Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

michaelpollan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 191 posts

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#31

Post by problems »

Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything".

While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more processed necessitates any loss.

Maybe I just have no sense for quality, but I've tried paying double for "organic" products and similar - only to be repeatedly disappointed with products that taste worse or equal and spoil quicker - I'll never buy them again, it just doesn't make sense to pay more for it.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#32

Post by aaron695 »

problems wrote: post #31

Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything". While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more process…

Although I totally agree, per the op article

> but all of them are reliable markers for foods that have been highly processed.

It might be an ok rule of thumb.

Highly processed food can of course be good for you, but mostly isn't.

It's bad science but a working stereotype.

Organic is of course a marketing gimmick and as per the article

> you should probably avoid food products that make health claims. Why? Because a health claim on a food product is a good indication that it’s not really food, and food is what you want to eat.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#33

Post by markatkinson »

problems wrote: post #31

Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything". While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more process…

Yes I am inclined to agree. There are a few lines in what I read that shoot up red flags (I only read the first 25% and last 10%). However I agree with the overall advice.

I read somewhere that its best to avoid any food that is sold in packaging. I try to stick to that within reason.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#34

Post by mistermann »

umberway wrote: post #30
charlieflowers wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Nutrition, medicine, psychology are beset by empiricism: trying to find facts without having theories to support them. Really? Seems to me there are a ton of theories but precious few facts. Atkins, low carb, high carb, gluten free, etc. Theories everywhere. But science simply cannot tell us what foods to eat and what to avoid. It's very frustrating to me how limited our knowledge of the human body is.

The 'facts' that I referred to are the results of correlation studies as published in science journals. The diets you mention are mainstream fads. You're right, though, it is frustrating! My personal opinion is that it is the way we use food for pleasure and comfort that it is to blame. We are literally getting high on what we eat, which is deleterious for health if performed without break for long periods. But there…

fad - an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.

synonyms: craze, vogue, trend, fashion, mode, enthusiasm, passion, obsession, mania, rage, compulsion, fixation, fetish, fancy, whim, fascination "when I was a kid, no fad was more apparent than the coonskin cap"

I disagree calling all diets fads, just because the theories haven't been definitely proven or disproven, if they are accurate at making predictions it suggests there's something to the theory does it not?

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#35

Post by talktime »

umberway wrote: post #30
charlieflowers wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Nutrition, medicine, psychology are beset by empiricism: trying to find facts without having theories to support them. Really? Seems to me there are a ton of theories but precious few facts. Atkins, low carb, high carb, gluten free, etc. Theories everywhere. But science simply cannot tell us what foods to eat and what to avoid. It's very frustrating to me how limited our knowledge of the human body is.

The 'facts' that I referred to are the results of correlation studies as published in science journals. The diets you mention are mainstream fads. You're right, though, it is frustrating! My personal opinion is that it is the way we use food for pleasure and comfort that it is to blame. We are literally getting high on what we eat, which is deleterious for health if performed without break for long periods. But there…

You can get high on carbs or alcohol sure enough. Try getting high on protein or fat though.

Telling carboholics they need to eat less food is like telling alcoholics they need to drink less liquid. It doesn't work - you've got to be more specific.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#36

Post by mistermann »

wyager wrote: post #17
gibbitz wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm 42 and this is what the USDA has been saying all along with their food pyramids and four food groups and what have you. I think as a whole, nutritionists have always been on the same page, but those selling diets keep changing their opinions. Sure, there has been flip-flopping recently on fats and sugars, but the edict "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants" doesn't concern itself with those. I can't recall anyon…

> I'm 42 and this is what the USDA has been saying all along with their food pyramids and four food groups and what have you. You are not remembering correctly. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_USDA_nutrition_guid... > I think as a whole, nutritionists have always been on the same page, No, they certainly haven't. "Best practices" change all the time. This happened quite recently; http://articles.mercola.com/…

> It also contradicts the recently popularized "keto" diet, which has roughly as much evidence behind it as any other popular dietary recommendation (i.e. not much).

Keto recommends avoiding plants? I suppose you're right about fruit, but those are disallowed because of the sugar content, not because they're plant based.

EDIT: I suppose while I'm at it I should take exception with the notion "if there is no evidence, then therefore it is wrong" line of thought. Which you may note you didn't say explicitly, so then I would ask well what did you really mean. :)

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#37

Post by mistermann »

wallace_f wrote: post #26
wutbrodo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Authoritative recommendations" aren't the only thing we get out of science. In the absence of the ability to make them, science's job is to attempt to give us a best guess at what the most likely answer to a question is. In the 50 years between now and your hypothetical in which nutrition is "solved", advice like Pollan's is a good balance between simple and as effective as we can hope for at this pt.

> In the absence of the ability to make them, science's job is to attempt to give us a best guess at what the most likely answer to a question is. I think it's a pretty important concept for people to keep in mind that if you're not verifying your guesses with experimentation, you're fundamentally not doing science.

Unless the general public is doing it for you. People vastly underestimate how thorough some enthusiast communities are.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#38

Post by mistermann »

wyager wrote: post #7
wutbrodo wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Authoritative recommendations" aren't the only thing we get out of science. In the absence of the ability to make them, science's job is to attempt to give us a best guess at what the most likely answer to a question is. In the 50 years between now and your hypothetical in which nutrition is "solved", advice like Pollan's is a good balance between simple and as effective as we can hope for at this pt.

> "Authoritative recommendations" aren't the only thing we get out of science. I know, but when is the last time you saw a diet recommendation article of the form "Our Bayes factor on kale doing such and such is..."? The only things 99.9% of people pay attention to (or know how to interpret) are authoritative-sounding recommendations, so that's what diet writers write. > science's job is to attempt to give us a best…

> Science can give us confidence intervals that let us maximize expected utility given what we know.

Is this possible in the field of diet, considering the long timespan needed for experimentation, the numerous contributing factors, and the fact that study participants are very often not telling the truth?

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#39

Post by reflexive »

Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time.

Eat food: duh

Not too much: again, thanks?

Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet.

Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning.

Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new status symbol as people compete for bragging rights about how good they eat; Pollan is their patron saint.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#40

Post by agumonkey »

problems wrote: post #31

Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything". While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more process…

It's a shortcut driven by paranoid defense against the food industry habits to tweak or replace nutrients for economic reasons.

I had to cut anything but veggies for a while, and I have to say the lack of sugar and fat was pretty obvious. Processed food are like starring at the sun, it feels good because it's all bright, but you're blind to the world. Eating raw veggies makes you see all the subtleties of tastes and retriggers brain threshold you forgot long ago (sugar, salt, sauce they all make cover the nutrients, your brain just keep wanting to eat more, try eating 3 carrots in a row, you'll probably feel sick of it)

Post reply on HN