From 2016 but doesn’t seem to have been posted anywhere on Reddit yet:
Link to study:
https://academic.oup.com/mbe/article/33/7/1726/2578764
The key takeaway being, find out what works for you instead of blindly following the advice of others (or imposing yours on them):
> But this new study, funded by the National Institutes of Health and the U.S. Department of Agriculture, shows that different people may need radically different ratios of the substances in their diet depending on their genes, and it supports the growing evidence against a one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition and for highly personalized advice.
>and it supports the growing evidence against a one-size-fits-all approach to nutrition and for highly personalized advice.
That’s great and all, but by what standards do you give highly personalized advice? Right now the knowledge base is very sparse, and until there’s a better foundation of data to give such advice, generalized advice will be the best advice available.
I also dislike the recent trend of “listen to your body” stuff because it’s leading to a ton of people self diagnosing themselves, which is not reliable due to effect that a persons thoughts can have on their impressions. Most food effects are not easily distinguished from placebo/nocebo in the moment.
I’m convinced I have this. I was brought up on meat, but chose large quantities of veggies over the main meat course every single time. Everyone thought I was crazy or showing off, but I just wanted the veggies! There is a craving for red meat about twice a year though and I go with it and then the craving is gone. There is a dark chocolate thing too.
Concept is interesting. But I heavily doubt it.
We evolved with fish and meat being easy protein, but also the high omega 3 intake.
Why would the body adapt to a diet wayyyyy lower in omega 3. Perhaps to compensate for our modern lifestyle? It’s interesting to ponder.
I 1000% agree that people should find what works for them though.