Synthesizers and polymaths are especially vulnerable to this charge, but at the other end of the scale, those with expert knowledge of a particular thing can usually be faulted for ignorance of all sorts outside it and of 'the big picture'. We all evaluate by our own yardsticks anyway.
Yes. And I have much sympathy for this as someone who is naturally more 'synthetic' but started her career in science. The realization of these poles is what led me to change careers.
But, the onus must be on the synthesizer to not make factual errors and to at least be clear when something is an opinion or a theory. Just as the onus is on the deep experts to try to help give the context of why their expertise matters in the bigger picture.
My quibble may be with the podcast format more than the person. Or maybe both.
I am very at peace with:
- "I believe this because ...."
- "I am using shorthand here but if you are interested you can find more at xxx"
- "One way to think about this is ...." (even if omitting the other ways to think about it)
What I have more issue with is assertions without any of the above qualifiers. I find it particularly egregious in matters of science because we only know what we know as of today. Our ability to understand more is constantly evolving - so today's assertions of complex biological processes are by definition on shaky ground.
On the podcast there was a lot of straight up assertion. And some of it was just wrong. One example was the statement that excess protein (amino acids) are stored in muscle. Not true. Excess amino acids are broken down and the nitrogen released from that process is excreted via the kidneys as urea. This is why people with impaired renal function often require a low protein diet.
The corresponding nutritional geometry thesis is, I think, that there are just 5 appetites in the human body.
If we satisfy our protein appetite (especially if we satisfy it with *animal protein*, which is called 'complete' because it has all the amino acids we need), and follow our appetites for fats and carbs and salt and calcium, we will almost certainly get enough of all the vitamins and minerals we need.
This articulation seems more reasonable to me. Note it doesn't say that the human body cannot get everything it needs in other ways, but that animal protein is the most reliable way.
That makes logical sense from an evolutionary perspective - we, like our chicken friends, are omnivores. We are well adapted to eating and gaining nutritional benefit from a wide variety of things. Some foods are more valuable nutritionally and would be more 'prized'. Just like my chickens will expertly fish the bits of meat and fish out of a mixed bowl of kitchen scraps.
Salt and calcium appetites exist because these minerals (micronutrients) were very variable in our evolutionary environment, and though only needed in small quantities, they do require close monitoring because too little or too much of them can kill us relatively quickly. The word 'salary' is derived from 'salt' because Roman soldiers used to be paid partly in it to ensure they got enough of it wherever they were in the Empire.
Funny you should mention salt as I kept thinking about it during the podcast - she made no mention of it - and yet all sorts of animals seek salt directly from the earth presumably because it is hard to get enough even with a high animal protein diet. Predators like lions lick salt directly when they find it.
On satiety, Raubenheimer and Simpson have this:
"Our capacity to balance our nutrition has become seriously impaired due to the industrialization of the food system. We have
- made low-protein processed foods taste unnaturally good by adding sugars, fats, salts, and other chemicals
- diluted the presence of protein in the food supply with cheap and abundant ultra-processed fats and carbs
- disconnected the brake on our appetite systems by decreasing our intake of fibre, which promotes fullness and feeds our gut bugs
- changed food cultures globally by aggressively marketing these products, including to kids, to establish them as the norm
- increased animal production unsustainably to meet the world's hunger for meat protein, with associated environmental harm, and
- driven a decline in the protein content of our staple food plants by increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere."
Eat like the animals 2020: 182.
Instinctively I believe this and a lot of it has good evidence to back it up.
That's one or more appetites crying out to be satisfied, and the craving stops once they're sated.
Maybe. I am not sure we understand it well enough to be sure. Why after a big steak dinner might I crave something sweet? That may be time delay because protein takes longer to break down and my body thinks it is lacking in ready energy. Or it may be social influence that dessert is an indulgent treat after a meal.
We don't know and none of these theories explains it.
Why do I often crave pickles (and apparently have done so since I was a baby)? Maybe that is just me and doesn't need explaining!
But I crave chocolate especially, and the craving isn't sated at a piece or two.
I think the point is not that you satisfy the chocolate craving with chocolate, but rather if you ate more complete protein you would crave chocolate less often.
This does have some science behind it and my personal observation also supports the idea.
I've read that we are pre-wired to enjoy/love/crave the taste of sweets. Fast energy for the body. Ditto with salt, because it is vital for our internal electrical system, and is not very plentiful in plants, one of our main foods.
I don't think we developed the "brakes" for these tastes...?
This is an evolution thing. The body must have sugar to operate. It makes its own sugar by breaking down more complex carbohydrates (mainly glycogen), fat and protein in the body. And it makes those stores by converting sugar into fat.
From an evolutionary perspective the ability to stuff yourself with carbohydrates and become fat was a good defense against starvation when food was scarce.
I suspect that one of the reasons satiety is so complex to understand is that evolutionarily it makes no sense. You should always eat when you can and as much as you can! But of course in today's world that is all turned on its head.
Thank you.
