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

71–80 of 120 posts

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#71

Post by brucephillips »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48
Qantourisc wrote: post #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 ge…

Wait, you listed some hypotheticals, said they don't necessarily apply, and still concluded they do? But what do I know. I'm a food contrarian - if I see two items, one labeled "no GMO" and one without such label, I pick the latter...

> and still concluded they do?

When did they do this?

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#72

Post by azinman2 »

bpodgursky wrote: post #45
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…

100-percent organic is often bad for the environment because it takes more land to grow the same food. It often takes more energy to grow food locally (greenhouses and fertilizer) than transported food. Antibiotic-raised foods grow faster and thus have better caloric ratios, and less farmland per pound of beef.

Source?

There are many ways in which organic and non-organic affect the environment other than land use (which is likely a marginal difference). Big agro, most associated with non-organic farming, does lots of bad things for the environment. Pesticides that are linked to decline of bee populations, pesticides that yield local imbalances in what animals/bugs are around to eat each other, synthetic fertilizers that thrash the land from being able to grow diverse crops into the future, chemical run offs into local water sources, exposure of workers to high concentrations of pesticides and their subsequent-related illnesses, GMO seeds spreading farther than the intended land mass mating with other species producing unknown effects (and lawsuits), etc.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#73

Post by brucephillips »

fuwafuwa wrote: post #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 t…

> implicitly discouraged by most workplaces

What do you mean?

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#74

Post by ouid »

deepGem wrote: post #52
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,…

They simply can't afford fruit and meat. I'm not sure about meat but fruit is definitely affordable. Especially bananas and apples. Bananas are far cheaper than any other food. Yet, people snack on chips/crisps and other refined carbs.

are you considering caloric efficiency?

I love this list, but I doubt it's accurate to more than an factor of 2. http://efficiencyiseverything.com/calorie-per-dollar-list/

Bananas are not a cost effective source of calories, have very little protein, and boast a fairly high glycemic index.

basically, bananas are trash at being fruit.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#75

Post by TheSpiceIsLife »

jjawssd wrote: post #2

To me "eating clean" means eating mostly vegetables by volume and mostly fat and protein by weight. For instance typical ketogenic/paleo diet. Eating "dirty" is theoretically doable. If one prototypical example of eating "dirty" is having a standard supermarket cake slice or mound of cereal and milk to fulfill daily caloric needs, then it is actually harder to maintain a "dirty" diet. Satiety becomes an unattainable…

This is how I eat, with the addition of nuts, seeds, and legumes.

I focus on are cruciferous vegetables, of which there are many, and buy only what is on special.

When maintain this eating plan I have boundless energy and am emotionally stable. When I don't I am tired and letharg all the time and prone to angry outbursts.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#76

Post by 0xbear »

skrebbel wrote: post #31
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,…

> 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.

It's also much less calorically dense. It's not just snacks though. It's also nearly anything you can buy in a store that's made of wheat or corn. Whole aisles of stuff, packed floor to ceiling. People keep eating it between meals, and they get fat.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#77

Post by dragonwriter »

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?

> 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 quantity of it per unit volume or mass of the apricot, which affects satiety and the total quantity you are likely to eat of it, as well as other ingredients consumed alongside the sugars. For instance, a 44g snickers bar has 20g of sugars and 0.8g fiber; 165g of sliced apricot has only 15g of sugars and 3.3g of fiber; so less than a quarter of the sugar density by mass, with in the ballpark of the same fiber density, or about a four times higher fiber-to-sugar ratio for the apricot.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#78

Post by trabant00 »

A little straw man here, a little twisting of the meaning of clean there and voila: trying to eat healthy is classist and racist.

Junk food is being marketed at poor uneducated people. Yes! That is even more reason to fight it, not find escuses to indulge in it. And if you are really into social justice and the like, that yoga guy and the whole white middle class is not the enemy of the poor black guys. They are not the owners of junk food mega corporations, nor do they pass laws to subsidize corn syrup.

If you want to "stick it to the man" stop buying his horrible products.

"Fuck you white middle class yoga guy, I'm eating all the Nestle shit I can find, take that!" - how dumb is this?

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#79

Post by TeMPOraL »

brucephillips wrote: post #71
TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, you listed some hypotheticals, said they don't necessarily apply, and still concluded they do? But what do I know. I'm a food contrarian - if I see two items, one labeled "no GMO" and one without such label, I pick the latter...

> and still concluded they do? When did they do this?

The way I read that comment was:

- [list of possible problems with GMOs]

- Are they inherent to GMOs? No.

- Do I know if a given GMO has them? No.

- Conclusion: I will avoid GMOs.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#80

Post by Toine »

kirrent wrote: post #65
Toine wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Hundreds of thousands.
Post reply on HN