What is the best diet for humans? | Eran Segal | TEDxRuppin

What people said

gardnr · 2023-11 · Recommendation

Then there's something about Heart Rate Variability (HRV), the vagus nerve, parasympathetic nervous system, and gut biome all being connected. I can measure one of those relatively easily with a chest strap. It seems like the only thing we do know at this point is that we don't know anything. This is an interesting TEDx talk from Eran Segal "What is the best diet for humans?": [VIDEO] My current conjecture / conspiracy theory / understanding includes: * Bacteria near the roots of plants generate electricity. * Plants grow faster in electrified soil. * Electrical brain stimulation can enhance brain function. * There are processes and interactions happening in our gut that we really don't understand yet. * Many ubiquitous things in our environment wreak havoc on our gut biomes (e.g. chlorine, emulsifiers). * There may be more to establishing and maintaining a healthy gut biome than simply consuming foods rich in pre/probiotics. The right kind of exercise and stress may play essential role in keeping it all humming along.

Read the original HN comment ↗

lhuser123 · 2020-01 · Recommendation

> Nutrition is confusing because we’re not used to looking at lots of tiny effects adding up to something large. This. I think is always more complicated than we think. And one thing that many times is left out of the discussion is that some foods may have different effects on one individual than others. I was once looking for videos that talk about this and after watching too many, the only one found was : “What is the best diet for humans? | Eran Segal | TEDxRuppin” [VIDEO] When explaining their studies, at one point he said “It was not just about the food, it was also about the person eating it”

Read the original HN comment ↗

fluffything · 2019-10 · Reference

There is some research nowadays showing that different diets work differently well for different people: [VIDEO] Most of our current long-term (>1 year long) studies about diets deal with the problem of "subjects not sticking to the diet" by just saying that X% of participants stopped the diet and then proceeding to analyze the health benefits for the Y% that stuck to it. That's a fair thing to do, but what's not supported from those results is the conclusion that such a diet would have worked very well for the X% had they stuck to it.

Read the original HN comment ↗