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

Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

michaelpollan.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 191 posts

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#111

Post by sametmax »

CPLX wrote: post #74
sametmax wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is dangerous advice though. Loose weight just by counting calories will not take in consideration toxicity (see my other comment in this thread). Many people burn fat this way, which release toxins they can't process. Hence their body is thin but saturated with poison. From here 2 things happens: - the person gains weight again to protect him/herself. Happens very often. - the person manage to not gain weight at…

This post is unscientific and literally nonsense. There's no such thing as a "toxin" and reducing your adipose fat tissue does not poison your body. It's precisely this sort of magical thinking that the OP is trying to counter.

I'm not a native english speaker, I don't know the proper world for this.

Some molecules are things that have nothing to do in the body (Maillard reaction output, antibiotic in the meat, pesticide in fruits, etc). Some are just regular things we can process but in a greater concentration that is healthy. Some are just natural waste of our regular body processes, but in a greater quantity than we can manage in our current health.

Basically nothing is a poison, it's a matter of quantity you absorb and can process. I just labeled it "toxin" because I don't have the vocabulary for it.

There is no magic thinking about it.

E.G: the blood PH must be at 7.40 PH. The body has mechanisms to ensure it stays that way. If the body is saturated with things bringing the PH down, it will try to get rid of it (through poop, urine and the like). I called them toxin, it was a bad choice. Fair enough. But the fact remains, if your blood PH goes down to 7.36, you are good for the hospital, and your body will try to avoid it. If it can't get rid of the responsible molecules, it will find a way to compensate. One way is to throw minerals at it since they are mostly basic. Another one is to dilute them by holding water. A last one is to wrap the molecule into fat, store it, so it can be processed later.

Again, no magic thinking. My wording may not be perfect, but I don't see anything unreasonable in what I'm saying.

However, I can't help but notice than 3 peoples opposed my explanation by blatantly rejecting it without arguments while I'm taking the time to respectfully demonstrate it. And give references to studies and books in another comment.

Please don't be aggressive. If you know I'm wrong, just make your point with arguments.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#112

Post by sametmax »

tzs wrote: post #85
CPLX wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This post is unscientific and literally nonsense. There's no such thing as a "toxin" and reducing your adipose fat tissue does not poison your body. It's precisely this sort of magical thinking that the OP is trying to counter.

You should probably rephrase. I think I get what you are trying to say, but the way you said it is way off. There most definitely are such things as "toxins". There are neurotoxins produced by black widows, most scorpions, box jellyfish, many algae and cyanobacteria, among others. There are necrotoxins produced by the brown recluse, rattlesnakes, puff adders for example. Heck, if there were no such thing as toxins, t…

Fair enough, my wording was inappropriate.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#113

Post by didibus »

problems wrote: post #31

Some of the conclusions seem a little quacky here to me - like "avoid ingredients you can't pronounce" and a lot of "avoid processed anything". While I'm sure there's some arguable benefits to these things, I think it's paranoid or stupid to dismiss something just for being "processed". What the heck does that mean anyway? All our food is processed in one form or another and nothing about something being more process…

To me, the most plausible reason for no processed food advice, is that it's all new. Processed food hasn't been consumed for that long, and they keep changing the techniques, so individually, each technique didn't exist for that long. That means that you don't know if it's good, bad or neutral to your health.

Given that you don't need to eat processed and can easily feed yourself on unprocessed foods, a lot of people prefer the if its not broken don't fix it approach.

Now, in theory, nothing prevents a processed food from ending up being healthier then non processed, it's just people tend to believe that's the less likely gamble.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#114

Post by tallanvor »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #51
umberway wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's complicated. If I gave an obese person a bag of sugar or a kilo of lard she probably wouldn't enjoy these things. On the other hand some folk can eat luxury foods regularly without ill effect. It depends on personality and intent as much as upon specific foodstuffs and substances. And are you sure about protein? Personally I experience a strong desire for meat if I haven't had any for a few days. The fulfillment…

If you go keto/atkins/etc for a while you get sick of meat. At least I have. It becomes tedious to eat and my portion sizes have dropped. I end up eating more vegetables than I ever did before, and take more pleasure from them.

There's certainly some combination of psychology and physiology at play here. There are many nutrients we need that we can't get without a suitably diverse diet, so we're hardwired to seek out variety. Even people who are starving or constantly on the edge will get tired of having a diet that doesn't include much variety.

My father loves to talk about how he can eat the same thing every day, but whenever I visit, he's very quick to suggest going out to eat. He obviously gets tired of eating the same thing over and over, but he doesn't want to deviate too much from his routine since it helps keep him from regaining weight.

I know I'm starting to crave a steak - it's been a few weeks, and normally I would have steak and potatoes on Sundays as a treat after an extra-long workout.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#115

Post by sametmax »

coldtea wrote: post #107
sametmax wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the bottom comment I provided links to resources dealing with food toxicity. Part of them deal with toxicity and weight. Would you provide the resources to counter examples ? It's only fair to have literature to compare the 2 point of views.

> In the bottom comment I provided links to resources dealing with food toxicity. You just provided general resources about food and nutrition (based on the links I'm familiar with -- others could be pseudo-science). Give some specific excerpts about "toxins" and we can discuss them. All food has side effects (e.g. too much sugar and diabetes, micro-allergies, cured meat and cancer, etc). This is not the same as some…

> You just provided general resources about food and nutrition

Well of course, why would I not ? They include the knowledge I'm using right now.

However I can't help but notice you provide blog posts with opinions, not studies or books.

Again I agree that using the word "toxin" was not a good choice. I'm not a native English speaker, I don't know any proper term for "things the body can't process, and that harms it".

> I eat less calories and I get fatter compared to eating more

Yes it has. A calorie is always in a context. It's extracted it and from this context. During this process, molecules that can harm the body can enter it, or be produced in it. Since using fat to wrap molecules is one of the ways the body cope with it, it has an impact on it.

I'm not saying eating only banana is healthy, but it has few chances of triggering the late mechanism.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#116

Post by proteinbased »

tracker1 wrote: post #67
proteinbased wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends on your interpretation of plants. Legumes do contain a fair share of protein.

But they don't contain a lot of the fats/acids that come from meat that are hard for the body to synthesize/metabolize. I'm not saying only eat meat/fish, but there's more than just protein.

I did not claim that legumes are some kind of wonder food with the ideal balance of fats, proteins, and carbohydrates. Of course you need to eat different kinds of vegetables/fruit/plants. As for fats, nuts are a good choice. But you can also buy all kinds of oils, if you are afraid that an all vegetable diet will leave you with too little of them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vegetable_oils

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#117

Post by bloat »

xaviers wrote: post #52
ENTP wrote: post #28

When I eat carbs, I put on weight. When I don't, I lose weight. However, other people I know are the opposite. Quite honestly, I think you can't generalise 'diets' or eating advice as, frankly, it would appear that different people's bodies work in slightly different ways. This could explain the vast array of different advice that, often times, seems contradictory.

I can generalise diets pretty easy. Eat less calories than you burn and loose weight. Eat whatever you want if you can abide by this rule you will loose the weight. But to be healthy. Well you have to eat healthy to be healthy. And that means getting all the fat, carbs and protein your body needs. And what your body needs I agree you can't generalise.

Why is this true? Calories measure energy, not mass.

If I eat high calorie food, why does that cause me to retain more of the mass of that food in my body, compared to the same quantity of low calorie food?

This is a genuine question which I've never found a good answer for.

It would make much more sense to me if you said "Eat fewer kg of food than you excrete, and loose weight".

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#118

Post by talktime »

umberway wrote: post #42
talktime wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get high on carbs or alcohol sure enough. Try getting high on protein or fat though. Telling carboholics they need to eat less food is like telling alcoholics they need to drink less liquid. It doesn't work - you've got to be more specific.

It's complicated. If I gave an obese person a bag of sugar or a kilo of lard she probably wouldn't enjoy these things. On the other hand some folk can eat luxury foods regularly without ill effect. It depends on personality and intent as much as upon specific foodstuffs and substances. And are you sure about protein? Personally I experience a strong desire for meat if I haven't had any for a few days. The fulfillment…

Yup, some folks can have the occasional drink or drink socially. Some folks need to swear off the stuff entirely. For carboholics, probably swearing off refined carbs would be enough.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#119

Post by coldtea »

sametmax wrote: post #115
coldtea wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the bottom comment I provided links to resources dealing with food toxicity. You just provided general resources about food and nutrition (based on the links I'm familiar with -- others could be pseudo-science). Give some specific excerpts about "toxins" and we can discuss them. All food has side effects (e.g. too much sugar and diabetes, micro-allergies, cured meat and cancer, etc). This is not the same as some…

> You just provided general resources about food and nutrition Well of course, why would I not ? They include the knowledge I'm using right now. However I can't help but notice you provide blog posts with opinions, not studies or books. Again I agree that using the word "toxin" was not a good choice. I'm not a native English speaker, I don't know any proper term for "things the body can't process, and that harms it".…

>Yes it has. A calorie is always in a context.

No, the context only applies to health. You will always lose weight if you eat less calories, period.

>During this process, molecules that can harm the body can enter it, or be produced in it. Since using fat to wrap molecules is one of the ways the body cope with it, it has an impact on it.

That's not what happens. There is no such procedure that uses fat to "cope with it". Some substances just get accumulated in fat, with no bearing as to wether you can lose that weight by eating less calories. That's a common pseudo-scientific misconception on the "detox" circles.

Re: Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007)

#120

Post by matt4077 »

reflexive wrote: post #39

Pollan's famous "maxim" manages to be condescending, unhelpful and inaccurate - all at the same time. Eat food: duh Not too much: again, thanks? Mostly plants: Oh you mean like, sugars and starches - the most toxic constituents of the modern diet. Pollan is the prototypical Bay-Area insufferable foodie. His documentary was a cringe-fest of pseudo-spiritual fawning. Rene Girard talks about how food has become a new st…

You're wilfully misrepresenting Pollan's argument. He gives specific definitions of "food", "not too much", and "plants" that directly address your objections. And the fact that these recommendations are somewhat generic is exactly his point: don't listen to the latest fad specifying the exact relation of n-3 to n-6 fatty acids, but concentrate on heuristics that have remained unchanged for 60 years+.
Post reply on HN