Live data from Hacker News

Eating Clean is Useless

tonic.vice.com

31–40 of 120 posts

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#31
post #3

Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course, but it's a fact that refined carbs are cheap and plentiful, so the poor consume proportionally more of them. They simply can't afford fruit and meat. This is in part because of the infinite shelf life of processed carbs, and in part because they're heavily subsidized by the government. Also, government dietary guidelines still push people towards relatively high carb diets,…

> They simply can't afford fruit and meat.

Maybe this differs per area, but in most places i know, fruit is significantly cheaper than processed snacks. I can eat 4 apples for the price of one Mars bar.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#33
post #15
post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes the fructose in your (selected for top sweetness over hundreds of generations) apricot so different from the fructose in the sucrose of your Snickers bar?

The difference has more to do with fiber, fats, and vitamin s

Vitamin S? You mean steroids?

It's very difficult for a person eating normally to not get enough of their daily vitamin intake, so please specify the type.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#34
post #14

I eat organic fruit and vegetables mostly to avoid synthetic chemicals, and because you have more heirloom varieties which can offer better taste, but I'm not a vegetarian, so I'm okay with the blood meal and bone meal that goes into the product.

What is the basis of the idea that organic pesticides and herbicides are safer/better than synthetic ones?

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#35
I think the author researched this article after selecting his position rather than vice versa. He keeps claiming health benefits have not been shown to be true. He goes so far as to say: "...organic produce tends to have more antioxidants—but those differences haven't been shown to improve health outcomes." Maybe, but I'm pretty sure they do. In my experience being around a good number of athletic people, the ones who look really good, as in others do double takes or give gratuitous compliments, are not the ones work out the most but instead the ones who eat the best.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#36
All of our fitness and nutrition advice is troubled by the cargo-culting, marketing-driven, personal-religion factors: if I go to a yoga class I spend a lot more time and money to get effects roughly similar to doing a high school gym class stretching regime each morning and evening. I paid $14 yesterday for the experience of a burger with a fancy name and an overly sweetened bun that was ultimately less satisfying than Burger King. If I buy and use supplements marketed by a bodybuilder, or try to follow their training program as printed in a magazine, I'm not going to look like the bodybuilder, and I will probably overtrain, because they weren't using the supplements at all, they were using a PED stack to train harder, eat more, and recover faster without overloading their system. Worrying about my body weight, BMI, or aesthetics is similarly Quixotic in that my body will prefer to stay in a certain range regardless of how I eat or train, and the numbers I can consistently improve tend to be "weight and reps" or "time and distance", while aesthetics and vanity numbers are much harder to aim towards.

To wit, it's more important to develop your own feedback loops for each of these things. There are serious concerns with fitness and nutrition in the U.S. but they aren't necessarily because it's impossible to get at the good stuff: it's just that eating beans and rice and oatmeal, making a habit of stretching and bodyweight exercise, and studiously logging one's training are all unfashionable, implicitly discouraged by most workplaces, and not well served by market forces.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#37
post #30

This article smacks of narrow-minded contrarianism for its own sake. The cheapest thing one can do -- and healthier than the option of eating Lucky Charms daily -- is to grow one's own food. The space requirements are actually tiny -- it's possible to grow all of one's own veggies in something like 300 sq ft of space (in a mid-latitude region) and all one's own calories in something like 800 sq ft of space. It's chea…

This is only a cheap option if you consider your own labor to be free.

Plus don't forget about the seasonality of the crops, the effort of preservation, etc.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#38
post #21

This article seems to be making the implicit claim that "clean eating" refers to eating organic products. On the other hand, I've always understood the expression to just mean eating healthy, especially including plenty of vegetables. Has the meaning changed or have I just always misunderstood it?

I was confused the same way. I think the article should replace "clean" with "organic\non-GMO."

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#39
Possible problems with GMO: - Harder to digest proteins - Possible new allergies for some people (because if slightly different proteins, or mixes from other plants) - Plants with build in pesticide - Patents - Plant monoculture - Plants that grow faster and are cheaper, but not optimized for taste.

Is the above list inherit to GMO's: no. Do I know if the GMO I am eating is suffering from this: no. As such until I get detailed information about your GMO, I prefer to avoid it.

Post reply on HN