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

91–100 of 120 posts

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#91

Post by sprayk »

Is there a single definition of "clean"? The author has one definition which seems based on items commonly found on labels, like "non-gmo" or "certified organic", that gives consumers an easy way to feel good about what they are about to eat. The commenters here, however, seem to each have their own different idea. Is it keto? Is it organic/"chemical-free"? Can someone point me to one single definition of "clean" eating that isn't just what you feel is "clean"?

If there is, how does it line up with the author's definition? How does the actual definition fit with the content of the article?

If there isn't one definition, I'm sort of with the author on this one. "Clean" is whatever labels the consumers use to feel superior through what they are eating.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#92

Post by siliconc0w »

I have a pet theory that food ideology is/has replaced conventional religion for a lot of folks. There is a need to feel 'virtuous' in our daily lives and since we gotta eat it's a convenient place to go. So we get all these strange ideologies and dogmas which don't seem to make us much healthier physically but maybe helps fills in some accumulated spiritual decay.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#93

Post by Johnny_Brahms »

ouid wrote: post #74
deepGem wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, this is discussion about people eating too many calories from bad food. Bananas probably beat most of the snacks otherwise discussed.

And protein deficiency? A 70kg male needs something like 55g of protein (WHO figures) unless they exercise. You are not going to go below that unless you fill a substantial chunk of your calorie intake by eating pure fat.

I eat a plant based diet and weigh about 67kg. On 2500kcal I get about 95-110g of protein, and that is without trying. Had I been a meat/milk eater, this number would have been higher.

Protein intake is generally a problems if you are either starving or very serious about building LOTS ofta muscle.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#94

Post by avenius »

Underqualified wrote: post #51

To me eating clean means avoiding preprocessed food, the author is taking a much more extreme view which to me feels like a straw man. If someone is used to junk food and switches to more fruit, veggies, lean meat and fish, I'm pretty sure they'll start noticing a difference after a little while. I know it worked for me (n=1).

Agreed, I've always considered "clean" to mean non-preprocessed food.

n=2

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#95

Post by Swizec »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #42
skrebbel wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I've been hearing similar things for a time now, like e.g. poor people eating at McD because it's cheaper to get a caloric and macronutrient-full meal there than to assemble it from fruits and stuffs. This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing.

> This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing.

It is. Having lived in both places, it's astounding how expensive good food is in the US and how cheap crap food can be. $1 for a single apple or for a McD burger? Tough choice.

Add to that the fact that most of the US poor are time poor as well. Working 3 jobs and/ot commuting 3hrs per day doesn't leave a lot of time to prepare meals.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#96

Post by AjithAntony »

Swizec wrote: post #95
TeMPOraL wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been hearing similar things for a time now, like e.g. poor people eating at McD because it's cheaper to get a caloric and macronutrient-full meal there than to assemble it from fruits and stuffs. This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing.

> This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing. It is. Having lived in both places, it's astounding how expensive good food is in the US and how cheap crap food can be. $1 for a single apple or for a McD burger? Tough choice. Add to that the fact that most of the US poor are time poor as well. Working 3 jobs and/ot commuting 3hrs per day doesn't leave a lot of time to prep…

Agreed. In my midwest small town, the $1 apple isn't even the good apples. Bananas are preposterously cheap though. I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#97

Post by usharf »

In respect to value, at least, bio/organic (real, not just misleading labeling) is suppose to be free of pesticides, and that's actually a good thing... I'm sure.

Regardless, I don't think even the WHO suggests there's a preference to organic food, but clearly indicates the danger of food contaminated with pesticides.

Even if most pesticides are now forbidden in most developed countries, we can see that in the USA legislation and regulation is being again "relaxed", which is not a good thing.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#98

Post by fuwafuwa »

brucephillips wrote: post #73
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?

Long "crunch" work hours with little or no enforced break, laissez-faire approaches to lunch and break room snacks, occasional encouragement to drink alcohol, lengthy car commutes to office parks, heavy preference towards in-person over remote. These are just some of the things workplaces do to lifestyle that are too small to be a topic for regulation but big enough to impact lives.

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#99

Post by Swizec »

AjithAntony wrote: post #96
Swizec wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This disagrees with my daily experience in Europe, so I conclude it's a US-specific thing. It is. Having lived in both places, it's astounding how expensive good food is in the US and how cheap crap food can be. $1 for a single apple or for a McD burger? Tough choice. Add to that the fact that most of the US poor are time poor as well. Working 3 jobs and/ot commuting 3hrs per day doesn't leave a lot of time to prep…

Agreed. In my midwest small town, the $1 apple isn't even the good apples. Bananas are preposterously cheap though. I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas.

> I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas.

Probably healthier to eat two double cheeseburgers than 5-6 bananas too. Bananas are really really really packed with sugar.

14 grams per 100 calories (banana) versus 7 grams per 440 calories (McDonalds double cheeseburger).

Now whether it's healthy to eat 800 calories for breakfast ... eh, probably not. But that's a different problem. Also depends on what you intend to do all day. Physical labor? Eat away. Sit at desk? Maybe try a quarter of a double cheeseburger instead :D

Re: Eating Clean is Useless

#100

Post by brucephillips »

Swizec wrote: post #99
AjithAntony wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. In my midwest small town, the $1 apple isn't even the good apples. Bananas are preposterously cheap though. I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas.

> I'd still rather east two double cheeseburgers or two breakfast burritos than 5-6 bananas. Probably healthier to eat two double cheeseburgers than 5-6 bananas too. Bananas are really really really packed with sugar. 14 grams per 100 calories (banana) versus 7 grams per 440 calories (McDonalds double cheeseburger). Now whether it's healthy to eat 800 calories for breakfast ... eh, probably not. But that's a differen…

A double cheeseburger may have only 7 grams of "sugar", which is defined by the FDA as a mono- or di-saccharide, but it has 29 grams of carbs, most of which is white flour, which is almost as unhealthy as sugar.
Post reply on HN