Why Optimal Nutrition Depends on The Goal
Nutrition lands among controversial topics like politics and religion that tend to create tension at work gatherings and holiday dinners.
Much of the debate surrounds the varying views on the purpose of food, and there is rarely a focus on the same objective in nutrition discussions.
Priorities for one's nutrition focus might be for:
- Health and longevity,
- Weight loss,
- Performance optimization,
- Improved mental focus,
- Reduced disease risk,
- Social beliefs,
- or several other things.
However, we argue for specific nutrition plans as if they all have the same outcome.
For example, my nutrition last week primarily consisted of 600g of carbohydrates for several days, largely in the form of bagels and Swedish fish.
An Instagram post about this as optimal nutrition would probably get some blowback in the comments from anyone who views my argument as a way to improve health, drop pounds, or avoid metabolic disease.
To those points, I agree entirely. But to run as fast as possible for 3 hours, a diet consisting of simple carbs with limited fat and fiber is a solid approach.
I am writing this disclaimer in advance of the nutrition series coming in The Movement.
The foundation of this series is based on the fact that a proper understanding of food chemistry and how it interacts with our biology is crucial for drawing accurate conclusions about what we should eat to meet our current goals.
Because we don't actually dose our bodies with banana or pizza molecules; instead, those things enter the cauldron of our stomach and quickly become a combination of chemicals in varying dosages.
We'll approach this starting next week with our best friend and enemy, the carbohydrate.
Throughout this series and other debates you might run into on this topic, remember that the key takeaway is that nutrition is context-dependent. Somebody must know the specific objectives to accurately discuss the merits or downfalls of certain foods.
