231–240 of 314 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some people do have a sensitivity to salt. I am one of those people. Excessive salt does weird things to my body. My grandmother is the same way.
Some people have a sensitivity to basically anything you can point to, I was hoping to provide some general advice that salt isn’t nearly as harmful as we’ve been led to believe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to eat animal corpses to feel happy? Could be worse, I guess. It's perfectly possible to cook great food with and without meat and dairy. But change is difficult, especially after clinging to this kind of BS for a while.
If your ethics require it, fine. I've got no such hang ups. It's vastly easier to have a balanced diet if you don't restrict yourself from high-quality sources of nutrition.
If anything, they're higher quality since they're closer to the source; whatever you get out of meat has already been used once. Which is also why raising animals to eat meat is so wasteful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You need to eat animal corpses to feel happy? Could be worse, I guess. It's perfectly possible to cook great food with and without meat and dairy. But change is difficult, especially after clinging to this kind of BS for a while.
Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar, especially on ultra-worn flamewar topics. We're trying to avoid those here, because the discussions they lead to are always predictable and get nastier as they go along. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
I find it highly questionable to derive happiness from killing animals, and I think most people do once they find the courage to look reality straight in the eyes.
If we can't even talk about it, how are we ever going make progress?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are so many industry funded studies with conclusions contrary to mainstream wisdom I hardly know where to start. This article lists several, just as an example: https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/marta-zaraska-big-meat-a... Also the statement that you don’t care about factory farming is a pretty appalling disregard for the suffering of intelligent animals.
It's an interesting article if true, though written by an anti-meat activist[1], which is even less useful than nutrition studies sponsored by the pork board. Feel free to be appalled; most normal people don't care about the "suffering of cows" either. [1] Marta Zaraska, author of Meathooked: The History and Science of Our 2.5-Million-Year Obsession with Meat.
It's sad but true - our species has a lot of evolving to do still.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If being a vegan/vegetarian is highly correlated with "cares about health," the types of carbs they consume would likely be different, they may be more likely to exercise, and they may be more likely to eat in moderation.
Lots of people say this to me but I've never seen evidence that it's true. In my experience most vegans don't do it for health reasons. That being said I do agree that there are huge differences in types of carbs consumed....but that only goes to say that the problem isn't simply 'carbs', it's processed sugars.
I have however met a lot of people who are Paleo or Carnivore who are in incredible shape.
I'm inclined to believe that at least some of this is cultural - Paleo/Carnivore folks tend to be more strict and disciplined about their fitness anyway, and do different workouts - and some of it is indeed due to diet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As if there are not other industries that benefit from meat being deemed unhealthy by science? Non-expert perspective on this: I find it very difficult to believe that there is such a thing as too much meat (and easy to believe that too much bad quality meat is the root of the problem as commonly discussed), given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other…
> given that most preagricultural environments lacked sufficient carbohydrate density to support anything other than a ketogenic diet Evolution takes a long time and most of the ancestors in human history were near vegetarian with a very low percentage of calories coming from non-vegetarian sources. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancest...
An extremely disingenuous statement not backed in any manner in the article outside of paragraphs like these
>But the truth is, for most of the last twenty million years of the evolution of our bodies, through most of the big changes, we were eating fruit, nuts, leaves and the occasional bit of insect, frog, bird or mouse.
That goes beyond "human history" because monkeys/apes relatives are not humans. Last twenty million years? there was nothing recognizably human then. The australopithecus genus appeared 4 million years ago and even that isn't quite human in shape. Then mentions a diet of "fruit, nuts, leaves". Leaves? Humans can't process leaves efficiently enough to get more nutrition than energy expanded. Unless by leaves they mean leafy vegetables like lettuce which will fill up your stomach while not providing enough calories to get by.
An average fit, physically active human needs 2500 calories intake a day. 100 grams of lettuce is 15 calories. 100 grams of fruits like Apples is 52 calories. Of the three mentioned food sources, the only reasonable way of providing enough energy to a human body is nuts. Most nuts can get you where you need to be without having to eat yourself to an enlarged stomach.
When you account for seasons, primitive lifestyle that has no way of preserving food and lack of mobility because men relied on their own two legs for their own transportations (reducing the variety of foods available) you really have to brainwash yourself to believe that such a diet could be possible at all.
It's easy to be a vegetarian in a world with agriculture. Not so much before. We have human cultures that lived in harsh environments like Alaska for millenias and they didn't live on a diet of good vegan sentiments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, start with these. Good references, too. Perspective: Limiting Dependence on Nonrandomized Studies and Improving Randomized Trials in Human Nutrition Research: Why and How https://academic.oup.com/advances/article/9/4/367/5055939 Implausible results in human nutrition research https://www.bmj.com/content/347/bmj.f6698 His most famous paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org…
After reading the BMJ piece I wondered if any study strategy would satisfy Ioannidis, to be honest. I came away from it feeling like his calls to eliminate observational studies and smaller randomized trials are misleading in that he seems to believe that all realistic studies should be eliminated. He seems to be in favor of large randomized-controlled comprehensive diet protocols, for example, where many aspects of…
He's listed as an author in a number of nutritional and other studies. One might see those as leaning in his direction, if he's willing to be mentioned.
You might contact him if you have additional doubts.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some of us find it incredibly hard, almost impossible, to just eat less. Also some would argue that keeping a food journal and measuring every calorie you eat is far more complicated than special diets like "don't eat carbs" which are successful for some people without measuring or recording anything.
The right drugs can kill your appetite and they're very effective and ensuring weight loss. For me, just caffeine can ensure I don't eat for the whole day and then I can still go climbing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The first three grey Q&A boxes on the Harvard response are a pretty devastating rebuttal to the paper. To summarize: - 3 of the 5 meta-analyses reviewed support the consensus on red meat's health dangers - The other 2 are irrelevant and shouldn't have been considered at all - The paper handwaves away the conclusions of the 3 by raising reliability issues that could be applied to any meta-analysis of nutrition, since…
Don't all 3 of those conflate red and processed meat? Not very sciency...
I guess this study gives credence to the relatively old idea that modern bad health (chronic inflammation, cardiovascular diseases, dental problems, etc.) is driven by the high levels of carbohydrate and linoleic acid (omega 6, found in large quantities in sunflower and other seed oils) in our diets and not the traditionally "bad" foodstuffs like red meat and foods containing high cholesterol and saturated fat. I'm l…
As someone trying to lose weight, all the conflicting advice out there is so frustrating. Should I eat ‘n’ times a day or just once? Is fasting good, or will it put me in ‘starvation mode’? Why is it that when I was young I didn’t even need to think about my food intake and stayed really, really lean? Do we have a set-point and if so, has mine gone up and am I going to be forever hungry if I want to get back to a sen…
One of the key insights was that I was eating a lot of foods that were fattening but weren't filling. It turns out that the ratio of "how full does this make me feel" to "how many calories does this contain" is not a constant across foods. Sugar has probably the worst ratio. Protein and fiber probably have the best, at least in my experience. Fat is a little trickier, but probably also decent if consumed in moderation.
Anyway, as a result, I eat a LOT of vegetables and lean meat. For dinner (my large meal), I often have 1/2 to 3/4 pound (225-340g) of something like chicken breast and 3/4 to 1 pound (340-450g) of steamed veggies. Sometimes I feel like I can barely finish it all.
The other part of the equation was I really did have to change a lot of long-time habits. I was accustomed to just eating whatever and whenever I wanted. That had to end, and the adjustment was painful.
It probably also helps to stay physically active, but I was active before undertaking the weight loss, so I can't comment on the effect of changing that.
The closest thing to device that measures actual calories in is a scale (or measuring cup) and a nutrition label. Yes, this is limiting and tedious. Your favorite local restaurant probably doesn't have any nutrition info available at all. To some extent, you can get around this by looking up equivalents. When you're at your local burrito place, just look up the closest Chipotle menu item. If you only need to that occasionally (not every other meal), your overall totals will be pretty close.