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

On ‘Plant-Based’

aliciakennedy.news

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 210 posts

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#131

Post by sudden_dystopia »

steve_adams_86 wrote: post #113
lambdaba wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.

There are heaps of people who thrive strictly on plants who aren’t bloated or struggling to digest their food or get calories in.

Maybe so, but protein is a different story. How many professional athletes are true vegans for extended periods outside of Tom Brady, who is kind of psycho to begin with.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#132

Post by cogman10 »

phphphphp wrote: post #100
rsynnott wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s a new term in English, too; I assume because people found ‘vegan’ off-putting? Not really sure; it turned up about a decade ago, and as the article says is poorly defined.

Veganism is a moral and ethical lifestyle choice with wide ranging implications whereas plant-based is a descriptor of the things that go into a foodstuff. A vegan will only eat plant-based food (and so “plant-based” and “vegan” are often used interchangeably to describe a food) but someone who follows a plant-based diet might buy leather goods (and is therefore not vegan). A good example of this nuance is the Imposs…

I don't think "not tested on animals" is something generally accepted as being required to be vegan.

AFAIK, the main qualifier is "does not consume animal products." Impossible meat does not have animal products in it and is not currently being tested on animals. Similarly, most medicine is animal tested, yet I've never heard someone claim that medicine isn't vegan.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#133

Post by vel0city »

tshaddox wrote: post #119
vel0city wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved t…

The quote you used says “food based on plants was the default.” Seems pretty deliberately worded to not claim that most humans never ate meat.

They're directly suggesting that food should have labels to let people know when foods are not wholly plant based. It seems they're really arguing that people should only rarely (if ever) eat non-plant-based foods and should avoid foods with animal products in them, because by default we should be eating plants not non-plants.

We didn't eat plants by default, we ate a mixture of plants and meats and other animal-derived products since we lived in caves.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#134

Post by scythe »

edent wrote: post #33
OJFord wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not the same at all, 'beef burger' tells me what it is; 'vegan burger' (worse: 'vegan chicken nugget'!) only tells me what it isn't.

Ah, yes. The hamburger with no ham. The hotdog bereft of canine meat. Catsup with no kitty (OK, that one is a stretch!)

The Hamburger is a sandwich derived from a method of meat processing historically popular in Hamburg, Germany. The "hot dog" however may have in fact been some morbid humor about the processing of sausages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_dog#Etymology

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#135

Post by sudden_dystopia »

tshaddox wrote: post #119
vel0city wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved t…

The quote you used says “food based on plants was the default.” Seems pretty deliberately worded to not claim that most humans never ate meat.

That’s not true either. It was only plant based when they couldn’t obtain meat. Supplementing plant foods was the default when there was no prey available is more accurate.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#136

Post by ben_w »

dmitriid wrote: post #54
edent wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right? Just like a Breaded Drumstick was unlikely to have been used by Ringo Starr. People understand the colloquial terms for foods. The term "vegetarian pork" may be vague an unappealing to you - but sales figures show it is pretty attractive to lots of people. And, to a veggie like me, it gives some indication of the flavour profile, which I personally f…

> But you accept that Buffalo Wings contain no actual buffalo, right? Let's go back to your original statement, shall we: "Why do meat eaters disguise things as burgers, sausages, and nuggets?" No part of that statement ever said anything about buffalos. And wings don't disguise themselves as wings. Also, Buffalo Wings have nothing to do with buffalos, and everything to do with Buffalo, New York. > The term "vegetari…

> Also, Buffalo Wings have nothing to do with buffalos, and everything to do with Buffalo, New York.

Yes, and hamburgers have nothing to do with ham, they're named after the city of Hamburg. Frankfurters also not made of Franks.

> Funnily, meat is never (or very very very rarely) disguised as vegetables.

OTOH, what exactly do people think they're eating when they have wieners? Because I'm fairly sure the meat shapes that get replicated — bacon rashers, sausages, burgers, fillets, deli slices — even where they had a specific original cause like "stuff meat into intestine", stuck around because they're convenient. The meat that still looks like the original animal (whole roast chicken, whole leg of lamb, stuffed pig head), I've not seen replicated. Well, not since the "everything is a cake" meme, at least.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#137

Post by layer8 »

FeistySkink wrote: post #115
namdnay wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally like the “plant based” term, because for me “vegan” was always defined as a negative (vegans dont eat this and dont eat that), whereas plant-based just means what it says. In my experience in shops in the UK at least, there will always be a little “vegan” logo stuck on the packet as well

Some cow milk producers label cow milk as plant-based. What exactly is it supposed to mean?

Do you have a photo of that? It’s somewhat hard to believe, and I didn’t find anything by googling.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#138

Post by nine_k »

layer8 wrote: post #125
nine_k wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed, "animal-free" could look more cool. It also is more strict, and may get you sued. Say, crepes with fruit jam are definitely plant-based, but they may not be animal-free: the jam may contain bits of gelatin, and the easiest way to make nice-looking crepes is to fry them on lard.

Yeah, but the non-rational parts of the brain aren’t good with negation. Reading “animal”, even when suffixed by “-free”, the brain feels it doesn’t want that thing with “animal” on it. Better give it something with “plant” on it.

Why? "Animal-free" means that animals are free, not taking part in the food.

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#139

Post by mytailorisrich »

sheusndudn wrote: post #84
mytailorisrich wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Veganism is an extreme and therefore it tends to attract people who are seeking extremes. This brings a rather negative image because there's always a part of intolerance and/or unreasonableness in extremes. I think most people will think that, for instance, not eating honey or eggs is too extreme.

Honey and eggs are not comparable. Maybe honey is extreme, but watch a youtube video of them shredding male live chicks that won't lay eggs so aren't useful is the closest thing to hell i've ever seen.

There is a difference between being against cruelty against animals and not eating any eggs.

Hens will lay eggs. That's what they do naturally and if those eggs are not fertilised they will rot and decay.

In veganism you cannot eat those eggs no matter how pampered the hens are.

That's obviously a personal decision, which I respect, but it should also be understandable that many people find this extreme (and not eating honey even more extreme).

Re: On ‘Plant-Based’

#140

Post by tomtheelder »

lambdaba wrote: post #95
vel0city wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But for most of history, for most people, food based on plants was the default and still should be. Right, and all those cave paintings depicting hunting scenes were entirely for sport. There are no instances in the wild of any species similar to humans eating meat I guess. Ancient writings where they reference meats, they were really talking about Beyond Meat. We've evolved to eat plants, yes. We've also evolved t…

Evolved to eat plans as an option, yes, but not as a preference. It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting, and that's with modern, highly selected for plants... My bet would be we evolved to eat animal fats and protein, and that is most of the selection pressure for our big brains too. Hunting while being a rather frail primate takes brains.

> It is so hard to get enough plant calories without being bloated and with difficulties digesting

I'm sorry, but this is an absolutely preposterous take. Are you suggesting that the ~80 million vegans and ~1.5 billion vegetarians worldwide are dealing with constant bloating and digestive issues? In fact I'd make the case that a _far_ greater number of people deal with poor digestion due to under-consumption of plants- leading to low intake of dietary fiber- than vice versa.

Also we did not "evolve to eat plants as an option." We evolved from primarily frugivorous apes, so plants were the starting point and the default. And some of the key changes to our biology were to support the consumption of additional plants, not just meat. Relatively large molars, a long GI tract, and enzymes for the digestion of starches.

We are biologically omnivorous, no one should deny that, but to suggest that we evolved primarily as meat eaters is a bit absurd.

Post reply on HN