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

The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

foodrenegade.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 195 posts

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#161

Post by redthrowaway »

JanezStupar wrote: post #157
defen wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure what the OP was talking about, but I won't touch them because they're completely lacking in flavor!

Your doin' it wrong. Zucchini is a fantastic filling and flavor carrier. It loves spices, olive oil, onions, tomatoes and what have you. Thus it should be used as something that adds volume and takes on flavor of other ingredients. I used to dislike zucchinis too - since people putting them on my plate didn't have a proper idea of how to use them. But once you use it as Lord intended them to be used, they are THE fru…

That makes it sound a whole lot like tofu, which is another "food" that should be avoided by anyone who isn't a culinary masochist.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#162

Post by bfe »

scythe wrote: post #155
bfe wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The red meat, butter, and buttermilk that abounds in the traditional Finnish diet are from moose and reindeer whose own diet in the Finnish woods is at least as all-natural, wholesome, and organic as the grass grazed by Kristen's cattle, but that didn't stop the Finns from being the world leaders in heart attacks. The LDL cholesterol in your bloodstream doesn't care what the cows you ate were eating when they were al…

At the same time, moose and reindeer are not cattle, and they are cold-weather animals, which means they have a lot of extra body fat. Extrapolating conclusions about moose and reindeer to cattle is not necessarily correct and there are reasons to believe it isn't.

There is a significant difference, but it works the opposite way, so that beef is worse for you. Cattle have been bred under ten thousand years of domestication to have fattier meat, whereas undomesticated sources of red meat are much leaner. Off the top of my head I can point you to the index of Guns, Germs and Steel for citations.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#163

Post by Cushman »

darklajid wrote: post #117
Cushman wrote: post #12

Secret ingredient? It's sugar water. This is like talking about the chemicals they put into Coke... Yeah, they're in there, and maybe they shouldn't be, but that's not why you drink it and that's not why it's bad for you. Edit: Downvote why? Sugars in 10oz Coca-Cola classic: 33g. Sugars in 10oz Tropicana Pure Premium original orange juice: 28.1g. [1] http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-coca-cola-classic-i98... [2]…

The articles was about 100% juice. Unless your system of labeling works a lot different in your part of the world you cannot add things to juice and still call it 100% juice. The blog mentions a ~trick~ to recreate a well-known and stable flavor by adding orange-derived chemicals - but you still cannot add 'sugar water'. Yes, that stuff contains a lot of sugar. But so does an orange from your own garden (still health…

I understood the article fine. But who cares if it's 100% juice or not? 100% juice is bad. Coca-Cola wouldn't be better for you if it were 100% sugar and carbonated water.

You make a great point about raw fruit— Sugars in a whole orange: 12g. That is to say, a glass of orange juice has the sugar water from two oranges, without the fiber that blocks absorption and sends satiety signals after an orange and a half. Clearly these are comparable things.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#164

Post by adolph »

bfe wrote: post #127
adolph wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citation please! Modern scientific findings, properly analyzed, are an astonishingly better guide to human health than any traditional collection of folk wisdom.

Really? Um, which body of pre-modern folk wisdom relies on citations to evidence? To be fair there are a few, but their cited authorities of preference are scriptural. I cited a scientific review of large studies of specific health outcomes from specific dietary habits in my other reply, but that itself is the practice of science. If you don't find that explanatory power a convincing epistemological clue, there is no…

Originally I was just trolling you for making a bare assertion. After thinking about it a bit, sure, do you have any citations for "Modern scientific findings" being "astonishingly better" than "any traditional collection of folk wisdom" for the purpose of "human health?"

First, I haven't made an assertion that folk wisdom relies on citations. My impression is that folk wisdom is generally broader than religion, but I won't bother you with a citation request for that assertion. "Modern scientific findings" appear to rely on citations and you provided one that says the traditional Mediterranean diet is associated with some positive health outcomes; the Finnish one, not so much. Here's one for you about the negative health affects of a modern science-derived diet and lifestyle on folks migrating from a traditional diet and lifestyle to a modern one.

Type 2 (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus, migration and westernisation: The Tokelau Island Migrant study

http://www.springerlink.com/content/u9693ul1q81474u9/

Summary. The migration of Tokelauans from a traditional atoll in the Pacific to urban New Zealand is associated with an increased prevalence and incidence of Type 2 (non-insulindependent) diabetes mellitus over the period 1968-1982. During the same period, a lesser but definite increase is seen among non-migrants in Tokelau. The age standardised prevalence rates rose from 7.5 and 11.7 to 10.8 and 19.9 per 100 respectively in the male and female migrants compared with an increase from 3.0 and 8.7 to 7.0 and 14.3 per 100 in the nonmigrant males and females respectively. The incidence of diabetes is shown to be consistently higher in the migrants compared to the non-migrants giving relative risks of 1.5 in males and 1.9 in females. The factors most likely contributing to this difference, are changes to a higher calorie, high protein diet, higher alcohol consumption, a greater weight gain and altered levels of physical activity in the migrants. A number of populations in the Pacific have been shown to have a low rate of diabetes in their traditional setting, but may have a genetic predisposition for diabetes which responds to factors in the urban industrialised environment and life-style. The social and economic changes taking place in Tokelau are also clearly increasing the risk of diabetes. To reverse these trends and prevent the development of complications of Type 2 diabetes, it will be important to institute preventive programmes and to follow up the population in both environments for long-term outcomes, including mortality.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#165

Post by scythe »

bfe wrote: post #162
scythe wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the same time, moose and reindeer are not cattle, and they are cold-weather animals, which means they have a lot of extra body fat. Extrapolating conclusions about moose and reindeer to cattle is not necessarily correct and there are reasons to believe it isn't.

There is a significant difference, but it works the opposite way, so that beef is worse for you. Cattle have been bred under ten thousand years of domestication to have fattier meat, whereas undomesticated sources of red meat are much leaner. Off the top of my head I can point you to the index of Guns, Germs and Steel for citations.

>Cattle have been bred under ten thousand years of domestication to have fattier meat, whereas undomesticated sources of red meat are much leaner.

I can see that applying to deer, elk, rabbit, etc -- but moose? Furthermore, there's a considerable market for lean beef especially in the modern era, and I know that pigs have rather recently been selected for leanness. My current knowledge of the health effects of red meat as a whole is that the data are conflicting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat#Health

The fact that Finland's diet was confounded with lots of butter and other fatty things makes the whole thing rather unconvincing as a data point saying that red meat is any more unhealthy than ordinary nutrition labeling (x grams of fat, y grams of carb, z grams of protein) would lead you to believe. I can buy a pound of 90/10 beef at the store with 12 grams of fat, ~3 grams of carbohydrate, and 23 grams of protein "per serving", which really doesn't sound terribly unhealthy next to e.g. a bag of potato chips.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#166

Post by jff »

grannyg00se wrote: post #140
jff wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without any processing or additives? I'm for the most part quite glad the juice and milk I buy at the store has been processed--without pasteurization and homogenization, for example, milk would be significantly riskier AND less convenient.

You may be glad that your 100% pure orange juice is in fact highly processed orange juice product, but most people would be rather shocked to find out what is happening. And you may not be correct about the pasteurization of milk. There are many who feel that natural unpasteurized milk is healthier. Pasteurization is perhaps more necessary in a mass production environment, but it is not necessarily better for our bod…

There are also many people who "feel" that vaccines cause autism, or that such-and-such an artificial sweetener causes cancer, despite a lack of any real scientific evidence. Once I see a few real studies about the long-term health effects of pasteurized vs. unpasteurized milk (besides the lower incidence of food-borne illness in pasteurized drinkers), I'll be willing to consider it--but not on the "gut feeling" of "moms", those heroes of anti-intellectual anti-science BS everywhere.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#167

Post by jff »

yesbabyyes wrote: post #82
Tsagadai wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Come now, mechanized farming isn't all bad. Small engines have brought /billions/ of people out of poverty. My late grandfather switched from a dozen horses to one quadbike, tripling output and halving the amount of work he had to do. This 'third world' you are thinking of has been buying small, efficient engines for tractors and pumps for most of the last century. The spike in oil use for that was in the early 60s.…

Producing the nitrogen for fertilizer is very energy intensive. Thus, food prices will follow the oil price.

Appropriate use of crop rotation and natural fertilizer (cow manure is quite effective) can significantly reduce the amount of fertilizer needed. I don't think we ever put artificial fertilizer on our fields, just spread on some cow dung.

In any sort of farming operation, soil nutrients MUST be replenished. A huge industrial farm can practice crop rotation at least as well as a small farmer, if not better, and of course can afford to have employees devoted specifically to managing and planning fertilizer application when needed.

Farming can be an expensive proposition--it is not cost-effective to apply pesticides/herbicides/fertilizer when not needed!

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#168

Post by sambeau »

sandGorgon wrote: post #160
sambeau wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Original academic sources: Fowler SP, Williams K, Resendez RG, Hunt KJ, Hazuda HP, Stern MP. Fueling the obesity epidemic? Artificially sweetened beverage use and long-term weight gain Obesity (Silver Spring) 2008 Aug;16(8):1894-1900. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18535548 http://www.uthscsa.edu/hscnews/singleformat.asp?newID=3872 here's some pop-sci versions: http://www.fastcompany.com/1764156/diet-coke-is-why-…

could you comment on this then - http://www.ajcn.org/content/82/5/1011.abstract P.S. I'm genuinely asking, most of my knowledge is borrowed from Leangains

Interesting — I hadn't seen that.

This shows that what is going on here may be more complex than first thought. (Maybe it is just a Pavlovian response.) It doesn't change the evidence that people and rats put on weight when drinking diet drinks – it shows that the reason why is still unclear.

I do worry how many medical papers are based on tiny samples. 5 seems very small to me (when I was doing drug research 100 was a small sample).

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#169

Post by sliverstorm »

grannyg00se wrote: post #140
jff wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without any processing or additives? I'm for the most part quite glad the juice and milk I buy at the store has been processed--without pasteurization and homogenization, for example, milk would be significantly riskier AND less convenient.

You may be glad that your 100% pure orange juice is in fact highly processed orange juice product, but most people would be rather shocked to find out what is happening. And you may not be correct about the pasteurization of milk. There are many who feel that natural unpasteurized milk is healthier. Pasteurization is perhaps more necessary in a mass production environment, but it is not necessarily better for our bod…

Pasteurization is perhaps more necessary in a mass production environment, but it is not necessarily better for our bodies

It's sure as heck not worse. If boiling things is unhealthy, we've been dreadfully unhealthy for tens of thousands of years.

Re: The Secret Ingredient In Your Orange Juice

#170

Post by sliverstorm »

palish wrote: post #88
JanezStupar wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On health criteria - I'm not implying that you should be all "Jersey Style". However - for me, first sign of health is muscle tonus - yours seems not very good (as is most geeks). Then your hair seems in a pretty bad shape - that has less to do with washing and more with food you consume. And your general posture does not imply - "I am fit for battle" (you also look sleep depraved). On convenience of healthy food. It…

Thank you. It's so rare nowadays to find someone willing to give perfectly honest feedback, like "your posture sucks, and you look sleepy". I didn't realize hair quality might be linked to nutrition. Also, I appreciate how much work you put into your reply. Do you have any thoughts on using Crystal Light to make water taste less terrible? Someday, when I have more than $1k of savings, I hope to live in a nice rental…

I can't take a look at your photo right now, but in general "healthy" mainly equates to two things: looking alert, and looking like this- http://www.daviddarling.info/images/muscles_human_body_front...

There are of course many variables- body builders are not necessarily healthy, and neither are people on speed- but when you are healthy, you feel bright and sharp, and you look bright and sharp, and your skin does not hide your muscles.

Look at the image I linked to. Consider yourself. Every place on your body you cannot see the crease formed by two muscles next to each other, is a deposit of fat. The key to this is, nowadays if your proportions are correct (no huge belly, etc) you are seen as "in good shape"- but in reality, many people "in good shape" are hiding a lot of fat on the surface of their body, and no-one realizes it because we have lost touch with what muscles really look like.

P.S. skin quality is another, lesser factor that falls in with hair quality. Truly healthy skin is smooth, supple and elastic, almost like velvet or thin high-quality well-oiled leather drawn tight over your frame. Skin products will not get you this, only regular exercise and a good diet.

Post reply on HN