Stop Asking “What Should I Eat?”

You can know every diet rule and still feel stuck, because the confusion is not a motivation problem. It is a method problem. For 70 years, nutrition has centered the question “What should humans eat?” That framing forces the field to rely on weak inputs and short horizons: self-reported food surveys, short trials for long-term disease, and population data that cannot reliably separate correlation from cause. This episode flips the starting point. Instead of “should,” it starts with “can”: constraints that do not bend for trends, credentials, or consensus. That includes: * biochemical limits, including a hard ceiling on protein * essential nutrients, and what the body can synthesize without dietary carbohydrate * basic metabolic mechanics that explain why modern combinations can create predictable problems * physical evidence from history that does not depend on memory or compliance The point is not a perfect diet. The point is a cleaner method: constraints first, then personal calibration inside those boundaries. Next episode: What the constraints and the historical record suggest humans actually ate, and why that matters for modern “healthy diet” assumptions. Derived from Mark’s essay: Why Nutritional Science Can’t Tell You What to Eat | Part I More audio and essays at Mark’s Substack: HealthUnderControl.com Mark’s practice (the HUC philosophy in action): Unblocked.Health Subscribe if you want nutrition explained from first principles, with constraints you can test, not rules you’re asked to believe. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.healthundercontrol.com