Live data from Hacker News

Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

georgehart.com

111–118 of 118 posts

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#111
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Xanthan gum was discovered by Allene Rosalind Jeanes and her research team at the United States Department of Agriculture, and brought into commercial production by CP Kelco under the trade name Kelzan in the early 1960s. I don't really care what it is exactly; a food additive that didn't exist until a research team found it 60 years ago, I can do without.

> I don't really care what it is exactly; You've made that perfectly clear, but your personal standards for food safety are entirely arbitrary and not reflective of reality. If you tried applying those same standards to medicine, for example, you'd find that simple injuries all of a sudden become deadly and for no legitimate reason. Also, gums (particularly locust bean gums) have been used in food for hundreds of yea…

With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. So far, my health is superb and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight; I'm actually extremely fit and active.

The point is not that I'm right because it works for me; the point is that if you follow recommended diets from various governments, you'll end up on average worse than my entirely arbitrary made up diet I do to feel rustic. Government can be wrong about HFCS and seed oils being safe, and so instead of trusting them, I will just eat what is proven to be safe and wholesome across human history: meat, fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, fry in tallow, drink bone broth. Your appeal to science is precisely what I'm avoiding.

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#113
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't really care what it is exactly; You've made that perfectly clear, but your personal standards for food safety are entirely arbitrary and not reflective of reality. If you tried applying those same standards to medicine, for example, you'd find that simple injuries all of a sudden become deadly and for no legitimate reason. Also, gums (particularly locust bean gums) have been used in food for hundreds of yea…

With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. So far, my health is superb and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight; I'm actually extremely fit and active. The point is not that I'm right because it works for me; the point is that if you follow recommended diets from various governments, you'll…

> With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago.

You were just told that gums are a simple and naturally occurring ingredient and have been used for thousands of years, and your rebuttal was to refuse them because you don't eat compound ingredients recently invented in a lab. I think that says everything about the mental gymnastics you're doing to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out.

If you eat nuts, or the skins of many fruits, or any root vegetables, then you are consuming gums (aka polysaccharides (aka sugar)). You just don't call it that, because it's one ingredient among many in a larger product -- like say, a potato.

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#114
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. So far, my health is superb and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight; I'm actually extremely fit and active. The point is not that I'm right because it works for me; the point is that if you follow recommended diets from various governments, you'll…

> With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. You were just told that gums are a simple and naturally occurring ingredient and have been used for thousands of years, and your rebuttal was to refuse them because you don't eat compound ingredients recently invented in a lab. I think that says everything about the…

I do not care if my arbitrary diet happens to exclude some perfectly safe and fine ingredients. I literally could not care less about that; I am limiting myself to some relatively known subset of foods. Xantham gum has not been used for any long length of time. If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it.

You seem to think that I'm arguing that I have the optimal diet, or that if you can prove something I don't eat is safe, then I'm wrong. Obviously, trivially, there is something invented in the past 2000 years that is safe and fine to eat. I just choose not to eat that. I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. When you call my diet irrational or unscientific, you fail to understand that I explicitly distrust and ignore nutrition science. Yes, it's naturalistic and unscientific; that is intentional.

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#115
post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> With the current state of nutrition "science", all food standards are arbitrary. I don't eat any compound ingredients that didn't exist 2000 years ago. You were just told that gums are a simple and naturally occurring ingredient and have been used for thousands of years, and your rebuttal was to refuse them because you don't eat compound ingredients recently invented in a lab. I think that says everything about the…

I do not care if my arbitrary diet happens to exclude some perfectly safe and fine ingredients. I literally could not care less about that; I am limiting myself to some relatively known subset of foods. Xantham gum has not been used for any long length of time. If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. You seem to think that I'm arguing that I have the opt…

> I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is.

Except that all you've done is repeatedly try to convince everyone that gums are "nasty" and "invented" and "unsafe" within the personal anecdote of "I don't eat gums and look at me, I'm the definition of perfect health, and that means you shouldn't trust any science!"

Despite your insistence that you've "literally" made no claims at all, here is a shortened list of the false and disinformative claims you managed to make within the span of five brief comments:

1. Seeds and gums are "unsafe" because "reasons."

2. Gums were "invented in a lab."

3. Gums are "unnaturally and chemically produced."

4. You can "taste the gum" in "cheap" cream cheese products.

5. Cream cheese contains "other unsafe and lab-invented ingredients."

6. Food science is "arbitrary" and "isn't even science."

7. A naturally occurring process "doesn't exist until it's observed," at which point it becomes an "invented manmade process."

8. Anecdotes can "prove" safety, but scientific research can't.

9. You are "one of the few remaining people" in the world to not be overweight.

That's a whole bunch of completely untrue claims for "literally only stating what my diet is," and the last claim is easily one of the most arrogant and ignorant statements I've ever heard, given that only 39% of the global population is considered "overweight or obese." It's very telling that you consider yourself to be so uniquely special despite being in the same classification as 4.75 billion other humans, which explains why you're so overly (and mistakenly) confident about your anti-science views.

> If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it.

It has been explained to you multiple times now that locust bean gum -- the gum used in nearly every cream cheese brand -- is a milled seed that has existed and been used for thousands of years. It is completely natural in every conceivable way, it meets all of your arbitrary pre-science and pre-modern requirements, and is chemically the same as a "traditional fruit skin gum." So if you're willing to eat fruit skins, you shouldn't have an aversion to locust bean gum. Yet, you're still here trying to convince people that it's "unsafe" and "invented recently," and that your anti-science philosophy is something to be applauded.

Quite the contrary. Your intentional dedication to irrationality and disinformation is quite disturbing, and that you think irrationality is a characteristic that makes you better than other people is even more troubling. Nobody is trying to convince you to eat bean gums, but you're decidedly trying to convince everyone not to.

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#116
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not care if my arbitrary diet happens to exclude some perfectly safe and fine ingredients. I literally could not care less about that; I am limiting myself to some relatively known subset of foods. Xantham gum has not been used for any long length of time. If someone would like to replace it with a traditional fruit skin gum or whatever, then I would eat it. You seem to think that I'm arguing that I have the opt…

> I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. Except that all you've done is repeatedly try to convince everyone that gums are "nasty" and "invented" and "unsafe" within the personal anecdote of "I don't eat gums and look at me, I'm the definition of perfect health, and that means you shouldn't trust any science!" Despite your insistence that you've "literally" made…

That's a lot of quote marks around things that don't appear in my posts. The only thing worth addressing is that you keep referring to locust bean gum instead of the xanthan gum I have been referring to the whole time. Xanthan gum is not a generic name for gum. It's a specific type of gum created with a specific bacteria that was found to create a gum in the 60s. It was searched for explicitly as an alternative to plant gums. It is not locust bean gum, it is not plant based, it was not used before 1960, and it is not chemically identical to anything that is those things. Maybe I need to be more explicit with you: if locust bean gum was used for thousands of years, sure, I'll eat it. I'm talking about xanthan gum and have said xanthan gum every time I've said anything about any gum.

Now please feel free to go back and find all the other points you've created from a phantom to be mad at. I'd say at least 5 of those bullets are not based on any coherent reading of my posts.

Re: Mathematically correct breakfast: How to slice a bagel into two linked halves (2009)

#117
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is. Except that all you've done is repeatedly try to convince everyone that gums are "nasty" and "invented" and "unsafe" within the personal anecdote of "I don't eat gums and look at me, I'm the definition of perfect health, and that means you shouldn't trust any science!" Despite your insistence that you've "literally" made…

That's a lot of quote marks around things that don't appear in my posts. The only thing worth addressing is that you keep referring to locust bean gum instead of the xanthan gum I have been referring to the whole time. Xanthan gum is not a generic name for gum. It's a specific type of gum created with a specific bacteria that was found to create a gum in the 60s. It was searched for explicitly as an alternative to pl…

> That's a lot of quote marks around things that don't appear in my posts. The only thing worth addressing is that you keep referring to locust bean gum instead of the xanthan gum I have been referring to the whole time.

Below are all of the direct references from the list, where you make baseless claims in an attempt to convince everyone that cream cheese and seed oils and bean gums are unsafe. You zeroed in on trying to use xanthan gum in an attempt to repeatedly advertise your entirely (and self-admittedly) irrational belief that anything discovered less than 2,000 years ago (no matter how naturally occurring) is unsafe, while everyone else was talking about the actual product in question -- cream cheese, for which locust bean gum is almost universally used.

> Yep, it's a chemical product for sure, full of xantham gum and other such "ingredients" [...] you can actually taste the gum [...] Lots of nasty things [...] like seed oils [...] the ingredient was invented in a lab less than 100 years ago [...] a food additive that didn't exist until a research team found it 60 years ago [...] current state of nutrition "science" [...] and I'm one of the few remaining people to not be overweight [...] I will just eat what is proven to be safe and wholesome across human history [...] I have literally not made an arguable claim in this thread other than stating what my diet is

Please explain to me how you didn't say any of those things -- I copied them directly from your comments -- or how they magically mean something other than what you're plainly saying.

Post reply on HN