In my highly unscientific opinion: That's worse for you than anything you could ever eat.

Stop eating when you are full. Avoid excessive junk food. Try to eat fruit and vegetables more than occasionally. Reserve the cheeseburgers and onion rings for the celebration of Friday. Hold that celebration with friends and family more often than just Friday. Drink some wine or a beer. Laugh about it. Don't dwell on anything.

Even if you don't live longer, you'll live better.

But I'd prefer to dismiss my anxiety through solid information rather than abandoning the concern and adopting what seems to be a "sensible" approach to diet founded on a cultural melange of how we ought to eat and drink.

If I can do something to reduce the chance that I get cancer--or that my wife gets cancer--then that's worth fretting.

In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others "cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.

If one could compile a set of such recommendations, cross reference them, and control for variations in climate, soil and whatnot, perhaps some interesting patterns might emerge.

www.nutritionalanthro.org/

Also, Chinese traditional medicine healed an ailment for me that stumped the best (european) specialists, even though I had absolutely no faith in that nasty chinese medecine.

One of the things that may make a difference is that more traditional cultures take food more seriously. We tend to think about food as either a trendy thing to do, like eating out, or just 'filling up on calories', like junk food. A healthy middle ground where people actually take the time to cook & enjoy fresh food seems to be lost.

That's very interesting. That concept also exists in Indian, Pakistani and (I believe) Persian culture.

Tangential anecdote - pregnant women apparently should not eat lamb, because it is "heating food" and will cause the growth of myomas (uterus tumors). No scientific confirmation what-so-ever. Can't eat it just because it's "heating" and causes "things to grow". Try countering this when talking to a pregnant wife choke-full of interesting mind-altering hormones :)

gah... I dated a chinese girl, and she would discuss that with me when she got sick. It feels like folk medicine, the decision of what makes something 'hot' or 'cold' and so on seemed so arbitrary.

For me, only eating 'hot' foods means I get more ulcers, so I am always watching out.

Consider italians, and pasta. Basically everybody knows "instinctively" if a sauce makes sense with short or long pasta, but in the end it's still completely arbitrary :)

Would you have guessed that apples are 'hot'?

- Foods with less processing - more fresh stuff, less stuff that needs preservatives

- High ratio of vegatables/fruit to meat

- Less high-carb stuff, and always the low-gi versions (e.g. wholemeal/rye bread, brown rice)

- Eat what you enjoy. Find a balance between healthy and tasty you can live with.

- Indulging in stuff not on this list is serious business - it has to be really good, and every mouthful should be savored. Remove the concept of a "casual snack" from your life.

I take my cue mostly from an instinct developed over years of paying attention to how my diet makes me feel. Stuff like CSIRO's book [http://www.csiro.au/science/TWD.html] do influence that instinct - I feel that their research is somewhat removed from the profit motive.

I agree you can't detect subtle long term health problems this way, though.

Is this something you are personally interested in as well or were you just passing through?

People love the taste of sweet and companies have engineered such foods so people eat it, but it doesn't mean it's good for you.

If I wanted to eat based on common sense or a fad diet, I'd do so. I was hoping to be pointed to something more scientific. Walter Willet's book is probably a good recommendation, but Pollan (as well as Taubes) have so impugned the track record of nutritional epidemiology that I think a resource that directly responds to those attacks is necessary.

I suppose I can continue the search on my own, but it's kind of amazing that with 74 comments in this thread, even a community as science-minded and educated as this one is relatively in the dark about this stuff.

I see several themes in the advice on this thread - don't eat too much, eat whole foods, and drink water. I have to say that this is probably the most scientific advice you will find.

In adjacent sentences, you say that there are no probably no universals, science can tell us nothing, but that we have certain foods that are proven to work.

Yes, there are common themes in this thread, and that can be useful sometimes. But there were common themes in popular opinion about flat earth, Adam's ribs, and the four humors as well.

Again, without the context provided by an expert, things that are factually incorrect can seem incredibly persuasive.

But this whole food issue is something that I feel quite strongly about. My surprise is hardly rhetorical, and while I may have treated you as a straw man for a moment, I think that the larger point is still valid. The attempt to get scientific about eating strikes me as the problem, and I think that my post was a response in line with the OP in that sense. What I am trying to tell you is that I have been in your shoes; I have read all the books about diet; and I think that asking for more books is not going to give you the answers that you need.

Your anxiety is not caused by a lack of data - it is caused by an unhealthy reliance on outside opinion for your mental stability. Nobody who is writing the books knows enough to give you the answers that you want. Don't rely too much on scientists and experts. The scientists invented the HFCS that is giving us all diabetes and lay people in the 1400's didn't think that the earth was flat - the "experts" did. I am not asking you to rely on common themes or popular opinion - I am asking you to do some experiments and gather data - try eating different foods and see what makes you feel best. Don't ask a scientist what to do - become one.

I disagree with much of what you say, but I want to let you know that I did read it. Beyond that, we'll agree to disagree.

Read my original post, read the responses. It's not that I'm not appreciative that people are trying. I'm genuinely surprised that answers of the sort I was looking for seem to be lacking.

I don't know if that's the type of book you were looking for, but the authors' arguments and conclusions are based on their own scientific research.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/real%20fo...

Good luck.

The most rewarding diet(I hate the term diet because it ensures only short-term gain) that I have found is the Paleo Diet. http://paleodiet.com/ (horrible website I know)

Pretty much you just eat what you would expect to find hundreds of years ago.

Dean Karnazes(One of the best Ultra-Marathoners) swares by this diet. Here is a PDF of his daily diet plan. http://cl.ly/26c8cffdcda16a8dd212

I pretty much follow that regular plan, I do also run marathons, but it is definitely worth following in a normal phyical environment.

I would also reccomend the green smoothie. 7:3 fruit:greens ratio.

Usual Ingredients:

Strawberries Banana Water (Ice if you want it thicker) Greens

As you continue to get more accustomed to greens you can up the ratio. I LOVE it.

Best of luck to you man. Don't let my opinion deter you from others. Although I would NEVER follow Gary Taubes. He is also the guy who questions exercise. That's just insane.

On that note. It is important to exercise. Start small, and do an activity that you know you would enjoy.

He is still a fucking beast.

Your body is a machine built for changing fat into carbohydrate and then into ATP.

If you give your body too much carbohydrate it takes what it needs and converts the rest into fat. The fat you eat is already fat, so it just stores that too because it has already taken the raw carbohydrate it needs.

If you reduce your carbohydrate intake and eat more protein and fat (read "red meat" but also chicken, pork, non root vegetables et cetera) then your body will stop being lazy and start doing what it did for thousands of years before we invented preservatives and microwaves and cocacola and take that fat and make it into carbohydrate.

If you give your body less carbohydrate then you are doing it a massive favour.

That said, everyone is as genetically different as they are similar, so what works for some people wont work for others. For instance, Doctors are currently researching a hormone that comes from your bowls that tells you that you need carbohydrates, like all hormones they can over produce and make you crave them even if you aren't hungry, and they are working on a blocker which will help the super obese and probably reduce the need for any gastric band surgery.

Some might thrive on meat and vegetables while bread and wheat makes them lose energy. Some really need the grain and the crops and meat makes them feel ill. Some need something in between and some people balance themselves on a totally different axis. Moreover, anything you crave for is probably bad for you at that time.

Eating vegetables seems pretty universal. I've never heard of a person who couldn't eat vegetables, sans extreme cases of sensitivy or allergies with regard to specific produce. So, start with vegetables and add what you feel like.

Personally, I buy fresh ingredients and cook most of my own food. Organic, if available. Very little bread and if so, it's 100% rye: this one is easy in Finland. No processed foods unless I'm enjoying the occasion of eating out and can't really control where the stuff originally comes from.

It would be nice to see direct treatment of each of these approaches by someone with expertise.

Could just be recipe.com though...

That's the way forwards. There's some disagreement on certain places, but definitely increase clearly good foods while reducing clearly bad foods, and that'll be a good start.

A complete picture of the benefits and drawbacks of oatmeal, like any other food, has to acknowledge that:

-It's carb-heavy -The carbs are from grain and thus glutenous -Total nutrition is low(compared to say, an avocado)

I've had the same problems in trying to sort out truth and nonsense, so I just try to maintain an elementary understanding of the basic components of our diets and experiment. List the fundamentals of human nutrition and spend a day on wikipedia taking notes on what we do know. My rules:

1. Know my calorie requirements. How many to maintain current weight, to lose weight, to gain weight?

2. Pay attention to calorie ratios - Protein/Carbs/Fats. Am I working out this week? Anaerobic or aerobic? Do I have extra energy stores right now? What am I burning and what am I storing?

3. Protein quality & diversity of protein sources. Highly bio-available proteins? Simple or complex carbs, high or low GI? Saturated, mono-, or poly-unsaturated fats? No trans fat.

4. Vitamins and minerals. Where are the major gaps in my diet?

5. As little processed food as possible.

There's plenty of information out there on these things. Do your own research. Every week learn exactly what is in one particular food. See what works for you, then eat what you're knowledgeable about and what makes you feel right.

Eat food that our bodies (as hunters and gatherers) are designed to consume.

- no processed/fast/junk food

- no soft drinks, etc

- food that has low-gi carbs (quinoa, buckwheat, whole grains) to prevent insulin spikes, etc. Insulin spike is fine after a heavy workout.

- food heavy in fiber (such as whole grain food above)

- my typical meal: side of veggies, quinoa and wild salmon

Do a month where you only drink water. I typically don't drink anything except water or tea (green, etc).

I used to weight lift, so I researched heavily what kind of food I should be consuming.

Sugar is pretty much your enemy due its insulin spikes and glycogen storage. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is evil.

Healthy is a different issue, but as omnivores we are 'designed' to eat anything we can.

That's the justification. If that suits you, that's fine--it's your health.

We are NOT designed to eat french fries made from genetically modified potatoes.

We are NOT designed to consume soft drinks made from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).

Etc Etc

That stuff is not natural. Not for omnivores, herbivores, carnivores or any other living organism.

I'm not saying we should eat them, but 'because we weren't designed to' is not a relevant point. We sure as heck weren't intended to eat potatoes or wheat either (rather impossible to eat without cooking, which hasn't been around forever), and they leave the diet a little deficient, yet the Irish sure did survive on them, and most of Europe built up on wheat. Would you condemn them as fools for eating something that wasn't tailor made for their stomachs? I applaud them for surviving and growing where food didn't previously exist.

French fries and soft drinks are terrible food, but the idea that there are some small collection of 'right foods' that we existed especially designed to eat is simply silly. The only time that sort of 'right food' idea is relevant, is with some animals that can only get a given nutrient one way, or animals that can only successfully hunt one type of prey.

More recently I've become wary of gluten, particularly its harmful effects on the gut and on the Thyroid.

I found this article very enlightening: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-gluten-thyroid-connection

I'm now avoiding gluten altogether and plan to stay this way for several months. So far the results are positive.

His personal goal of "vegan until 6" is an example. Veggies & fruit during the day, then a balanced dinner with protein.

A bit more detail and links to his sources (books): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/article967801.ece

Now, I try to be as cheap and sane as I can, mostly by cooking more stuff myself and eating more vegetables (non-industrial whenever possible).

Nutrition is probably only about 20% of the picture. You should be exercising, meditating, stretching, sleeping well, etc.

Humans can survive on all sorts of different foods. I think the optimal diet contains lots of fresh whole fruit and veggies, kale, and a bit of meat and fish.

Listen to your body. Does a food make you feel sluggish? Drugged? Energized? Strong?

Do you know of any other resources that more directly address the criticisms of nutritional science set forth by Taubes and Pollan?

The author of the linked article, "What's for Dinner" favours Pollan's approach.

* It needs to be tasty and satisfying, or you won't stick with it. Don't start with some extreme diet: e.g. "only raw food", "only stuff grown within 20 yards of your house", "No X where x is some macronutrient".

* Set a goal of eating zero processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't eat it. If it comes in a can and it isn't just preserved, pure veggies (e.g., canned tomatoes) or fish (e.g., sardines), don't eat it. What can be done in a typical kitchen is about the max amount of processing you should regularly tolerate.

Very few will argue with the above points, unless they have some sort of agenda or ideology beyond just eating well. If that's all you do, you'll be eating more healthily than the vast majority of Americans. You'll probably feel better.

If you want to go further, you can:

* If you're going to eat animals, stick to animals that eat a diet for which they've evolved. i.e., prefer grass-fed beef to corn-fed.

* Prefer a variety of plants, and prefer plants that have been raised without chemical fertilizers or insecticides. We don't have enough data to know, but it seems likely that plants have evolved all sorts of chemicals to protect themselves from their environment that may also help protect us from their environment.

The theme of the above two points is- "let's not fuck with the diet that kept humans alive since the development of agriculture and cooking. Let's let other poor saps be the experimental subjects"

I also prefer to do things whose benefits are less obvious, such as eating very little meat. That's likely healthy, but I do it more to be a decent neighbor.

That's my reasoning, and how I eat. Changing to eat that way was surprisingly easy and enjoyable, and I no longer feel like I need to change my diet. I physically feel better: fewer headaches, better sleep, more energy, better "digestion". When I started eating that way, I dropped 10 pounds without trying (I wasn't overweight to begin with, and I'm not underweight now).

Here are the downsides - I expect them to apply to any reasonable diet:

* It's more expensive.

* It's more time-consuming. I cook more. I enjoy it, but it is less convenient.

* It's a challenge to not come across as a snob, especially when around less urban folks. I most frequently compromise on my diet when with family members.

* It's hard to eat that way outside of real cities. Produce at major supermarkets is frequently awful. Chain restaurants sell preprocessed garbage.

How things feel doesn't always give you the best guidance, especially if you're not good at tracking those things accurately.

As much as I like fish, and though it is in general good for you, commercial fishing is emptying our oceans at an alarming and unsustainable rate. If humans keep fishing at the current rate, we'll have emptied the oceans of fish by some time in the later half of this century. We'll be left with jellyfish, worms and krill as our only seafood.

Do you want your grandchildren to eat fish? Only buy sustainably sourced seafood!

See the documentary "The end of the line" for evidence and info: http://endoftheline.com/

Sustainable fishing means taking less from the sea, adhering to quotas, not continuing to catch species at risk, and setting up sanctuaries where fish stocks can replenish.

If you want to leave a beautiful Earth to your grandchildren you must not have children.

It seems that everyone agrees on:

- Lots of fruit and vegetables

- Legumes

- Fish twice a week or more

- Red meat but not for every meal

- Avoid highly processed foods

- Avoid dairy products

There doesn't seem to be any consensus on wheat products. Rice seems fine, and potatoes too if you don't deep-fry them.

Of course nobody knows for sure what the optimal diet is, and I guess 'optimal' is also going to depend on your DNA and the specific mix of bacteria you have in your gut right now.

Your body requires loads of different nutrients to live but many of them can be synthesized in your body using other nutrients if need be. If you really want the optimal nutrient mix you could always try cannibalism. Human flesh, by definition, has the exact mix of amino acids and other nutrients your body needs. Not sure if you should be cooking your human flesh or not though.

Anecdotal for sure but most of the people I know who take diet seriously agree that dairy is bad.

I also believe the saying that humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy.

http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/

I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Taubes. His main message is more that carbohydrates are bad, and saturated fat is good.

One very scientific book you can read is The China Study.

Some great points are:

+ Look at our teeth, they are made for eating plants/veggies and not meat, unlike lions etc.

+ Cooked foods kill the nutrients, unlike eating raw organic food.

+ Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant based foods, compared to a meat eating anmial like a lion, they have a short digestive tract, so they can process raw meat quickly.

+ Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol.

Get this movie and watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmV8b1wr10

"Cooked foods are bad" is a crock. You can over cook foods, and maybe cooking some foods is bad, but cooking increases the nutritional value of many foods. Processing makes more nutrients available to the body. Humans don't have a super efficient digestive system (despite your claims otherwise) and cooking is one way to pre-digest. Besides the fact that cooking kills off critters so you don't have to.

Meat might be the only source of cholesterol, but so what? Cholesterol doesn't enter the body as cholesterol, it's broken down into fatty acid and glycerol, the liver puts it back together later. You can be vegetarian and have high/bad cholesterol. What you eat is only one part of the cholesterol story.

This "all food should be raw" crap is just reactionary, anti-science ludditeism, as are parts of the "organic" movement, specifically the no GMO part.

That's a huge unscientific leap to say that. We don't know GMO is safe. And it's certainly not logical to say that concerns about them are crap.

Better == What we optimize for. Which lately has unfortunately been appearance and shelf life, not taste and nutrients.

This is certainly true, but it's just as important that processing eliminates toxins. Despite the moaning you hear about processed food, a major problem is that our modern diet is under-processed.

There are many foods that used to universally be soaked & aged, sprouted, fermented, or treated with lye, or a combination of these steps, in order to eliminate anti-nutrients and allergens. This is rarely done on the modern industrial scale for reasons of cost. Modern flour is not the same thing as people were eating 150 years ago. The native americans always treated corn with lye. The settlers didn't and consequently got pellagra, and we continue to eat untreated corn.

Read Stephan Guyenet and the Weston Price Foundation have literature on various traditional processing steps and chemically what they were achieving.

Humans have a combination of the two, and also the rest of our digestive system is also built to makes us omnivores.

Humans have massive predator fangs that look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Bifaz_de_...

Long fangs are for catching. Cats don't really chew food, nor do snakes. Both rely on their teeth to stab and hold prey, which is why they are sharp like needles.

Our cutting teeth are for slicing and chewing- in other words, processing the meat after it's been caught. The 'massive predator fangs' take care of catching it, but have you ever eaten meat without biting off a piece, ONLY cutting it up into little bits and chewing it? There's a reason that's relegated to high society, it's not worthwhile for everyone else, and it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.

Uh, pretty much every day? I'm pretty sure that's what pre-humans did, too. They butchered, cooked, and cut it up. Dentition is irrelevant.

> it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.

They were kept razor sharp. It would not be hard.

As a further argument, notice how most people eat a drumstick? It comes naturally.

Some evolutionary biologists believe that learning to cook food was crucial in providing us with the extra calories required to fuel our gigantic brains.

I got news for you, primeval man did not have the discretionary ability we have today in our food.

Protein is an excellent example. The primary sources for vegans are nuts/seeds, and legumes. If you can't cook, it's very hard to eat legumes- have you ever tried eating a raw pinto bean? They are literally hard as rocks. Plus they cannot be found across the globe. Nuts and seeds are very seasonal, leaving man high and dry in certain seasons, and it's much much more of a challenge to harvest 6+ oz of nuts every day than it is to buy a jar of them at the store.