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

121–130 of 191 posts

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

#121

Post by vmateixeira »

coldtea wrote: post #94
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…

> 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? It mostly means, "a whole industry of greedy scum that added all kinds of useless and often harmful crap to the food it sells to make it last longer -- and increase their margins--, be more addictive --and increase their margins--, be pr…

Couldn't have said better!

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

#122

Post by vertex-four »

jschwartzi wrote: post #64
audunw wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Eat less calories than you burn and loose weight. This mantra annoys me, because it's like saying that to go to space, all you need to do is to burn rocket fuel and keep the nozzle pointed down (and then to the side). It's technically true, but every single sane person know that it's true, and it doesn't really help you get to where you want. It ignores how food affects motivation, digestion, metabolism etc. You ca…

People keep repeating it because once you figure out your motivation and dial in a calorie goal that lets you lose weight without feeling like crap, it actually works. You're right that you can't ignore all that other stuff, but you also can't lose sight of the essential fact that you lose weight by eating fewer calories than you burn. The process of dieting requires you to perform tasks that support that goal. It's…

I think the point is that in order to take in less calories than you burn, and stay vaguely healthy, you need to be aware of what you're eating, how your body processes it, and how to avoid the temptation to eat more. If you're not eating the right sorts of foods, then you're going to wind up hungry well before your next meal - which isn't conducive to an ongoing diet change.

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

#123

Post by thomasahle »

raverbashing wrote: post #104
thomasahle wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cellulose is a carbohydrate too.

Chemically I'm not sure, but it amounts to dietary fiber as it's not digestible by humans

From http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/cfb/carbohyd...

> Carbohydrates (also called saccharides) are molecular compounds made from just three elements: carbon, hydrogen and oxygen. Monosaccharides (e.g. glucose) and disaccharides (e.g. sucrose) are relatively small molecules. They are often called sugars. Other carbohydrate molecules are very large (polysaccharides such as starch and cellulose).

I wish people would stop hating on "carbs" and redirect their disdain to sugars / small carbohydrates.

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

#124

Post by unknown_apostle »

For those interested: Nassim Taleb extends this kind of epistemological conservatism to other complex domains, such as economics, finance, religion and psychology.

"You would not have read this far into this article if your food culture were intact and healthy; you would simply eat the way your parents and grandparents and great-grandparents taught you to eat. The question is, Are we better off with these new authorities than we were with the traditional authorities they supplanted? The answer by now should be clear."

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

#125

Post by unknown_apostle »

Tangentially related, to the fans of Fidel Castro: there's an interesting line of thinking that Cubans became healthy not because of Cuba's phenomenal health care system, but because they had to simplify their diet considerably in the wake of the Soviet Union's implosion. They had to eat homegrown veggies because they had no other choice.

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

#126

Post by krzyk »

raverbashing wrote: post #104
thomasahle wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cellulose is a carbohydrate too.

Chemically I'm not sure, but it amounts to dietary fiber as it's not digestible by humans

Fiber is carbohydrate also, but one that is not digestible by humans.

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

#127

Post by CPLX »

audunw wrote: post #63
xaviers wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can generalise diets pretty easy. Eat less calories than you burn and loose weight. Eat whatever you want if you can abide by this rule you will loose the weight. But to be healthy. Well you have to eat healthy to be healthy. And that means getting all the fat, carbs and protein your body needs. And what your body needs I agree you can't generalise.

> Eat less calories than you burn and loose weight. This mantra annoys me, because it's like saying that to go to space, all you need to do is to burn rocket fuel and keep the nozzle pointed down (and then to the side). It's technically true, but every single sane person know that it's true, and it doesn't really help you get to where you want. It ignores how food affects motivation, digestion, metabolism etc. You ca…

Perhaps, but if everyone around you was using molasses instead of rocket fuel and pointing their spaceships at the side of the mountain and then posting "I've tried everything I don't know why I'm not soaring in space yet" on Facebook you might start by reference to those basic principles.

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

#128

Post by Capt-RogerOver »

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…

The idea here is following:

- Processing food, even in chemical ways does not necessarily mean it will be bad for your health.

- However, a lot of examples have shown that food that has been processed by the current realities of the food industry is often very bad for your health. Many times it's shown to be bad, many times they don't even check it.

- Basically if you process the food, the chances are very good that it is going to be bad. You have to be very careful when you do that (and back it with a lot of research) in order to do it safely.

- Food industry do not have a direct interest of doing it safely in the long run. They have an interest to make money and not get caught by existing regulations.

And finally: - For you as a consumer it's very hard to know whether specific processing is safe or not.

- Many times it's hard for the producer to even know. But they don't really care, as long as regulations are followed (sometimes not even that).

- This leads to you knowing that if the food has been processed, the chance is very good that it's bad for you. Not because "processing" is some weird satanic black magical non-christian sinful process. But because it's currently implemented in such a way that it lets through a lot of bad.

- There is no reliable way for you to distinguish between good processed and bad processed.

-> If you wanna eat healthy, in 2017 you should stay away from processed.

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

#129

Post by mac01021 »

dagw wrote: post #72
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…

My personal rule of thumb with "processed" food is: Would I be happy to do the same process in my own kitchen if I had the time and equipment?

What's an example of a process done by the food industry that you would not be happy to do yourself if you could do it for free?

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

#130

Post by arghIdontwantto »

ENTP wrote: post #81
oculusthrift wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the only thing that matters for weight (barring some serious disorders) is the balance of energy. eat excessive calories and your body stores it as fat. eat too little and your body burns fat for energy. regarding carbs: they make about 50 pct of the average persons caloric intake and they really aren't filling (atleast simple carbs). so cutting them out usually means getting rid of s major source of calories and usu…

Weirdly, I find increasing fat intake makes me lose weight faster. This is probably because it's hard to eat lots of fat, but easy to consume the equivalent calories through carbs (I'm looking at you Oreo milkshakes...)

I still don't understand this idea that is hard to eat a lot of fat.

Lean protein sure, there is a limit to the number of chicken breasts I can eat, but fat? Bacon, Cheese, Fatty meats. I can easily eat 1000-1500kcal in a single meal without feeling really full.

I eat 4-5 eggs with bacon with a bit of butter, being around 750kcals for breakfast and then by lunch time, want to eat a bunch again. I easily eat a pound of meat/baby ribs that go over 1000kcals easily (black iberian pig baby back ribs are more fat than anything else) and after a few hours I will be hungry.

I'm a small guy so 2000kcal is about the food I need to keep my weight and I work out a lot.

Post reply on HN