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

Is algae the new kale?

nationalgeographic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 320 posts

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#81

Post by metadat »

bch wrote: post #71
hammock wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beans + rice is easily the most common meal on the planet, as the cheapest complete protein source around. We live in a bubble, never mind saving the planet

> complete protein source On the “complete protein” concept, by a famous popularizer of plant-based protein-combining[0] —— There is no need to combine foods at individual meals. “In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality pr…

Why did you quit there, leaving the 3 exceptions as a cliffhanger!?

> The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat).

This part could be important for some folks. :)

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#82

Post by JoeAltmaier »

somebody78978 wrote: post #51
Victerius wrote: post #22

Only if the rich do it first. I won't eat bugs, lab grown meat, algae, or any other experimental food until the rich do it first, and do it consistently, not just once as a demonstration. My logic is simple. If the rich don't embrace an innovation, it tells me that the innovation is either not what it's cracked up to be, that it gives a poorer quality product than the traditional option, or that the rich think the in…

Algae isn't an experimental food; plenty of rich people eat sushi, for example.

Isn't that seaweed? I'm confused.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#83

Post by ianai »

marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

Being from the land of great red and green chile (spelled correctly), I love legumes/pulses! I’d mix them with rice more but potatoes and wheat (tortillas) go with my metabolism much better.

I also love falafel though and find the texture close enough to a burger for my uses.

Edit-nonetheless the mock up stuff is fun and fills needs. Love me some “benevolent bacon”.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#84

Post by [deleted] »

poszlem wrote: post #15

I cannot understand how it is possible that the phrases like "food security" instead of "hunger" became used widespread organically seemingly out of nowhere. Genuine question, can someone explain that to me without resorting to some sort of conspiracy theories?

[deleted]

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#85

Post by woodruffw »

ryandrake wrote: post #72
woodruffw wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it’s more likely that you just didn’t notice it. My lay observation is that “food security” has been the standard term in non-profit/NGO contexts for at least 15 years, while “hunger” is still colloquial. My guess for why is precision.

Maybe it's the same Euphemism Treadmill that George Carlin performed[1] about, how "Shell Shock" evolved into the softer, jargony "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder" 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuEQixrBKCc

The euphemism treadmill is real, but this is the exact opposite: we’ve gone from a dated euphemism to a medical term.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#86

Post by bch »

metadat wrote: post #81
bch wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> complete protein source On the “complete protein” concept, by a famous popularizer of plant-based protein-combining[0] —— There is no need to combine foods at individual meals. “In 1971 I stressed protein complementarity because I assumed that the only way to get enough protein ... was to create a protein as usable by the body as animal protein. In combating the myth that meat is the only way to get high-quality pr…

Why did you quit there, leaving the 3 exceptions as a cliffhanger!? > The exceptions are diets very heavily dependent on [1] fruit or on [2] some tubers, such as sweet potatoes or cassava, or on [3] junk food (refined flours, sugars, and fat). This part could be important for some folks. :)

I wanted you to tune in next week for the thrilling conclusion? ;)

Thx for the amendment.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#87

Post by Kiro »

marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

There are lot of things we don't need to do. I hate lentils and beans but love whacky food as you call it.

Taste is subjective.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#88

Post by seszett »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #82
somebody78978 wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Algae isn't an experimental food; plenty of rich people eat sushi, for example.

Isn't that seaweed? I'm confused.

"Seaweed" is a rather ill-defined term in English that regroups a lot of different algae. Nori is made from red algae, that are included under the term seaweed.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#89

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

ravenstine wrote: post #80
marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

> I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. No, we don't hear about it more because it's not healthful. If it were, the human digestive system would be like that of cattle, but it's not. You can feed everyone carby, fibrous meals, but that's not optimal and not even necessarily better for the environment. The reason…

Lentils and rice are a complete protein. While they don't provide 100% of the nutrients you need, if you throw in a few green vegetables you'll be absolutely fine.

Crops use something like 1% of the resources to grow that meat does. It's not just about where carbon is stored, but land and water usage and where carbon is produced (cows fart. a lot.). Overall plant-based diets are far superior for the planet than meat-based diets, and contrary to popular opinion they don't have to suck.

Re: Is algae the new kale?

#90

Post by eYrKEC2 »

hammock wrote: post #41
marricks wrote: post #39

I love all these whacky avenues people take when eating just plants is a very low foot print option available to almost everyone. We don’t need to eat crickets, we don’t need to eat algae, we don’t need bioreactors for growing meat. I think the main reason we don’t hear more about just how goddamn efficient a bowl of lentils and rice is, or oatmeal, is because it’s not sexy. You just can’t make a start up on beans an…

Beans + rice is easily the most common meal on the planet, as the cheapest complete protein source around. We live in a bubble, never mind saving the planet

Did you know that cows can up cycle agricultural waste into protein? Human's can't eat corn stalks, for instance.
Post reply on HN