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

> 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” link to this 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”

…eart 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?": link to this 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…

…w it adds some calories, but I'm convinced it is more about the resistant starch. According to this video link eating beans in one meal even reduces the blood sugar spike in later meals! Another interesting thing. There is a Ted Talk about how glycemic response varies by individual due to different makeup of gut bacteria. I think it is this one: link to this video . The guy claims he can analyze your gut bacteria and tell you which foods will spike your blood sugar. Subway might be bad for me but fine for you!…

There is some research nowadays showing that different diets work differently well for different people: link to this 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.