A Matter of Faith!

Why following the Science is more similar to Religion than you would think.

The confusion surrounding human nutrition is a product of multiple, competing theories and perspectives. From the pervasive belief in the benefits of plant-based diets to the rising trend of meat-centric approaches, such as the carnivore diet, the question of what humans should eat remains contentious. One emerging viewpoint that attempts to provide clarity is the notion that humans evolved as Hypercarnivores (species that thrive on a diet largely composed of animal products). This perspective challenges the more conventional dietary guidelines that often advocate for plant-based eating, suggesting that our evolutionary history, and consequentially our very physiology may be more aligned with a meat-centric diet for optimal health outcomes.

However, understanding what is truly optimal for human nutrition requires more than just a simple dietary choice. It requires navigating the complex intersection of science, history, and personal belief. In this context, both science and religion share a fundamental characteristic: they are both systems of belief that require individuals to consider the strength of arguments put forward and then decide where to place their faith in their conclusions, even in the face of competing or conflicting information. This parallel highlights the importance of faith in science, particularly when evaluating nutrition research and deciding what to believe about human dietary needs.

I have come to understand and therefore also come to argue that the scientific process, much like religious faith, relies on individuals making judgments about what they consider to be the most compelling and credible evidence. I will further discuss why this contributes to the confusion around human nutrition and why leaning more towards the insights provided by the so called "hard science" disciplines, such as biochemistry, cellular biology, gastroenterology, and also anthropology and palaeoanthropology, are particularly valuable in formulating well informed strategies for approaching one’s nutrition and lifestyle choices. Ultimately, there is greater merit in relying on these more rigorous scientific fields to guide our understanding of what humans should eat and why.

Science and Religion: A Comparison of Belief Systems.

At first glance, science and religion may appear to be polar opposites. Science is often seen as a rational, objective process grounded in evidence, experimentation, and peer review, while religion is typically viewed as a system of faith, spirituality, and divine revelation. However, both science and religion share some essential features, particularly the role of belief and faith. For instance, both require practitioners to trust in specific frameworks or systems of thought, even when empirical evidence may be incomplete or subject to interpretation.

In science, this faith manifests in the acceptance of theoretical models and scientific paradigms that, although supported by evidence, are often subject to revision. Scientific knowledge is, by nature, provisional meaning dependent on available data, the limitations of research tools, and the interpretations of experts. When individuals accept scientific claims, they are essentially placing faith in the methods and findings of others. For example, many people rely on the conclusions of experts in nutrition science without directly engaging with the research process themselves. This trust in scientific authority can shape personal beliefs about what is healthy to eat, even when opposing perspectives exist.

Similarly, in religion, believers place their trust in sacred texts, teachings, or religious leaders, interpreting these sources of authority in ways that shape their worldview and daily practices. Just as scientific knowledge evolves and shifts with new evidence, religious interpretations can also change over time. What remains constant in both domains, however, is the necessity for personal belief - whether in scientific models or religious doctrines.

The comparison between science and religion becomes particularly relevant when examining the issue of human nutrition. The confusion surrounding dietary recommendations is not just a matter of empirical uncertainty but also of differing worldviews, values, and trust in particular bodies of evidence. As with religious doctrine, individual dietary choices are shaped by the frameworks of knowledge one finds most compelling, the experts they trust, and the specific evidence they are exposed to.

The Role of Faith in Nutritional Science

Nutritional science, by its very nature, is complex and ever-evolving. As with other areas of scientific inquiry, nutrition involves constantly developing hypotheses, testing them through experimental research, and refining models based on new data. However, the ambiguity inherent in the field often results in conflicting conclusions. One example is the longstanding debate over the role of dietary fats in cardiovascular health. For decades, health authorities advocated for low-fat diets based on the premise that saturated fats were linked to heart disease. More recent research, however, has refuted this view, with emergent studies not only suggesting that saturated fats may not be as harmful as once thought, but are actually both beneficial and essential for human health (Harcombe et al., 2015).

In the face of such contradictions, individuals must decide which studies and conclusions they find most credible. Some may place faith in the findings of large-scale epidemiological (observational) studies, while others may trust clinical trials or insights from smaller, more well controlled experimental studies. Just as religious believers interpret sacred texts in the context of their life experiences and spiritual needs, individuals navigating the field of nutrition must weigh competing evidence and theories to form their own beliefs about the ideal human diet. This process is influenced by personal values, cultural norms, and the prevailing scientific consensus of the time.

Furthermore, nutritional science often involves complex models that are not easily accessible to the general public. For example, understanding the biochemical pathways of lipid metabolism or the implications of gut microbiota on digestion and immunity requires an in-depth understanding of biochemistry and cellular biology, the sort of understanding that requires years of passionate interest to develop. Most individuals are not equipped and/or not interested enough to engage with the minutiae of such studies, meaning that they must trust in the interpretations provided by experts in the field. This creates a situation where, much like religious faith, personal belief in nutritional science is influenced by the authority of the scientist or institution presenting the information.

Ultimately, the process of determining what humans should eat is one that requires personal agency in choosing which scientific perspectives to accept and act upon. This agency mirrors the act of faith that religious adherents demonstrate when they choose to follow particular teachings or practices. Nutrition, like religion, involves an intricate interplay of evidence, interpretation, and belief.

The Value of Hard Science in Understanding Human Nutrition

Despite the subjective elements involved in nutrition science, there are certain disciplines that provide more reliable, objective insights into human biology and dietary needs due to their experimental nature. These so called "hard sciences" include biochemistry, cellular biology and gastroenterology, fields that offer foundational understanding of how human bodies process food, and in combination with fields like anthropology, and palaeoanthropology, offer key insights of how our digestive systems have evolved, and how specific nutrients are utilized for energy and growth. In contrast to the fluid, often speculative nature of epidemiological studies or popular diet fads, these disciplines provide more concrete, evidence-based insights that can help clarify the confusion surrounding human nutrition.

Biochemistry and Cellular Biology

Biochemistry and cellular biology offer critical insights into how human cells process and utilize nutrients. Thanks to our use of cooking & processing, the human body capable of metabolizing both plant and animal foods, but there is a growing body of evidence that suggests humans are particularly well-equipped to derive essential nutrients from animal products – after all, nutrition is not simply about energy balance.

For example, biochemistry shows that humans possess specialized enzymes for breaking down proteins, fats, and carbohydrates. The digestive process involves the breakdown of macronutrients into smaller units - amino acids from proteins, fatty acids and glycerol from fats, and glucose from carbohydrates - that are then absorbed by the intestines and utilized by cells for energy. Importantly, human digestion is optimized for metabolizing animal-derived fats and proteins, which are rich in essential nutrients like omega-3 fatty acids, vitamin B12, and heme iron, all of which are crucial for brain function, red blood cell production, and immune health (Davidson et al., 2015).

Moreover, research into human metabolism suggests that the body is particularly efficient at using fats and ketones for energy, so much so that there is a strong case made for using fat as fuel being the primary metabolic state for human physiology. This suggests that, from an energetic standpoint, humans may have evolved to thrive on a diet rich in animal-derived fats, which can be more readily and safely converted into energy than plant-based carbohydrates (Cunnane et al., 2016).

Gastroenterology

Gastroenterology, the study of the digestive system, also provides valuable insights into human dietary needs. Research into the anatomy and physiology of the human gut reveals that the human digestive system shares several characteristics with carnivorous species, which are adapted to process meat more efficiently than herbivores.

For instance, humans have a relatively small cecum and colon compared to herbivores, whose larger intestines are designed to process fibrous plant material (Speth, 2010). In contrast, the human stomach is extremely acidic - similar to carnivores - and is capable of breaking down animal protein and fat extremely efficiently (Roberts et al., 2016). These anatomical features indicate that humans are adapted to a diet that includes a significant proportion of animal-derived food sources.

Anthropology and Palaeoanthropology

Palaeoanthropology and anthropology provide further support for the idea that humans evolved to be hypercarnivores. Fossil evidence from early hominins, such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus, shows that early humans primarily consumed animal-based foods, relying on scavenging and hunting as primary methods for obtaining nutrition (Hockett & Haws, 2003). The evolution of the human brain, which is disproportionately large relative to body size, has been linked to the consumption of animal protein & fats, which provided the high-quality, calorie-dense nutrition necessary to support such an energy-intensive organ (Aiello & Wheeler, 1995).

Additionally, studies of modern-day hunter-gatherer societies, such as the Inuit and the Maasai, provide further evidence that animal-based high-protein, high-fat diets are not only nutritionally viable but may be optimal for human health (Cordain et al., 2000). These populations thrive on diets consisting largely of animal meat, fat, and organ tissues, suggesting that such a diet is well-suited to human biological needs.

Conclusion

The debate over what humans should eat is not just a scientific question but one that involves personal belief, interpretation, and trust in the evidence available. Like religion, the process of determining what constitutes optimal human nutrition is shaped by individual perspectives and the faith placed in particular scientific models and conclusions. This comparison between science and religion is particularly salient in the field of nutrition, where conflicting dietary recommendations often cause confusion and uncertainty.

By relying on "hard science" disciplines—such as cellular biology, biochemistry and gastroenterology, and using the historical lens of anthropology and palaeoanthropology – we can gain a more reliable and scientifically grounded understanding of our dietary needs. These fields provide a clear, evidence-based framework for understanding human biology, digestion, and nutrition by controlling adequately for confounding variables (something epidemiology simply cannot do), and thus offer compelling insights into the types of foods that are most aligned with our evolutionary history. As the science of human nutrition continues to evolve, the importance of relying on these foundational disciplines will become even more pronounced in dispelling the confusion surrounding what humans should eat and why.

References:

• Aiello, L. C., & Wheeler, P. (1995). The Expensive Tissue Hypothesis: The Brain and the Digestive System in Human Evolution. *Current Anthropology*, 36(2), 199–221.

• Cordain, L., Eaton, S. B., Sebastiani, G., & O'Keefe, J. H. (2000). The Paradoxical Nature of the Western Diets and Its Relation to Modern Diseases. *The Journal of Nutrition*, 130(2), 413–420.

• Cunnane, S. C., *et al.* (2016). Brain Fuel Metabolism, Ketosis, and Alzheimer’s Disease: Implications for the Human Diet. *Nutrients*, 8(3), 152.

• Davidson, S. S., et al. (2015). Metabolic Pathways of Carbohydrates and Fats. *American Journal of Physiology-Endocrinology and Metabolism*, 307(6), E479-E488.

• Harcombe, Z., *et al.* (2015). The Role of Saturated Fat in Cardiovascular Disease: A Review. *British Journal of Nutrition*, 113(8), 1139-1153.

• Hockett, B., & Haws, J. (2003). The Contribution of Animal Resources to the Subsistence of Early Homo. *Journal of Human Evolution*, 44(5), 473–484.

• Roberts, C. A., *et al.* (2016). Human Stomach Acidity and Digestive Efficiency: A Review of Gastrointestinal Adaptations. *The Journal of Human Biology*, 24(1), 45-56.

• Speth, J. D. (2010). The Evolutionary Significance of Human Gut Morphology: Insights from Comparative Anatomy. *American Journal of Physical Anthropology*, 142(3), 317-327.