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

Eating Clean is Useless

tonic.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#61

Post by thrownblown »

edejong wrote: post #29
minwcnt5 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fiber and polyphenols in the whole fruit modulate the uptake of fructose in the gut.

Except that it has been selected over centuries for minimal fiber content. Quick Google search: apricots and Snickers both have 2% fiber content.

Try eating 2500 calories (1 pack) of Oreos vs 2500 calories of apricots (150 medium).

I could easily mow down a whole pack of oreos and a quart of milk (500 more calories). I have done so many times. I might do it tonight. I dunno about 150-180 apricots. That is only 200% of daily recommended fiber intake tho.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#62

Post by azinman2 »

edejong wrote: post #10
azureel wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you mean nut, walnut, or apricot as snack: it's good. But Snickers is definitely not.

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?

Snickers will contain high fructose corn syrup with different metabolism properties, and will likely contain more total sugar (plus other gunk) than the equivalent snack of (non-dried) apricots would.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#63

Post by edejong »

lgas wrote: post #20
edejong wrote: 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?

In addition to what others have said, I suspect part of the difference is that "all things being equal" the snickers bar and apricot may not be so far apart, but in real life "all things are not equal" and the person that eats a snicker instead of an apricot statistically makes many more decisions in a similar vein.

Aha, that's an interesting position and one I completely agree with. It points to the core of the matter:

It lifts the individual food-items towards a more socioeconomic, structuralistic philosophy of society. Eating the Snickers bar is communicating "I do not care about my food-choices". It is about carelessness and sloth, a stigmatic act.

And even though there is a kernel of truth in your argument, it introduces more dogma into the whole food situation.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#64

Post by yellowapple »

I never understood the hate toward GMOs themselves, considering that genetic modification is practically the definition of agriculture as it's existed for thousands of years. Granted, we relied on artificial selection instead of, say, CRISPR, but still.

I do understand the hate toward companies like Monsanto, however. Hating all GMOs because of some unethical company peddling them seems heavy-handed and broad-stroked to me, though.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#65

Post by kirrent »

Toine wrote: post #59
0xbear wrote: 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,…

"Non-GMO and organic is mostly BS of course" Sources ? I got hundreds of studies proving the exact opposite if you want

Hey, if you've got hundreds of studies why don't you start? Give us your favourites.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#66

Post by azinman2 »

pmiller2 wrote: post #46
struppi wrote: post #13

"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…

Organic is definitely not better for the environment than non-organic, by default: >Not only are organic pesticides not safe, they might actually be worse than the ones used by the conventional agriculture industry. Canadian scientists pitted 'reduced-risk' organic and synthetic pesticides against each other in controlling a problematic pest, the soybean aphid. They found that not only were the synthetic pesticides m…

Non-organic farming typically involves a lot of petro-based fertilizers being used that deposit large run offs of nitrogen, ammonia, and other goodies that “burn” the soil and run off into streams which then causes many other issues.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#67

Post by justin--sane »

Jeaye wrote: post #8

The most appealing benefits of organic foods, in my household, are not to do with our own health. Instead, we adopt the practice under the information that organic farming is more sustainable and better for the environment. Top three search results for "organic food better for environment." http://www.fao.org/organicag/oa-faq/oa-faq6/en/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/food/is-organic-agr... http://www.thech…

What about the heavily increased land use in organic farming?

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959652617...

What about the pesticides used in organic farming? I'd jug some Roundup (LD50: 5,600 mg/kg in rats) before eating Copper sulfate (LD50: 30 mg/kg in rats) used in organic farming.

My main problem is, that the whole thing is just a big appeal to nature. More natural does not mean safer for consumption or better for the environment.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#68

Post by saosebastiao »

struppi wrote: post #13

"100-percent organic, locally sourced, non-GMO, and free of antibiotics" Even if it does not have an effect on your health, three of those four (100-percent organic, locally sourced, and free of antibiotics) are at least good for the environment. The fourth (free of antibiotics) is maybe even good for your health, in the long run: Over-use of antibiotics by farmers (not using them to cure sick animals, but to make an…

The argument that locally sourced is better for the environment is a generally spurious claim based on incomplete understanding of modern logistics. For one, food production efficiency is extremely dependent on climate suitability for the crop. Two, transportation only accounts for 11% of food energy use...production (which again is highly dependent on climate) takes far more. Three, transportation energy usage is highly dependent on utilization and relatively independent of distance...A Californian eating a kiwifruit shipped in a packed container from New Zealand might very well produce less CO2 than a similarly sized Tomato grown 30 miles away and driven via pickup truck to a farmers market.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#69

Post by brucephillips »

edejong wrote: post #29
minwcnt5 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fiber and polyphenols in the whole fruit modulate the uptake of fructose in the gut.

Except that it has been selected over centuries for minimal fiber content. Quick Google search: apricots and Snickers both have 2% fiber content.

That's by weight, and apricots are mostly water. By macronutrient content, apricots are about 15% fiber.

What ultimately matters is the glycemic index. An apricot has a GI of 34, whereas a Snickers bar is ~70.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#70

Post by kirrent »

yellowapple wrote: post #64

I never understood the hate toward GMOs themselves, considering that genetic modification is practically the definition of agriculture as it's existed for thousands of years. Granted, we relied on artificial selection instead of, say, CRISPR, but still. I do understand the hate toward companies like Monsanto, however. Hating all GMOs because of some unethical company peddling them seems heavy-handed and broad-stroked…

I'm always interested in people's perceptions of Monsanto considering that to me they seem like an entirely pedestrian and boring GM crops company with a couple of cool products. Perhaps you could explain why you dislike them and think they're unethical?
Post reply on HN