I am always suspicious of mono-factorial explanations of any complex phenomenon, whether it be obesity or climate change. Yet for any such phenomenon there seems to be a population of people, call them philosophical monists, who stridently insist that the sole explanation for A must be B and B alone, and that anyone who claims otherwise or cites contrary evidence is in the pocket of Big B.
I've been following this debate for some time and I've landed in a similar place. My bird's eye takeaway for dietary wisdom has slowly coalesced into something like a smattering of loosely-related Rule of Thumb heuristics:
1. Don't drink your calories; instead, drink almost exclusively water
2. Eat mostly ingredients; avoid foodstuff with inscrutable origins
3. Refined carbohydrates, sugar and trans fats are on the naughty list
4. Err on the side of low-carb, err towards higher protein consumption
5. Don't eat gluten if you've got IBD (or any of the associated/adjacent conditions)
6. Prebiotic, soluble fiber might be good for you, but most fiber probably isn't
I grew up in a household that demonized mainstream medicine and lionized Dr. Oz, and since then I've had to eat a lot of crow as my personal investigations have overturned my previously unexamined beliefs, handed down by my parents; such subjects as iodized salt, fluoride in toothpaste and tap water, psyllium husk as a dietary supplement, colloidal silver and other homeopathic remedies that my mother/grandmother used to proselytize.
Probably the most contentious of the numbered list above are numbers five and six, both of which should be considered /strong opinions held loosely/ because they are based mostly on personal anecdote. I've had gastrointestinal issues since I was born, but I wasn't given an official diagnosis of IBD 'til well into high school, and it took them another decade to upgrade that diagnosis to full-blown Ulcerative Colitis. I've been through several phases of wacky self-experimentation, but my condition has been perfectly under control for the past five years now. And this is AFTER it had gotten so bad that I was pretty sure I'd be facing down a colectomy. The things that had the most tangible impact were FMTs (mostly this was a one-and-done sorta deal), cutting gluten completely out of my diet (I have since reintroduced gluten in very small, occasional amounts and it no longer triggers immediate adverse affects although it's still not pleasant) and avoiding fiber almost entirely.
Staying inquisitive, skeptical and genuinely oriented towards the truth has made all the difference. The heuristics that I listed above could be inverted if I discovered strong enough evidence, although the overall trajectory of my gut health has weighted my priors down pretty heavily in some regards. You've done an unusually good job capturing just how difficult it is thinking about diet, since it's almost impossible to have anything resembling a complete picture. I've tried to keep the odds of harm/benefit on the correct sides of the Pareto Principle where my takeaways are concerned, but quite likely I'm just plain wrong about something.
Thank you for that excellent analysis.
I am always suspicious of mono-factorial explanations of any complex phenomenon, whether it be obesity or climate change. Yet for any such phenomenon there seems to be a population of people, call them philosophical monists, who stridently insist that the sole explanation for A must be B and B alone, and that anyone who claims otherwise or cites contrary evidence is in the pocket of Big B.
I've been following this debate for some time and I've landed in a similar place. My bird's eye takeaway for dietary wisdom has slowly coalesced into something like a smattering of loosely-related Rule of Thumb heuristics:
1. Don't drink your calories; instead, drink almost exclusively water
2. Eat mostly ingredients; avoid foodstuff with inscrutable origins
3. Refined carbohydrates, sugar and trans fats are on the naughty list
4. Err on the side of low-carb, err towards higher protein consumption
5. Don't eat gluten if you've got IBD (or any of the associated/adjacent conditions)
6. Prebiotic, soluble fiber might be good for you, but most fiber probably isn't
I grew up in a household that demonized mainstream medicine and lionized Dr. Oz, and since then I've had to eat a lot of crow as my personal investigations have overturned my previously unexamined beliefs, handed down by my parents; such subjects as iodized salt, fluoride in toothpaste and tap water, psyllium husk as a dietary supplement, colloidal silver and other homeopathic remedies that my mother/grandmother used to proselytize.
Probably the most contentious of the numbered list above are numbers five and six, both of which should be considered /strong opinions held loosely/ because they are based mostly on personal anecdote. I've had gastrointestinal issues since I was born, but I wasn't given an official diagnosis of IBD 'til well into high school, and it took them another decade to upgrade that diagnosis to full-blown Ulcerative Colitis. I've been through several phases of wacky self-experimentation, but my condition has been perfectly under control for the past five years now. And this is AFTER it had gotten so bad that I was pretty sure I'd be facing down a colectomy. The things that had the most tangible impact were FMTs (mostly this was a one-and-done sorta deal), cutting gluten completely out of my diet (I have since reintroduced gluten in very small, occasional amounts and it no longer triggers immediate adverse affects although it's still not pleasant) and avoiding fiber almost entirely.
Staying inquisitive, skeptical and genuinely oriented towards the truth has made all the difference. The heuristics that I listed above could be inverted if I discovered strong enough evidence, although the overall trajectory of my gut health has weighted my priors down pretty heavily in some regards. You've done an unusually good job capturing just how difficult it is thinking about diet, since it's almost impossible to have anything resembling a complete picture. I've tried to keep the odds of harm/benefit on the correct sides of the Pareto Principle where my takeaways are concerned, but quite likely I'm just plain wrong about something.
Thanks for another solid article, Dynomight.