Which Epidemiological Model Is More Correct?

Waynish

Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2016
Messages
2,206
I've seen two similar epidemiological explanations of food nutrition and environment:
1) The environment the food grows in affects its material composition, thus affecting the consumer's composition.

2) The environment the food grows in produces a certain material composition that is more suited for that environment. The environment the consumer grows has a material composition that is more suited for that environment. Since they are the same environment, they have some overlap which makes that food better for those consumers.

An example of #2 would be the idea that bears should eat PUFA because they need to hibernate. Another kind of example of #2 is the idea that those who live in colder environments should eat more fatty fish / PUFA because they have less red & UV light there.

An example of #1 is: The idea that all fatty fruits that grow in warmer and more sunny climates have less PUFA. Therefore, all consumers of those fruits are better off. The benefits of the food being from the same environment as the consumer are outweighed by many tertiary elements of objective nutrition status & composition of those foods.

Thoughts & comments? Curious about your thoughts too, @tyw and @haidut.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom