“Make your food with your medicine and make the medicine with your food,” said Hippocrates in 400 BC. For millennia, a person realized that what he puts on his plate could save his life or destroy it. But in the era of algorithms and huge data, the science of nutrition still goes on the move? Or are we going on the basis of conflicting recommendations described by one of the most famous doctors of the era as “closer to the hunch”?
Mudin diets
Against the background of growing chaos in the world of diet and conflicting health tips, a key question arises: the science of nutrition still goes through solid scientific funds, or did we become concluded conflicting recommendations closer to the guess than they?
There was no description from the transitional critic, but rather was issued by one of the most outstanding doctors of The Times, Dr. Eric Topol, a famous American cardiologist in the use of artificial intelligence in medicine and the director of the SCRIPS research institution in California.
Dr. Eric Topol is one of the leading votes in changing the features of modern medicine and is one of the most outstanding people who responded to criticism of traditional healthcare models. He wrote a number of reference books that caused a global effect, especially a deep medicine and the creative destruction of medicine, with the help of which he paved a new understanding of the role of data in the diagnosis, treatment and make of medical decisions.
On June 17, Topol participated as a large guest in the International Podcasta broadcast on YouTube platform under the name:
“The shocking truth about AI, chronic disease, toxins, diet and lifestyle for debts.”
“Digital cure for nutrition”
The researcher presented an insightful vision of how to use artificial intelligence to develop personal nutrition strategies based on a comprehensive analysis of human lifestyle, its pathological history and environmental factors that he is subjected to.
In a wonderful dialogue, Topol said: “We do not need more general studies, but rather accurate nutrition for humans. This will be achieved only with the help of artificial intelligence, which connects real data on food, genes and medical records at the same time. ”
Topol called for the adoption of a new concept called “digital nutrition medicine”, the future medical approach, which allows doctors to develop highly customizable food systems, corresponds to the genetic code for each person, his health history and his lifestyle, in an attempt to move from catering to deep and precise nutrition, using artificial and genetic analysis intelligence technology.
For several months they will not pass until the list of “healthy products” will turn upside down: what was classified yesterday is harmful food, today it turns into a healthy element, and vice versa. After the fat was described for decades as the first enemy of the heart, it was later discovered that his alternatives were rich in fat, fatal fat.
As for the eggs that were placed under a strict nutrient embargo, he returned to recommend it as an ideal source of protein. As for alcohol, it is transmitted in medical recommendations between being a heart defender, to a carcinogen without discussion.
Fragility of food accusations
But what is the reason for this confusion? The answer simply consists in the fragility of evidence that many of these statements are based: most “discoveries” are not based on strict clinical experience, but rather on observatory research that depends that the participants remember their food, and they are often subjected to confusion and forgetfulness.
To dismantle this methodology, the following three concepts must be understood:
> Research of observers: depending on complex questionnaires that request thousands of people about their food, and then associate these data with indicators of certain diseases.
Self -enrichment: people must remember, for sure, what they ate for several months and, possibly, years … This is an impossible task, even after yesterday’s dinner!
> Lack of causality: just a connection between the type of food and a specific disease does not necessarily mean that the first caused the second; The link does not mean causality.
Commenting on this approach, the famous professor John Ioannidis, a professor of medical data at Stanford University and one of the most outstanding critics of scientific research in the world, is commented by saying: “Many food studies are a series of statistical misconceptions that feed the media more than minds.”
Studies with shocking results
In the midst of this contradiction, the famous pure study, which began in 2003 and still continues, led by Professor Salim Yusef from Canadian University Macmaster, is one of the largest research in history – to create an earthquake in scientific circles. The study continued more than 135,000 people in 18 countries over the years and ended with a shocking result: the first cause of the heart and death was not thick, but carbohydrates that were considered less harmful for a long time.
The surprises did not stop there. In 2017, the main study published in the journal of the American medical association showed that about 45 percent of heart diseases, strokes and diabetes in the United States can be associated with only ten nutrition habits, in particular, the lack of nuts and full vegetables, as well as an increased consumption of sodium and sweetened drinks. However, despite shocking numbers, this study, like others, could not prove a direct causal relationship.
The unplaced message was clearly shocking: every day we lose our souls from our ignorance of the science of nutrition … But we do not know where to start or to whom we trust.
Three recent studies
Only this month, three outstanding scientific studies were published in the medical stage, and radical questions were raised about what we promise, fixed “facts of food”:
> Salt is innocent (from accusations against him)? In a study published in Frontiers in Nutrition, the American research group has achieved that the high level of sodium in the diet can reduce the risk of death by 11 percent in patients with kidney stones, in obvious contradictions with global nutrition recommendations that have long been warned about salt.
> Soy’s anxiety in children: in a study published in the journal of pediatric Moria, researchers found that children who depend on soybean containing tuberculosis showed a high level of urine oxalate, which is a well -known risk factor in the formation of kidney stones.
> The end of “Daily Cup”: American recommendations for food products for 2025 announced the removal of a traditional recommendation, which has long encouraged alcohol consumption “moderate”. This is the main transformation that ends with decades of scientific disputes about the advantages of a daily wine cup.
These studies have again discovered a historical file while it caused disputes. In the sixties of the last century, the American physiological scientist Ansel Kiz published his famous studies “Seven countries”, which stated that saturated fats were the main criminal of heart disease. But the keys deliberately excluded the data from 15 other countries that did not correspond to his hypothesis, and yet the American Cardiological Association took its results, and the “oil war” erupted to replace natural fats (trance fats), before we later discovered that it was carcinogenic and was prohibited globally.
Commenting on this chaos, Dr. Eric Topol clearly says: “While we continue to provide general nutrition recommendations for everyone, and general diseases will remain to chase everything.
We are on the verge of a new era: an era in which your diet is determined only by you, on the basis of your genes, how your body interacts with food and your full health history. There are no more general recipes. This is accurate feeding … under the control of intellectual algorithms. Finally, the time has come for micro -Smart education: the time when algorithms are solved, not loud presses and your daily recipe for food. The gold resume is that classic recommendations are invalid one by one.
Artificial intelligence opens the door for the scientific revolution, which redirects what is “great” in accordance with your living data, and not in accordance with general average values. The most important rule: do not exclude food without evidence and do not follow the diet just because it is popular.
In a world in which the Soviets are changing every season, artificial intelligence can be the first dietologist to be trusted in a power.