Top 10 Nutrition Sources Online

[Jason Actualization]

2 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

Absolutely. Our firsthand experience with the food we eat can be very beneficial if we have an immediate reaction to it because of an allergy, for example. But subjective experience can only take us so far.

Firsthand experience is very beneficial not just for assessing immediate reactions, but for everything, i.e., how you actually think and feel throughout your entire, conscious, waking life. This is not just a matter of using our experience to avoid obvious issues such as allergies, but to use it as a compass to seek and find optimality. Your firsthand experience is only subjective to others, but to you, it is objective, since you are the end user, you are the n=1 of your own life my friend. Your firsthand experience is literally the truthful territory, so if you are following a map (i.e., a particular nutritional philosophy) that doesn't satisfactorily reconcile the terrain, then don't interrogate the territory, rather, modify the map.

2 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

We should take advantage of the documented long-term health outcomes to gauge our own decisions. You don’t feel the plaque growing in your arteries until it’s too late. Personal experience and scientific data are complementary.

One would hope they would be complementary, but nutritional science has an atrocious signal to noise ratio. But I'm with you, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and to not just go by "feel" but actually be hard-nosed and look at the numbers of comprehensive blood tests.

2 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

There are lots of things that make us feel good in the short-term that are terrible for us in the long-term. Take smoking, for example. Someone who quits smoking may report that they are easily aggravated, restless, having trouble sleeping, and putting on weight - does that mean that their entire belief system around cigarettes should be based on the fact that these symptoms go away when they smoke? Of course not. 

What's fascinating about cigarettes is how doctors avidly promoted them because "the science" apparently supported this practice. Yikes... I wonder if there is possibly something analogous to cigarette smoking nowadays that is being promoted as heart-healthy. That said, your point is definitely well taken man, but it pertains to the cessation of something manmade, not the consumption of something already found in nature, so there's a bit of a disconnect. Is there a better analogy you could offer (to help me better understand) related to something rewarding when consumed in a natural form?

2 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

Subjective experience only takes us so far and can have negative outcomes if you ignore evidence that points in the contrary. Completing ignoring subjective experience and only focusing on the evidence is also just as short-sighted. Try to go for a balance between the two.

How well do you feel you have balanced the two? Do you have any lab results you could share, such as FFMI, oxLDL, fasting glucose, A1c, total testosterone, HDL, and triglycerides? My most recent are 23, 44, 85, 4.8, 909, 54, and 32, respectively. My grip strength is 150 lbs which is the 100th percentile, and I'm roughly 12% body fat.

2 hours ago, toasty7718 said:

The modern healthcare system is designed for the management of symptoms without treating the underlying cause. This superficial approach is problematic for a multitude of reasons, but the same can be said for how many people treat diet. If you have fiber intolerance, instead of completely avoiding fibrous foods for the rest of your life you can work on healing the cause of your intolerance naturally. Point is: go straight to the root of the issue without putting band aids over it.

You hit the nail on the head brother, I'm with you all the way. The cure hides where the cause resides.

[Ayham]

@Michael569best nutrition source

[toasty7718]

2 hours ago, Ayham said:

 

@Michael569best nutrition source

 

Agreed

[toasty7718]

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

But I'm with you, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and to not just go by "feel" but actually be hard-nosed and look at the numbers of comprehensive blood tests.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

That said, your point is definitely well taken man, but it pertains to the cessation of something manmade, not the consumption of something already found in nature, so there's a bit of a disconnect. Is there a better analogy you could offer (to help me better understand) related to something rewarding when consumed in a natural form?

What do you mean by this? Are you asking if there's beneficial health outcomes from consuming natural foods, or something that's natural rewarding in the short-term, but detrimental in the long term?

 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

How well do you feel you have balanced the two?

My family is in a bit of a financial situation and we've been unable to purchase all the necessary test kits (and my primary care provider doesn't seem to care when I bring this up). The first thing I plan on doing when I get a disposable income is going to a licensed naturopathic doctor and working with them on the foods I eat. I'd assume simply knowing lab results can be fruitful but the implementation of those results to everyday life is much more beneficial in terms of health outcomes - that's why I'm going to see an ND.

 

Aside from that, my BMI is in the healthy range and I haven't consumed cholesterol in years, so I'd assume it's pretty low