Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007) • Hacker News Board

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

#141

Post by arghIdontwantto » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:05 PM UTC

johnward wrote: post #139

arghIdontwantto wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

"fat bombs" are something I never understood in low carb communities. It's not hard at all to eat fat without supplementing. I eat bacon, eggs, red meat, salad dressing, dairy, etc and get plenty of fat.

I don't get it either.

My favourite food is called "Secretos Porco Preto" (black iberian pig secrets) [1]

This is the most fatty meat I ever eaten. I eat up and iron skillet, I put the piece there, it renders so much fat that it then fries itself (not grilled/sauted, the fat renders, heats up and fries the meat). After I take the meat out I get about 1/2 cup of fat for about 1.5 pounds of meat. I honestly don't understand how people think this won't get me as fat as the Michellin man if I just ate what I wanted...

1: http://www.miguelemiguel.pt/images/spsimpleportfolio/secreto...

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

#142

Post by mishkovski » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:09 PM UTC

I like the simplicity of the approach presented in this essay.

>And at the end of it all, the answer to the question "Can we say what diet is best for health?" and by health, we mean longevity, vitality, weight control. All the good stuff that we all want. The answer is absolutely no, if what we mean is a very specific, prescriptive — my diet can beat your diet. So, you know, can we say whether the best Mediterranean diet is better than the best vegan diet or that’s better than the best paleo diet for human health? The answer is no. If what we mean, though, by "Can we say what diet is best for health?" is a basic theme of optimal living. Then the answer is a categorical yes. It’s incredibly clear from incredibly voluminous, incredibly consistent literature all around the world, diverse populations, diverse methods, observational epidemiology where you just watch and see what happens. Intervention trials where you assign people to diets. Randomized control trials and real-world experience with large populations like The Blue Zones. And frankly Michael Pollan pretty much nailed this one. Eat food, not too much, mostly plants. That really captures the essence of all of the world’s diets that are associated with good health outcomes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW8C1W1Iefk

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

#143

Post by tptacek » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:11 PM UTC

CPLX wrote: post #134

tzs wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should probably rephrase. I think I get what you are trying to say, but the way you said it is way off. There most definitely are such things as "toxins". There are neurotoxins produced by black widows, most scorpions, box jellyfish, many algae and cyanobacteria, among others. There are necrotoxins produced by the brown recluse, rattlesnakes, puff adders for example. Heck, if there were no such thing as toxins, t…

Not really. If I was in an argument with a UFO theorist where I said the US government wasn't actually hiding live aliens, and someone came along and pointed out that we have illegal aliens in custody, I would point out that this is true and irrelevant. The word toxin is widely used in "wellness" circles, but the concept so described does not exist. The fact that there is a correct, jargon-specific, scientific usage…

Wellness people also have weird beliefs about vitamins, and vitamins are in fact complicated, but that doesn't mean I make little air quotes every time I refer to vitamins.

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

#144

Post by afandian » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

mac01021 wrote: post #129

dagw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Not parent commenter but these are things I wouldn't want to do to my own food, even if I could.

- peroxide bleaching of flour https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flour_bleaching_agent

- acid-enzype process for HFCS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_fructose_corn_syrup#Proce...

- de-oxygenation of orange juice for long term storage: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_juice#Not_from_concentr...

(I'm sure these are nominally safe and possibly beneficial but I'd just rather not eat them)

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

#145

Post by coldtea » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:26 PM UTC

rubber_duck wrote: post #138

coldtea wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>Unfortunately a lot of people are so naive as to think that corporations are basically ethical and would never do those things, or that if something involves technology (e.g. food chemistry) it is necessarily good, even if said technology is used against them to pad profits. I've never actually seen people like this, in fact I've only seen people who are the exact opposite - and you seem to give off such vibe - wher…

>in fact I've only seen people who are the exact opposite - and you seem to give off such vibe - where something is "evil by default" because it's not "natural/organic/whatever buzzword here".

I don't speak for organic, Whole Foods etc BS. That's another racket. You can buy perfectly fine non-organic vegetables, meat, cheese in Walmart if you go and look for it.

But american popular mass produced food is of the worst standards compared to what people eat in Western Europe (and I presume Japan). And the food industry there is crappier than average. That said, it's pretty bad in Europe too: a packet of chips or some mass market ice-cream is the same shit everywhere.

>I mean I'm all for eating quality and fresh stuff if you can get it but the arguments like this are just nonsense paranoia.

What part of what I wrote looks like "paranoia" to you? That big manufactures like Nestle, etc. are greedy and would sell any kind of crap?

>Corporations will do unethical things for money but individuals will not ?

Individuals will too. But people don't buy much food from individuals, they buy it (most of it) from corporations. Plus individuals don't do mass production and the kind of food people buy from them (from some farmer's market for example) is not that amenable to adding all kinds of food chemistry crap.

So the distinction I made between individuals and corporations is not that individuals can't also be greedy, but that individuals don't manufacture mass produced food -- corporations do.

A piece of meat is a piece of meat (at worse it will be fed crap, given hormones). Vegetables the same. A bread bought on the supermarket on the other hand, can have all kinds of BS in, excessive sodium, tons of sugar, BS preservatives, etc. And there's all kinds of "microwave dishes" etc with the lowest quality of materials and tons of added flavorings, preservatives, things to give them specific texture, and other crap that doesn't occur or belong to a "Salisbury steak" for example.

>You can get crap from your "organic local natural farmer", just from the top of my head a few years back here in EU people were dying from ecoli caused kidney failure because the organic farm manure contained the bacteria.

Those things are orthogonal. You can also die from ecoli in food sold by large corporations, e.g:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/business/14nestle.html

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

#146

Post by ousta » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:33 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #83

ENTP wrote: post #28

When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. Quite honestly, I think you can't generalise 'diets' or eating advice as, frankly, it would appear that different people's bodies work in slightly different ways. This could explain the vast array of different advice that, often times, seems contradictory.

> When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. I doubt so. If you stick to protein and vegetables with no carbs and sugars in general, you get lots of filling fiber, and fewer calories, unless they consume huge quantities of lard or bacon every day, or drink sugars (e.g. in juices or sodas), etc. So those people are doing something wrong.

you aware that your brain needs carbs. even tho fat can be transformed it is also musle that is converted to carbs when you dont eat enough carbs

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

#147

Post by ska » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:34 PM UTC

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…

What you refer to aren't conclusions, they are heuristics. An awful lot of processing reduces the value of food, avoiding it in general is an easy heuristic that can help you eat better. Is it the only way? No, of course not - but it's easy.

Here is another one: If you are buying from a supermarket and it was shipped a significant distance, the quality is probably mediocre regardless of organic labeling etc.

This one is hard to do much about for most people. If food is out of season and/or shipped significant distances the quality almost always suffers quite a bit. We have made significant technological and breeding advances on the shelf life, ship-ability, consistency and color of a lot of fresh foods, but most of those advances have had costs as well - typically in flavor and/or nutritional value.

"Organic" labeling isn't very helpful for food quality or taste these days. It can tell you something about pesticides etc. that you might care about (e.g. what might be in the lemon skins you are zesting into your cookies). It's largely a marketing exercise.

Which isn't to say this is right or wrong, exactly, after all people vote with their dollars. However you have to be aware: you can have fresh tomatoes all year long but the reality is that you can probably only have really good tomatoes for a few weeks.

Somewhat depressingly because of wholesale distribution contracts etc., you may not even be able to get those really good tomatoes at your usual store when they are available. Nothing sadder than a bunch of bright red watery tasteless tomatoes being all that is on offer in the middle of your local tomato season.

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

#148

Post by dahauns » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:34 PM UTC

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…

> dial in a calorie goal that lets you lose weight without feeling like crap, it actually works.

This greatly describes why so many people have a problem with the blanket statement "Eat less calories than you burn and lose weight.", because it implicitly contains the crux of the matter.

There is no such thing as a single, straightforward "calorie goal that lets you lose weight without feeling like crap". It varies wildly depending on the composition of your diet (which is even different from person to person) and accompanying factors like amount of physical excercise, sleep patterns etc.

And those are the deciding factors. The calorie deficit is a prerequisite, but the difficult part is in finding a way to sustain it. (I mean, you go there yourself in the following paragraphs.)

But the statement alone is borderline useless and actually quite condescending to anyone with a modicum of diet expierience. It's like saying "Answer enough questions correctly and you'll pass the test." Duh, No shit, sherlock.

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

#149

Post by lukeschlather » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:35 PM UTC

Capt-RogerOver wrote: post #128

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…

People tend to conflate a lot of different things when they say food is "bad for you." Processed food of all varieties is definitely bad for your stomach. It usually has high sugar, high fat, and will generally contribute to heart issues if you aren't exercising enough. (Here there's a question of whether the food is bad for you, or it's not exercising that's bad for you. I'd lean on the latter rather than the former.)

Preservatives, etc. also may be bad for you, depending. But processed foods are just plain bad for your stomach. Your stomach is better off eating things that need some digesting. (Veggies, fruits, etc.)

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

#150

Post by vixen99 » Thu, Jan 26, 2017, 2:41 PM UTC

ousta wrote: post #146

coldtea wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. I doubt so. If you stick to protein and vegetables with no carbs and sugars in general, you get lots of filling fiber, and fewer calories, unless they consume huge quantities of lard or bacon every day, or drink sugars (e.g. in juices or sodas), etc. So those people are doing something wrong.

you aware that your brain needs carbs. even tho fat can be transformed it is also musle that is converted to carbs when you dont eat enough carbs

Glucogenic amino acids (13 of the approx. 18 main amino acids comprising protein) provide glucose and small carbohydrates when broken down. Point taken on 'enough carbs' though.