Which would be perferable? Under or Over Nutrition?

 

Which would we choose, under or over nutrition?

Both are technically malnutrition or bad nutrition . Mal means bad. 

I have given this answer in my article:

 “Which is the Most Challenging Field in Medicine and Health Care?”

 here:

https://scientificlogic.blogspot.com/2023/

 

Let me dig out that question and answer again. Before that, let us give ourselves an example of normal distribution curve.

Which would we choose, under or over nutrition since both are classified as bad or malnutrition 

"Mal" means "bad". 

Explaining further, let us give ourselves an example of normal distribution curve.

In a normal distribution curve there is a minmium on both sides, with a peak somewhere in the middle. The peak is the average or the medial where the cluster of the data is highest. Clustering around the medial are the rest of the data with its Standard Deviation at the tail ends of the the distribution curve. 

Assuming this peak represents the optimal nutrition which we may also represent as optimal health.

Anything on the left of the left of the curse is sub-optimal. Let this be undernutrition. 

Anything on the right of this peak is also sub-optimal, representing excessive and overnutrition. 

Anything on either side of this optimal (maximum) peak is either under or over optimal. Since we are unable to define or determine which would be under or over nutrition for an individual, which side of the curve would we choose to advise an individual how much he or she to take at least to get as close as possible to reach the peak of optimal health? Bear in mind all recommended nutrient intake is based on very large population studies who are in apparent good health through food consumption studies, clinical, anthropometric measurements, age, heights and weight, gender, occupation, physical activities, biochemical, social, economic studies, food supply and food balance sheets among other parameters.  Now we are in hot soup between the deep blue sea and the devil. We cannot answer this with certainty since our nutritional needs are so personal and individualized. We can only  rely on Recommended Daily Allowance based on food consumption studies in large population studies.

As a research nutritionist and food scientist I would not be able to give any specific advice to any individual on his specific nutritional requirements because of vast individual variations. 

This is so unlike the practice of medicine where we can prescribe  the exact dosage of a medicine to a patient. This make the practice of medicine far, far easier than the practice of nutrition for sure. The practice of medicine is quite standard plus or minus a little bit, but not in nutrition because of vast biological needs. 

But if you were to force me for an answer, I would choose the deep blue sea of undernutrition for the simple reason I have explained that there are now over 100 studies both in humans and all animals without exception that under nutrition, specifically caloric restriction greatly prolongs life, not just longevity but disease-free long life. 

I have already proposed a few logical theories to explain this. It is up to nutritionists, nutrition scientists,  and other biomedical scientists to accept these hypothesis and use them as a springboard to work on them further. 

Under nutrition in very severe cases only such as marasmus, kwashiorkor, scurvy, night blindness, beriberi, riboflavin deficiency, pellagra, iron deficiencies...etc, etc can easily be corrected within days, but not chronic degenerative diseases such as diabetes, metabolic syndrome, cardiovascular and stroke, renal, liver diseases due to overnutrition. 

So make your choice between the deep blue sea which can be rescued and the devil that is permanently taken away