Can nutrition really be considered a legitimate science?

[mattvdh]

With the multitude genetic variations and hormonal responses built in to every human, how can we actually place the subject of nutrition in the same field of thought as say mathematics or chemistry. The human body seems to be a subject that slips in and out of the scientific definition.
Thoughts

[LaViidaLocaa]

Almost everything is different for every individual human. This way, medicine, pharmacology, etc would also not be considered science. No serious person would dare to say such thing.

[Zantei]

Due to the fact that everything is measurable, and the metrics are relevant to the theories involved, it is science.

[mattvdh]

Due to the fact that everything is measurable, and the metrics are relevant to the theories involved, it is science.

True, however our tools for measuring hormonal responses and such aren't quite there yet. Maybe in a decade or so we'll have a portable device that can interpret that data in a easy to use interface.

[germaine07]

True, however our tools for measuring hormonal responses and such aren't quite there yet.

We can measure hormonal response.

[mattvdh]

We can measure hormonal response.

It's not widely available to the general public and easy to use, how many people do you know have had their hormones investigated. Also, hormonal responses are dynamic and change from day to day, so blood/urine samples are quite narrow in its scope. We're still in the infancy stages of this technology. Basically a device that be strapped on like a watch or something, that would gather data without you even knowing it would be ideal. Then after a few months or years you could really get a thorough understanding of that individuals body chemistry. That would be amazingly useful data on so many levels of science and medicine.

[ilove2run]

It's not widely available to the general public and easy to use, how many people do you know have had their hormones investigated. Also, hormonal responses are dynamic and change from day to day, so blood/urine samples are quite narrow in its scope. We're still in the infancy stages of this technology. Basically a device that be strapped on like a watch or something, that would gather data without you even knowing it would be ideal. Then after a few months or years you could really get a thorough understanding of that individuals body chemistry. That would be amazingly useful data on so many levels of science and medicine.

? If you ask your General Medical Doctor, they typically will check any value you so choose, as long as you have a valid reason....

[mattvdh]

Right, but they don't have the practical tools to bring it all together really. If you have a blood or urine test done and they figure out that you are low in 'x', then do they know how to apply it to your nutrition choices? No, they simply analyze it and perhaps offer a medication supplement. You're best bet is to talk to a endocrinologist, but the thing is that all of these fields mentioned (nutrition/science/medicine/endocrinology) don't seem to communicate with each other as to how to come up with a proper analyses of someones genetic type, hormonal responses in order to design a truly personalized nutrition program.

I'm just posing a question, it's not necessarily a criticism.

[THSP]

With the multitude genetic variations and hormonal responses built in to every human, how can we actually place the subject of nutrition in the same field of thought as say mathematics or chemistry. The human body seems to be a subject that slips in and out of the scientific definition.
Thoughts

It can be, but the problem is most of the people doing the research don't treat it as such. It's the only field of "science" where tests and studies are readily accepted without much scrutiny, or validation. Most studies are actually non-deterministic because if the study does not follow the hypothesis the researchers often chalk it up to people lying about what they ate. What is the point of a study when the only acceptable outcome is the one which you already think you know?

If we start expecting the same level of accuracy, reliability, and predictability in health sciences as we do in other fields then yes I think we can place nutrition back into science. Since the body is a dynamic system many people would argue that this is not possible; however, during my cholesterol experiments I found that I was able to stabilize my total cholesterol within a 3% deviation with 6 different measurements over a year on the same diet (bananas). Total cholesterol values with laboratory and biological variation are known to vary by about 20% week to week. The accurate and reliable measurements I produced in my experiments is proof that otherwise unstable values can actually be stable if the right variables are controlled.

Now if we could just find a group of 100 people who can eat the a single food source diet for 4 weeks in a row...

[CelticTheTruth]

I don't think there is any doubt out there that it is a scientific discipline. Why would the best universities in the world offer degrees in that then?

[THSP]

I don't think there is any doubt out there that it is a scientific discipline. Why would the best universities in the world offer degrees in that then?

There are plenty of degrees taught at universities that are completely non-scientific.

[mattvdh]

It can be, but the problem is most of the people doing the research don't treat it as such. It's the only field of "science" where tests and studies are readily accepted without much scrutiny, or validation. Most studies are actually non-deterministic because if the study does not follow the hypothesis the researchers often chalk it up to people lying about what they ate. What is the point of a study when the only acceptable outcome is the one which you already think you know?

If we start expecting the same level of accuracy, reliability, and predictability in health sciences as we do in other fields then yes I think we can place nutrition back into science. Since the body is a dynamic system many people would argue that this is not possible; however, during my cholesterol experiments I found that I was able to stabilize my total cholesterol within a 3% deviation with 6 different measurements over a year on the same diet (bananas). Total cholesterol values with laboratory and biological variation are known to vary by about 20% week to week. The accurate and reliable measurements I produced in my experiments is proof that otherwise unstable values can actually be stable if the right variables are controlled.

Now if we could just find a group of 100 people who can eat the a single food source diet for 4 weeks in a row...

ya if you actually observe a study first hand you'll see how flawed they are-- just based on the variabilities of th average human not conforming to study. It's incredibly difficult to observe humans just based on that factor alone.

[badgenesnogainz]

Almost everything is different for every individual human. This way, medicine, pharmacology, etc would also not be considered science. No serious person would dare to say such thing.

There are alot of peple who´d "dare" to say that medicine is not a science, cause it isnt. Most medical doctors I know themselves say medicine is not a science. Its something between a craft an art and maybe even some science.

Nutrition obviously doesnt fall into the same category as chemistry, physics or informatics. The concerns you raise are very valid, its most of the time impossible to precisely replicate experiments to validate some claims, and if a claim cant be validated its not a theory by definition. I dont think though it makes any sense to piss off everyone who doesnt happen to be a physicist/chemist/meteorologist/geologist or whatever by saying what they do is not a science....

[Guyjin37]

In that nutrition is classified and analyzed it is a science.

However, put into perspective it is still a stone-age science. Physics, mathematics, etc. are in a predictive state, meaning they are advanced enough to predict things accurately before actually accumulating evidence.

But nutrition (and to some extent medical science) is far behind--it is still based upon trial and error. We still observe an effect and then try to explain it, which is scientific yet rudimentary in comparison (and then most of the time we don't even explain it correctly).

Still, yeah, a science.

[mattvdh]

meaning they are advanced enough to predict things accurately before actually accumulating evidence.

That could be said about just about anything though.

The scientific method defines as: " consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses"

On the surface we would probably agree that nutrition adheres or conforms to this method, but I would argue that our tools to easily and precisely measure the average human aren't advanced enough to really get passed that stage of the SM. Yes we do have technology available at the very high levels in the field, but it's so complex and expensive to operate. It's like we're in the era of nutrition and health technology that compares to the infancy stages of the computer--which occupied an entire room, cost millions of dollars to manufacture, and could only perform extremely basic functions.

That's the thing that bugs me about nutrition, fitness and body re-composition or development, they're always speaking in imprecise terms of just 'getting in the ball park' on so many levels--this is about as scientific as religion.

[THSP]

That's the thing that bugs me about nutrition, fitness and body re-composition or development, they're always speaking in imprecise terms of just 'getting in the ball park' on so many levels--this is about as scientific as religion.

Amen brother.

From my book: "Contrary to most sciences where the public requires accuracy and reliability, health science is unfortunately accepted without conclusive evidence or validation. The overwhelming presence of conflicting data allows health 'experts' to pick and choose which studies they want to believe making health science more of a health religion."

[badassidtrip]

True, however our tools for measuring hormonal responses and such aren't quite there yet. Maybe in a decade or so we'll have a portable device that can interpret that data in a easy to use interface.

So you would argue that biology wasn't a science before the invention of the microscope?

[THSP]

So you would argue that biology wasn't a science before the invention of the microscope?

Biology is a lot bigger than the cellular level which is what requires a microscope, but for a better comparison it's like cellular biology before the microscope existed and yes that wouldn't exactly be scientific. It's at best a theoretical science but even then the science in question is not marketed as a theoretical science.

I can't remember who it was that originally estimated the orbital period of the moon, but it was estimated at 27 days before we had tools to really measure it. After we measured it, it turned out to be 27.3 days... Now that's an accurate estimation. We don't have near that accuracy for the majority of things we measure and try to assess in health sciences. Without accuracy or certainty is it really a science? If they don't follow the scientific method in studies (which they don't) is it really science?

[nicholina]

Its a science. The fact that the variables are difficult to control, does not make it "not a science", just a more difficult to one to study. If the scientific method is not followed in studies, that just indicates that it is a bad (invalid) study.

[theeberk226]

True, however our tools for measuring hormonal responses and such aren't quite there yet. Maybe in a decade or so we'll have a portable device that can interpret that data in a easy to use interface.

You say that while conveniently ignoring everything we learn about nutrition from science. Without nutritional science , would we know that high GI foods spike insulin? Would we know all the vitamins and minerals that one needs for basic functions such as cellular respiration and action potential? In fact, we wouldn't.

It is true that our bodies tend to act differently when introduced to similar diets, but that does not discount the science of nutrition. Animals all tend to behave different, does that mean ethology is not a science? What about physics on a molecular level - we can't accurately predict what is going to happen to a particle because it always changes - does that mean chemistry and quantum physics aren't sciences?

The beauty of science, and why I really love it, is because it is not so simple. Nearly everything can occur for multiple reasons, and that doesn't mean we aren't learning science, it just proves that there is no linear way to learn something.

[eatyourspinach]

You say that while conveniently ignoring everything we learn about nutrition from science. Without nutritional science , would we know that high GI foods spike insulin? Would we know all the vitamins and minerals that one needs for basic functions such as cellular respiration and action potential? In fact, we wouldn't.

It is true that our bodies tend to act differently when introduced to similar diets, but that does not discount the science of nutrition. Animals all tend to behave different, does that mean ethology is not a science? What about physics on a molecular level - we can't accurately predict what is going to happen to a particle because it always changes - does that mean chemistry and quantum physics aren't sciences?

The beauty of science, and why I really love it, is because it is not so simple. Nearly everything can occur for multiple reasons, and that doesn't mean we aren't learning science, it just proves that there is no linear way to learn something.

I think you need to reconsider your GI index response http://alanaragon.com/glycemic-index

[theeberk226]

As a whole, high GI foods increase blood sugar more than those in other categories. If you want to go into specifics, I could talk about nutrition all day.

[mattvdh]

As a whole, high GI foods increase blood sugar more than those in other categories. If you want to go into specifics, I could talk about nutrition all day.

AA explains in that article that it's a little bit more technical than that. If you combine different sources of food it tends to blunt the GL, so that chart should really be an encyclopedia, not just a few pages.

[theeberk226]

AA explains in that article that it's a little bit more technical than that. If you combine different sources of food it tends to blunt the GL, so that chart should really be an encyclopedia, not just a few pages.

''

I read it. Once again, shall I say? The basic rule of thumb applies - that monosaccharides will increase blood glucose levels more quickly with a higher peak than that of a starch. If one was to attempt to transform that chart into a complex encyclopedia, giving each subclass of food its own individual variables, no one would understand the basics of what is going on when in reality, there isn't much that a bodybuilder (or even a nutritionist) needs to know.

[mattvdh]

The chart is absolutely meaningless if it does not represent accurate data.

[theeberk226]

The chart is absolutely meaningless if it does not represent accurate data.

How about this? Let's teach the quantum mechanical model of chemistry to the masses. Let's go to school, stop teaching the bohr model (which is much easier to understand, although not accurate) and teach everybody quantum mechanics. Let's not worry about the fact that we don't know how electrons move, why they seem to disappear and reappear, why we don't know why to particles attract to each other (and obviously more). The thing is, teaching a complex model compared to a simple one that is easily understandable is vapid, at the least.

Once again, we can compare glycemic index to a foods ability to raise blood glucose levels. Candy has a very high glycemic index, and it is proven to spike glucose levels. Pasta has a low glycemic index, and it has also been proven to be more of a "sustained" release (if I dare call it that) of energy. Sure, there are variables like how ripe a fruit is or how much you cooked your pasta, and that is not a problem. The problem comes with what you say, that a glycemic index chart should become "an encyclopedia" because two foods will cause a slightly different reaction; If this were to exist, very few people would understand how glycemic index really works because it be made a lot more complicated than need be.

[mattvdh]

How about this? Let's teach the quantum mechanical model of chemistry to the masses. Let's go to school, stop teaching the bohr model (which is much easier to understand, although not accurate) and teach everybody quantum mechanics. Let's not worry about the fact that we don't know how electrons move, why they seem to disappear and reappear, why we don't know why to particles attract to each other (and obviously more). The thing is, teaching a complex model compared to a simple one that is easily understandable is vapid, at the least.

Once again, we can compare glycemic index to a foods ability to raise blood glucose levels. Candy has a very high glycemic index, and it is proven to spike glucose levels. Pasta has a low glycemic index, and it has also been proven to be more of a "sustained" release (if I dare call it that) of energy. Sure, there are variables like how ripe a fruit is or how much you cooked your pasta, and that is not a problem. The problem comes with what you say, that a glycemic index chart should become "an encyclopedia" because two foods will cause a slightly different reaction; If this were to exist, very few people would understand how glycemic index really works because it be made a lot more complicated than need be.

I'm not in favor of dumbing things down because it's easier to grasp, I think if you're going to study such a complex subject such as QM, you should be ready to put in the hard work.