By
Lord
LordI'm providing evidence-based information synthesized from peer-reviewed research. This is not medical advice, and individual nutritional needs vary based on health status, activity level, age, and other factors. If you have specific health conditions, particularly metabolic disorders, kidney disease, or cardiovascular conditions, consult with a qualified healthcare professional before making significant dietary changes.
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
| Nutrition is undoubtedly of the most studied fields in all of science, and simultaneously one of the most confidently misunderstood. I find that genuinely fascinating in a frustrating sort of way, as you've got decades of rigorous, peer-reviewed research sitting in journals that almost nobody reads, and right next to it is some retard on tiktok with 4 million followers telling you that olive oil or seed oil is slowly killing you. And people believe him. A lot of people. I would consider myself a somewhat understanding individual, so I kind of get it, honestly. Nutrition research is notoriously difficult to communicate. Not only do studies contradict each other, but headlines misrepresent findings, and the actual papers are locked behind scientific jargon dense enough to make anyone's eyes glaze over. So people turn to whoever sounds the most confident and tells the most compelling story. And the most compelling stories in nutrition are almost always the most wrong ones. There's a shit ton of examples I can provide, but we can always think back to the trajectory of dietary advice over the past 60 years. Fat was the enemy through the 70s and 80s. So food manufacturers replaced fat with sugar, gave everything a "low-fat" label, and obesity rates climbed anyway. Then, of course, followed carbohydrate, gluten, lectins, and seed oils. When it comes to nutrition, there is always something new to be terrified of, always a new villain, always someone selling the solution. The 'villain' conveniently changes every decade but the structure of the argument stays identical: 1. Mainstream nutrition is always hiding the truth 2. This one food or food group is destroying your health 3. Here's what you should really be eating What's actually happening is a combination of: Genuine scientific uncertainty being exploited + Preliminary findings get reported as established fact + Some financial incentives (supplement companies, diet book deals, supplement-shilling influencers) transforms what information reaches people. I would also include human psychology in the considering we're wired to respond to threat, to novelty, and to simple explanations for complex problems. From personal experience, I've watched a couple of friends spend years cycling through elimination diets, cutting out entire food groups, spending money on supplements that do essentially nothing, and genuinely believing they were optimizing their health while ignoring the basics. I'm not exempt from this. Early on I went through phases of obsessing over meal timing, tracking every gram, and other nonsensical shit. It's honestly exhausting and unnecessary as fuck. I then, fortunately, started actually reading the research. And what you find when you do that is so much less dramatic and draining than the content ecosystem wants you to believe. The fundamentals of a healthy diet are not controversial within nutrition science. They are, however, aggressively unprofitable to promote, because they don't require any 'special' products, any elimination protocols, or any influencer to explain them. That's what this thread is. I hope you see this as an honest attempt to lay out what peer-reviewed evidence actually shows, how to eat in a way that satisfies your nutritional needs, and why a great portion of what's circulating online right now is either overstated, misinterpreted, or outright wrong. |
BASELINE AND HOW TO EAT ACCORDINGLY |
|---|
| Your body needs three macronutrients to function: 1. Protein 2. Carbohydrates 3. Fats The Institute of Medicine has established acceptable macronutrient distribution ranges (AMDRs) based on decades of metabolic research and epidemiological evidence. According to this research on macronutrient requirements, these ranges are: "carbohydrate (45%-65% of energy), protein (10%-35% of energy), and fat (20%-35% of energy; limit saturated and trans fats)" They particularly exist due to different populations and activity levels require different distributions. If you're physically active, you'll trend toward higher carbohydrate intake (5-12 g/kg body weight depending on activity). Protein needs scale similarly, from 1.2-1.8 g/kg body weight for active individuals. This Korean study on macronutrient distributions and hypertension found that deviating from appropriate macronutrient ranges was associated with increased hypertension risk even after adjusting for other factors. The study tracked participants who consumed outside the Korean AMDR (carbohydrate 55-70%, fat 15-25%, protein 7-20%) and found: "odds ratio of the non-AMDR group was 1.25 (95% CI, 1.02-1.53) in the hypertensive subjects." - Extremely low-fat diets can reduce testosterone production. - Extremely low-carb diets can impair high-intensity performance. - Inadequate protein compromises muscle maintenance and satiety. You need all three in reasonable amounts. PROTEIN: The RDA for protein is 0.8 g/kg body weight. This number has been unchanged for over 70 years because it represents the minimum needed to prevent nitrogen loss. What's particularly interesting to me about this is that the RDA was never meant to represent optimal intake. This research examining protein requirements points out that: "the lowest level of protein intake reflected in the AMDR is higher than that of the RDA." Recent studies, particularly in older adults, show benefits at intakes exceeding the RDA. For most people, aiming for 1.2-1.6 g/kg body weight makes sense, with higher intakes (1.6-2.2 g/kg) justified for those doing resistance training or in caloric deficits. It literally: 1. Has the highest thermic effect of all macronutrients (meaning your body burns more calories digesting it) 2. Promotes satiety better than carbs or fats 3. Is essential for maintaining lean mass. The study below on protein and cognitive function found that: PROTEIN SOURCES Yes, plant proteins count. No, you don't need to eat 200g of chicken breast daily. CARBOHYDRATES: There are two types of carbohydrates: 1. Complex carbohydrates 2. Simple carbohydrates Carbs are not poisonous nor are they universally benign. The type matters enormously. We can tell by looking at the same research on macronutrients and cognitive function from earlier that found a clear distinction: "Intake of simple carbohydrates ('sugars') is consistently associated with decreased global cognition whereas consumption of complex carbohydrates correlates with successful brain aging and improved memory both in the short- and long-term." - Whole grains - Legumes - Vegetables - Fruits They provide fiber, vitamins, minerals, and sustained energy. Simple carbohydrates (added sugars, refined grains) spike blood glucose rapidly and provide little nutritional value beyond calories. We can see the difference in mortality data. There are multiple meta-analyses that show that whole grain consumption reduces all-cause mortality. One comprehensive analysis examining prospective cohort studies found this about whole grain intake: The dose-response showed benefits up to 210-225 g/day (about 7-7.5 servings) Another meta-analysis found that comparing highest to lowest whole grain intake categories yielded a pooled relative risk of 0.84 for cardiovascular mortality and 0.91 for total mortality. For every 48g (about 1.5 servings) of whole grains consumed daily, there was a 7% reduction in all-cause mortality and a 9% reduction in CVD mortality. CARBOHYDRATE SOURCES FATS: - Hormone production - Vitamin absorption (A, D, E, K are fat-soluble) - Cell membrane integrity - Brain function The question is which fats? The evidence is clear on trans fats: avoid them. They're associated with increased cardiovascular disease risk and were banned in many countries for good reason. Saturated fat is more nuanced. If your intake is excessive, it does tend to correlate with elevated LDL cholesterol. HOWEVER, moderate consumption within the 20-35% fat range appears fine for most people. The ACTUAL discussion should focus on unsaturated fats, particularly: 1. Omega-3 2. Omega-6 fatty acids Both are essential (your body cannot synthesize them), but their ratio in the diet matters. Linoleic acid (LA), the primary omega-6 fatty acid, has been highly demonized online. The "seed oil" panic is one of the most persistent nutrition myths of the 2020s. Hence why I want to show you guys what the research actually shows. A 2024 review of omega-6 fatty acids examining literature from January 2023 to August 2024 concluded that: "Contrary to previous concerns that high LA intake may increase inflammation, most recent evidence supports the benefits of LA for cardiometabolic health. Several large studies report that higher blood LA levels correlate with reduced risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, and type 2 diabetes." The mechanisms include activation of peroxisome proliferator-activated receptors (PPARs) + modulation of oxylipins involved in glucose and lipid metabolism. Current intakes around 5-10% of energy appear beneficial. A systematic review specifically addressing the "LA causes inflammation" hypothesis examined 15 clinical trials, stating: "failed to find any support for the 'diet LA causes inflammation hypothesis.'" Research on LA and cardiometabolic disease found that: "LA appears to reduce inflammation and reduce risk for CMD" (cardiometabolic disease). Above that, the review also stated that the dogma positioning LA as pro-inflammatory because it's an omega-6 fatty acid is false when examined in human studies. This study on omega-6 fatty acids and inflammation concluded: "studies in healthy human adults have found that increased intake of ARA or LA does not increase the concentrations of many inflammatory markers. Epidemiological studies have even suggested that ARA and LA may be linked to reduced inflammation." The confusion basically comes from the mechanistic thinking that omega-6 fatty acids CAN be metabolized into pro-inflammatory eicosanoids. But in practice, humans consuming normal amounts of LA don't show increased inflammatory markers. The theoretical pathway =/= clinical inflammation in well-nourished humans. Am I saying there is no legitimate discussion about omega-6 to omega-3 ratios? No. Not at all. In fact, research on this topic literally states that Western diets provide omega-6/3 ratios around 20:1, whereas ratios of 4:1 or less may be more optimal. Now, is the solution to eliminate omega-6 (which would require avoiding nuts, seeds, and many healthy foods)? No. That would be, quite frankly, insanely retarded. All you need to do is increase omega-3 intake from fatty fish, flaxseeds, walnuts, and chia seeds. One legitimate concern about seed oils came from this research on heating vegetable oils. When oils high in linoleic acid are heated to high temperatures, they can form toxic aldehydes like 4-hydroxynonenal (4-HNE). The study found that oils high in linoleic acid (soybean, sunflower, some canola products) generated significant 4-HNE when heated to 200°C for extended periods, while oils low in polyunsaturated fats (coconut oil) generated negligible amounts. Now, THIS is a somewhat reasonable concern for deep frying, but it doesn't justify the blanket condemnation of all seed oils. The issue is oxidative stress from prolonged high-heat cooking, which affects any PUFA-rich oil. METHOD: Using high-heat stable oils (avocado, refined olive, coconut) for cooking above 180°C and reserving PUFA-rich oils for lower-heat applications or actual use would be a sensible approach. SOURCES MICRO-NUTRIENTS: Water-soluble vitamins (B-complex, C) need regular replenishment since your body doesn't store them long-term. Fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, K) can be stored, which means both deficiency and toxicity are possible. This study on micronutrient deficiencies globally notes that: "deficiencies of vitamin A and zinc increase the risk of child mortality, and zinc deficiency increases infectious morbidity and reduces linear growth as well. Deficiencies of iodine and iron are significant primarily for their effects on development and cognition and consequent disabilities." 1. Vitamin D 2. Iron 3. Vitamin A 4. Zinc 5. Folate 6. Iodine Vitamin D deserves special mention. Most people in non-equatorial climates are deficient or insufficient. Supplementation of 1000-2000 IU/day is reasonable for most adults, though individual needs vary based on baseline levels, sun exposure, and skin pigmentation. Iron deficiency is pretty common in menstruating individuals and can cause negative effects on the body like fatigue and cognitive impairment. This research on iron and cognition showed that significant effects on neurological function happens when deficient. MICRO-NUTRIENT SOURCES You get micronutrients from eating varied, minimally processed foods. A diet with: FIBERFiber is technically a carbohydrate, but since humans lack the enzymes to digest it fully, it functions differently. It's classified as: 1. Soluble (dissolves in water, found in oats, beans, apples) Or 2. Insoluble (doesn't dissolve, found in whole wheat, vegetables, nuts) This research on fiber and cardiovascular health found that: "regular consumption of dietary fiber, particularly fiber from cereal sources, may improve CVD health through multiple mechanisms including lipid reduction, body weight regulation, improved glucose metabolism, blood pressure control, and reduction of chronic inflammation." The umbrella review I provided below of fiber meta-analyses found that individuals consuming the highest amounts of dietary fiber showed statistically significant reductions in cardiovascular disease mortality (RR = 0.77-0.83), CVD incidence (RR = 0.72-0.91), coronary heart disease (RR = 0.76-0.93), and stroke (RR = 0.83-0.93) compared to lowest intake groups. "greater dietary fibre intake is associated with a lower risk of both cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease." The dose-response analysis found benefits for each 7 g/day increase in total fiber intake. "higher consumption of total dietary fiber, significantly decreased the risk of all-cause mortality, CVD-related mortality, and cancer-related mortality by 23, 26 and 22%." Fiber feeds beneficial gut bacteria -> slows glucose absorption -> increases satiety -> binds bile acids (forcing cholesterol use for replacement) -> modulates inflammation through short-chain fatty acid production. Current recommendations suggest 25-30g daily for most adults. The average American consumes around 15g. The gap isn't small. FIBER SOURCES You will NOT hit adequate fiber eating primarily meat, dairy, and refined carbohydrates. You just won't. PLANT-BASED FOODS: The research on plant-based diets has exploded in the past decade. A comprehensive review of plant-based diets and cardiovascular health found that: "plant-based diets, especially when rich in high quality plant foods such as whole grains, fruits, vegetables, and nuts" were "associated with lower risk of cardiovascular outcomes and intermediate risk factors." In fact, this research distinguishing healthy from unhealthy plant-based diets found that even though overall plant-based diet adherence associated with 8% lower cardiovascular mortality, unhealthy plant-based diets (high in refined grains, potatoes/fries, sugar-sweetened beverages) showed INCREASED cardiovascular mortality risk (HR: 1.05). Conversely, healthy plant-based diets rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, nuts, and legumes showed decreased CVD incidence (HR: 0.87). "participants in the highest versus lowest quintile for adherence to overall plant-based diet index or provegetarian diet had a 16%, 31% to 32%, and 18% to 25% lower risk of cardiovascular disease, cardiovascular disease mortality, and all-cause mortality, respectively." Interestingly enough, this research in African American populations found no significant association between plant-based diet adherence and CVD or mortality. Meta-analysis across multiple ethnicities in the Multiethnic Cohort Study found that: "healthy plant-based dietary pattern emphasizing the quality of plant foods was associated with a lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality in both men and women," though magnitude is varied by other factors such as race and ethnicity. Do you see the consistent pattern? Specifically diets rich in minimally processed plant foods correlate with better health outcomes. This doesn't require veganism or vegetarianism. "plant-based diets do not have to be vegan or vegetarian. For most people, complete elimination of meat or animal products is unrealistic and not necessary for cardiovascular health." |
CONCLUSION |
|---|
| Human nutrition is complex enough that rigid rules fail for most people. So, as far as we know, your optimal diet depends on: 1. Activity level (athletes need more carbs and protein than sedentary individuals) 2. Age (protein requirements increase with age, caloric needs typically decrease) 3. Health status (diabetes changes carbohydrate metabolism, kidney disease modifies protein needs) 4. Genetics (some people process saturated fat differently, lactose intolerance varies by ancestry) 5. Food availability and culture 6. Personal preferences and sustainability Based on the research I've provided so far, the evidence consistently supports: 1. Base your diet on minimally processed foods. This single principle addresses, like, 80% of nutritional concerns. Whole grains instead of refined. Whole fruits instead of juice. Nuts instead of nut-flavored cereal. The closer food is to its original form, the more likely it retains beneficial nutrients and fiber. 2. Eat sufficient protein distributed throughout the day. Aim for 1.2-1.6 g/kg for most people, higher if very active or older. Include it at each meal for optimal muscle protein synthesis. 3. Prioritize complex carbohydrates over simple sugars. Your carbohydrate intake should come primarily from whole grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits. You CAN eat refined grains and added sugars, but try to limit them. 4. Include varied sources of fat. Emphasize unsaturated fats from nuts, seeds, avocados, olive oil, and fatty fish. Don't fear saturated fat in moderate amounts, but don't center your diet around it. Omega-3 intake deserves attention. 5. Eat enough fiber. If you're following points 1-4, this happens automatically. If you're not hitting 25-30g daily, something's wrong with your food choices. 6. Include a wide variety of plant foods. Vegetables and fruits provide micronutrients, phytochemicals, and fiber that are difficult to obtain elsewhere. Different colors typically indicate different nutrient profiles. 7. Don't obsess over minor details. The difference between 45% and 50% carbohydrate intake is so little compared to whether those carbohydrates come from whole grains or refined flour. Focus on the big patterns before micromanaging macros. Notice that calorie counting, macronutrient calculation to the gram, food timing rules, supplement stacks, meal frequency dogma is absent in this entire guide. That's simply because those things can matter for specific goals (athletic performance, bodybuilding, metabolic conditions), but for general health, food quality and variety matter far more than being precise. You don't need to be perfect. In fact, a diet that's 80% whole foods and includes regular vegetables, adequate protein, and sufficient fiber will outperform a "perfect" diet that's abandoned after two weeks because it's unsustainable. The best diet is one that's: - Nutritionally adequate - Practically sustainable - Culturally appropriate - Enjoyable enough to be consistent about it This might look like Mediterranean for some, like traditional Asian diets for others, or like modernized versions of indigenous food patterns. The common thread behind all of this is principles. Minimal processing, plant emphasis, adequate protein, healthy fats. |
