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
