[throwu444]

Rubbish.

Firstly, nutrition science is not real science - we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

Secondly, having a balanced nutrition isn't nearly as complicated as you make it out to be. Variety and everything in moderation. Humans would have evolved to be able to live off a variety of different diets and foods. Most of our history involved a food shortage and so a very specific set of nutritional requirements would definitely not have been selected for.

[_dark_matter_]

> nutrition science is not real science - we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

So, does this mean science is happening only when we have total understanding of something? What have these physicists been doing all these years!? Of course we don't know it well enough. Science is pretty simple, though: cause and effect. If someone eats only celery, they will die (lack of calories). I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about "real science".

>Variety and everything in moderation

And this is exactly the point op is making. You don't get that variety by eating only these. So the options are:

1. Have total faith that their good enough for you to eat every day (and thus trust the makers)

2. Don't eat them at all (don't trust them)

OP wants to trust scientists, not just some guys making food in their kitchen. So he chooses the latter option.

[throwu444]

See my replies below regarding "not real science". I'm happy to accept your point in that regard.

As for #1 and #2 - we've created a kibble/pellet formula for virtually every other animal on planet earth. Why not humans? Seems incredibly narrow minded to me.

Not to mention that the average american diet is atrocious so the bar for an improvement is pretty low.

[nazgulnarsil]

It would be reasonable to trust us slightly more than all the bars with similar ingredients at the supermarket.

[mistercow]

I tend to agree with you to some extent, although I have to take issue with this reasoning:

>we don't have a full understanding of how our body processes foods, etc to be able to model it properly. So it's not real science.

We don't have a full understanding of anything, but science is what lets us get closer. The problem I have with nutrition science is rather that a lot of its results are presented with far more confidence than the evidence bears.

[throwu444]

Yes, I think we are on the same page.

[freyrs3]

We don't have a full understanding of fluid dynamics either, but we still fly in airplanes.

[throwu444]

Perhaps my original statement was a bit strong. I guess I should say that our level of understanding is not proportionate to the types of conclusions we accept when it comes to food.

Compared to our understand of fluid dynamics, our understanding of nutrition is almost non-existent. Are eggs good for you? Should I drink cows milk? Do multivitamins do anything?

[freyrs3]

Any answer that a nutritionist would give you be couched in a whole list of qualifiers (if you have low cholesterol, if you're over the age of 65, etc) since you're asking questions about the interactions between very complicated systems like any good scientist should. If someone did give a binary answer to any of the questions you asked, they're probably wrong or trying to sell you something. Don't interpret that as lack of understanding, there is quite a bit known about human nutrition in the modern era.