understand the complex interplay of genetics, environmental factors and microbiome factors that actually influence how an individual's body responds to the macronutrients they consume. Without difficult, in-depth and extremely costly testing on a person-by-person basis, it's impossible to really know. What the scientists engaged in the research have done have collected as much data as possible, and built a model that applies to the majority of all humans.

Two standard deviations (by any observable parameter) from the mean, you'll find that most dietary science models hold up really well. But it's the last 5-10% of the population that keep producing all the anecdotes that have people doubting the consensus. Yes, there are people who can wreak havoc with their body and not have it effect them. Yes, there are people who can treat their body as a temple and still die at 40 of a heart attack. But they are in the vast minority. The internet is an echo chamber for these sorts of anecdotes, leading people to indulge in confirmation biases.

At the end of the day, what matters is that calories in are less than, or equal to, calories out. On top of that, add in some basic observance of a balance of macronutrients (protein, fat, carbohydrate etc.) and make sure you get enough of you dietary vitamins. If that doesn't keep you generally healthy, consult a doctor ... because you've likely won the genetic lottery and have some sort of fucked up statistically rare interaction between the less well understood factors in the whole system.

TL : DR

Science is not an oracle. Science is not a religion. Learn how to interpret scientific findings. Learn how the law of very large numbers works. Eat what makes you healthy. If someone else feels like they need to do different, and isn't asking for your help, mind your own fucking business just this once.

[Dezerte]

Just to clarify, when I said "I trust science" I meant generally speaking, the scientific method.