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

171–180 of 191 posts

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

#171

Post by oculusthrift »

talktime wrote: post #35
umberway wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Eat as much broccoli or wheat bread you want and you won't get high. Eat a fatty plate of ribs and you will.

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

#172

Post by oculusthrift »

mistermann wrote: post #34
umberway wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theor…

almost any diet works because it relies on totally avoiding a big source of calories. For instance, carbs. if you consume less calories than you burn, you lose weight. problem in my opinion is they use such a big brush to cut things out that people can be miserable while on them. if its the end of the day and you've eaten 700 less calories than you need and have gotten all the protein and fat you need then guess what. You can eat 200 calories of ice cream or chips if you want and still lose weight!

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

#173

Post by oculusthrift »

arghIdontwantto wrote: post #130
ENTP wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Obviously the "quality" of fat source can make a difference just like for carbs, getting them from broccoli or brown rice can be more filling than getting them from fries per calorie. Avocado's and nuts are obviously more filling than animal fats. For the most part, I think your body "craves" fats and eating them solves that craving. But this isn't the same as being "filling". I've also heard that the beginning of going on a high fat (ketogenic) diet is difficult, but your body adapts and fat tends to start filling you.

finally, peoples bodies vary and some are full with fewer fats or carbs than others.

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

#174

Post by coldtea »

rubber_duck wrote: post #155
coldtea wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wors…

>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? Citing isolated instances in an industry that provides services to billions and saying you should be scared because of that is paranoia - on such a large scale you are guaranteed to have bad outcomes. Meanwhile most people eat processed food and are still walking around. >excess…

>Citing isolated instances in an industry that provides services to billions and saying you should be scared because of that is paranoia - on such a large scale you are guaranteed to have bad outcomes. Meanwhile most people eat processed food and are still walking around.

That would be relevant if I had said that they wouldn't be walking around (that they'd die immediately, etc.).

But what I said is that they are sold unhealthy crap to eat, not just openly but also misleadingly and covertly, because it makes production cheaper (not necessarily price, the margins are more often than not pocketed) and the product more addictive to consumers (more sugars, artificial coloring to entice the eye, etc).

Whether the industry "provides services to billions" is also irrelevant, as it is possible to sell crap to billions, or at least, millions. Billions consume corn syrup in all kinds of food stuff because it's cheaper than sugar and has all the subsidies, for example. It's still crap.

>there's nothing wrong with high sugar/salt if you're healthy and are within your calorie limit.

There's nothing wrong with anything if you don't eat it too. And yet a whole country, or half of it, is less than healthy, to the point of talking about an "obesity epidemic".

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

#175

Post by coldtea »

problems wrote: post #165
loco5niner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's definitely some scummy stuff going on in the food industry, but I don't think a little fakery that saves the consumer money and creates a good flavor is that bad of a sin. I disagree. I think a label should accurately describe it's contents, plain and simple. I much prefer to decide for myself what is in my own best interest thank you very much.

The label does that though - the ingredients list. The title just doesn't. The title on many foods isn't an accurate description of their contents though - wasabi is dyed horse raddish, crab meat is often mashed up and cleverly rebuilt pollock, most fruit juices aren't what they list, but still get to use the name juice because they're mostly apple or pear juice, most bacon bits aren't bacon at all - they're vegan ev…

>The label does that though - the ingredients list. The title just doesn't.

The ingredients list is like the small print in contracts.

The title should also describe accurately what's inside, including any pictures on the packaging showing actual truffles etc.

And of course restaurants use the same "truffle oil" to serve $30 and $50 dishes with no "ingredients list" to tell you it's not actual truffle oil.

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

#176

Post by reflexive »

tinbucket wrote: post #58
dualogy wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "Plants" covers a diverse group of foods, some of which are the most nutrient rich available to us. That's some meme. Which ones exactly? The most nutrient- dense foods (per gram / per kcal) available to us are livers, other organs, eggs and ruminant meat --- even before accounting for the latters' vastly superior digestability and bio-availability , and even before accounting for the formers' countless antinutrien…

At no point did I state that any of the foods you mentioned were nutrient poor -- I just said that some plants are among the most nutrient dense foods available. This can be true without dismissing other foods as nutrient poor. That even fits in with Pollan's maxim, which simply states most of the food you eat should be plants. Since you asked, here are some nutrient rich plants from memory: kale, spinach, blueberrie…

> I just said that some plants are among the most nutrient dense foods available.

To be honest, that's not what you said. You clearly stated that the most nutrient rich foods are plants, which is false.

> "Plants" covers a diverse group of foods, some of which are the most nutrient rich available to us.

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

#177

Post by ENTP »

arghIdontwantto wrote: post #130
ENTP wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

Hence my original comment about genetics playing a part of what we can and can't eat and wildly differing views on what it takes to lose weight.

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

#178

Post by mistermann »

oculusthrift wrote: post #172
mistermann wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theor…

almost any diet works because it relies on totally avoiding a big source of calories. For instance, carbs. if you consume less calories than you burn, you lose weight. problem in my opinion is they use such a big brush to cut things out that people can be miserable while on them. if its the end of the day and you've eaten 700 less calories than you need and have gotten all the protein and fat you need then guess what…

I don't disagree at all, I was complaining about referring to all diets as "fads", as if there is no evidence that some have substantial advantages over others, which varies per person to some degree. For example, on a low carb diet, my food cravings are miniscule.

The thinking "if you consume less calories than you burn, you lose weight" is also called into question every time I go through a cycle of this diet. It is most definitely not as simple as calories consumed(!) minus calories burned. If that was the case, I would be gaining a LOT of weight when I am not on this diet, yet I do not.

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

#179

Post by [deleted] »

problems wrote: post #165
loco5niner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's definitely some scummy stuff going on in the food industry, but I don't think a little fakery that saves the consumer money and creates a good flavor is that bad of a sin. I disagree. I think a label should accurately describe it's contents, plain and simple. I much prefer to decide for myself what is in my own best interest thank you very much.

The label does that though - the ingredients list. The title just doesn't. The title on many foods isn't an accurate description of their contents though - wasabi is dyed horse raddish, crab meat is often mashed up and cleverly rebuilt pollock, most fruit juices aren't what they list, but still get to use the name juice because they're mostly apple or pear juice, most bacon bits aren't bacon at all - they're vegan ev…

[deleted]

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

#180

Post by loco5niner »

problems wrote: post #165
loco5niner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There's definitely some scummy stuff going on in the food industry, but I don't think a little fakery that saves the consumer money and creates a good flavor is that bad of a sin. I disagree. I think a label should accurately describe it's contents, plain and simple. I much prefer to decide for myself what is in my own best interest thank you very much.

The label does that though - the ingredients list. The title just doesn't. The title on many foods isn't an accurate description of their contents though - wasabi is dyed horse raddish, crab meat is often mashed up and cleverly rebuilt pollock, most fruit juices aren't what they list, but still get to use the name juice because they're mostly apple or pear juice, most bacon bits aren't bacon at all - they're vegan ev…

That is like saying "I'm going to lie to your face, but the government has forced me to admit the truth if you dig into it a little bit (Oh! and by the way, when I say a little bit, I mean "a lot")".

Just saying "That's the way it is", is not a good argument against "This is how it should be".

Post reply on HN