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

We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 90 posts

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#81

Post by mikea1 »

bingohbangoh wrote: post #42
rtpg wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the magical problem with processed foods? It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth. I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté

One wonders where the line is drawn with processed foods as well. Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.

> Take sausages

Not a great example to make your point because processed meats (specifically, cured meats) are carcinogenic. [0]

> Are these now bad?

Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now.

If you don’t change your assumptions and biases with new data, you will be stuck in the past. Blood letting would have passed the lindy test throughout the 18th century.

[0] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/11/03/repo...

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#82

Post by saurik »

rtpg wrote: post #39
wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

What is the magical problem with processed foods? It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth. I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté

FWIW, I am pretty sure "[your] grandma's pâté" is also a "processed food".

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#83

Post by ac29 »

mikea1 wrote: post #81
bingohbangoh wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One wonders where the line is drawn with processed foods as well. Take sausages. These have been around for ages but are, technically, processed. Are these now bad? They seem to pass the lindy test.

> Take sausages Not a great example to make your point because processed meats (specifically, cured meats) are carcinogenic. [0] > Are these now bad? Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now. If you don’t change your assumptions and biases with new data, you will be stuck in the past. Blood letting would have passed the lindy test throughout the 18th century. [0] https://www…

> Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now.

Your linked source claims processed meats can cause a 18% increased incidence of colorectal cancer. The CDC [0] says rates of those cancers are 36.5 per 100,000, or 0.03%. Since some of those people undoubtedly eat processed meat, lets assume the cancer rate is 0.025% for people who don't eat processed meats.

For me, those numbers really dont move the needle - its highly unlikely to get colorectal cancer and abstaining from processed meats doesnt really change the rate much at all. There are probably other good arguments in favor of not eating these foods, but cancer doesnt appear to be one of them.

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/colorectal/statistics/index.htm

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#84

Post by Zababa »

ac29 wrote: post #83
mikea1 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Take sausages Not a great example to make your point because processed meats (specifically, cured meats) are carcinogenic. [0] > Are these now bad? Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now. If you don’t change your assumptions and biases with new data, you will be stuck in the past. Blood letting would have passed the lindy test throughout the 18th century. [0] https://www…

> Colorectal cancer has always been bad. The difference is that we have more data now. Your linked source claims processed meats can cause a 18% increased incidence of colorectal cancer. The CDC [0] says rates of those cancers are 36.5 per 100,000, or 0.03%. Since some of those people undoubtedly eat processed meat, lets assume the cancer rate is 0.025% for people who don't eat processed meats. For me, those numbers…

If you like eating processed meat, your energy is probably better spent having good prevention around colorectal cancer than eating less processed meat.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#85

Post by antisthenes »

Rompect wrote: post #59
Ambolia wrote: post #29

I wouldn't trust mainstream nutrition advice coming out from any country with a >20% obesity rate. So maybe from Japan, China, Thailand, Indonesia or Buthan. But not from the UK.

Sadly, I wouldn't trust any mainstream nutrition advice at all. When you see the McDonalds and Coca Cola logos behind footballers, and find out that the food pyramid was made by the Department of Agriculture and unsurprisingly advocates for crops, you become really suspicious.

Trying to paint USDA here as some sort of conspiracy to push processed grains on the population is really doing it a huge disservice and sounds like bad faith argument.

USDA is responsible for pretty much all food and farming oversight, including animal products and fresh vegetables. Just because one of their initiatives produced a misguided food pyramid poster isn't reason to denigrate the entire institution.

I'm sure you enjoy mad cow disease-free beef and salmonella free vegetables and chicken eggs when you go to the supermarket. You can thank USDA for that.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#86

Post by slightwinder »

rtpg wrote: post #39
wombatmobile wrote: post #26

TFA curiously asks questions about what the body really needs, in order to investigate a processed food category from an industry that spends billions on advertising and technology designed to make people eat more than they need for only one reason - to generate profits for manufacturers. What the body really needs is not processed foods, which are loaded with salt, sugar, and fat [0, 1]. Processed foods are what the…

What is the magical problem with processed foods? It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth. I kinda believe it but it’s real “chemicals!!” sort of generality. I can imagine a granola bar being less bad than like… my grandma’s paté

> It’s not like the body can tell if something was smooshed by a machine or by my mouth.

One obvious difference is time and fineness. The machine will grind it significant smaller than your teethes. And processed meat from machines has far longer time to sit and change.

Some other reasons are that processed food is usually not just the meat itself. but a mass that is mixed and enriched with several other elements. And in the money-driven food-industry they are usually not the most healthy things.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#87

Post by tudorw »

tudorw wrote: post #52
open-source-ux wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar remains a villain, but the issue of fat is more complex. Not all fats are equal. For example, high-fat foods like nuts, butter, avocados, cold-pressed olive oil etc do not occupy the same space as highly processed fats (e.g. trans fat/hydrogenated fat). Salt remains divisive among health researchers after many years of public campaigns warning the public to limit salt intake. But is it less harfmul than previou…

https://youtu.be/nOub_6Ph5S0

[Intro] How not to die By the weapon Formerly known as food

[Verse 1] Sugar, sugar, who you talkin' to? Dirty water who be lovin' you? Stroke, no joke, musta hit that salt Don't look at me, 'cause it ain't my fault I know you want it, say you need it And you eat it, 'cause you want it Sugar, sugar, you don't love me Sugar, sugar, you don't need me Now, it be eating me (Eat, eat it up) Got us fightin' diabetes Stress level, sleepless, emotional, mental Drugs in the food I love screwin' up my physical I'll never fall in love again With this hate on my plate and Food and drug administration Is my my hallucination?

[Verse 2] Sugar, sugar, I know you move me I know you wanna drink me You in everything, not just candy Worse than a pow pow, shoot 'em up, kill 'em up movie A riot goin' on in that corner About a word on a bird in that corner Toxic, yeah, they just box it Hard to tell the paranoid "Avoid it like a opioid" How sweet it is They just line up these kids How happy is a meal when dancin' with cancer? With that God bless America FDA romancing A new old kinda ganster get down Pesticide chemical get around Fast food industrial sit down EPA's a gang, throw it up now

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#88

Post by yawaworht1978 »

Retric wrote: post #78
yawaworht1978 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not really. This all depends on other factors as well. For example, how much glucose is stored at the moment of the food intake. If you are full of glucose, any fat will go straight to the fat deposits. Carbs, if the stores are full, will be converted to body fat in a calorie surplus, up to 25percent, depending on genetics. If glucogen stores are empty, fat won't get stored easily. And carbs will not be convert…

The perceptual differences between different energy sources are one thing, but in the end energy is energy. Take a perfectly healthy and balanced diet without weight gain or weight loss, then add just 100 calories per day of extra protein and you will gain weight.

But the body does not work like that. Metabolism is an ongoing mechanism with very fast adaptions and it cares a great deal about macros. Sugars will cause blood sugar spikes and release many hormones to trigger hunger soon again. In the strictest sense, a calorie is a calorie, but you can't expect that someone who eats a protein scoop a day and the remainder comes from oil and beer will have the same results and body composition as someone who eats mostly protein, some rice and a bit of fats and no junk food at all, then that's wrong.

There is a reason why olímpica athletes have special diets.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#89

Post by Retric »

yawaworht1978 wrote: post #88
Retric wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The perceptual differences between different energy sources are one thing, but in the end energy is energy. Take a perfectly healthy and balanced diet without weight gain or weight loss, then add just 100 calories per day of extra protein and you will gain weight.

But the body does not work like that. Metabolism is an ongoing mechanism with very fast adaptions and it cares a great deal about macros. Sugars will cause blood sugar spikes and release many hormones to trigger hunger soon again. In the strictest sense, a calorie is a calorie, but you can't expect that someone who eats a protein scoop a day and the remainder comes from oil and beer will have the same results and bod…

> a calorie is a calorie

See that voice in the back of your head is a little cognitive dissonance. People’s behavior changes based on their diet, but outside of starvation metabolism doesn’t speed up with extra calories they just result in weight gain.

Look all kinds of stuff happens when you go to extremes. But, the human diet has a lot of flexibility which is why we don’t have the one true diet despite a lot of research. At the middle of the healthy range +/- a few percent doesn’t do anything. That’s why so much nutrition research is inconclusive we can’t optimize for an ideal peak of perfect nutrition because close enough gives identical results.

Which is what I am talking about. Take a perfectly reasonable heathy diet that wouldn’t result in long term weight gain or loss and then toss in 100 calories of protein and you get weight gain the same way adding 100 of any other macronutrients or even an even split of all three. That’s true because a perfectly reasonable diet is far from the limits on how much protein you can digest per day.

Re: We don’t need nearly as much protein as we consume

#90

Post by ubercow13 »

bobobob420 wrote: post #61
dragontamer wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Canned or frozen can contain more nutrients because of the preservation process though. Fresh foods lose nutrients as they are shipped around. The vitamins may have leached into the water, but toss that water into a soup and you're good. I don't think freshness matters much at all. Flour certainly doesn't need to be fresh to make good bread.

Fresh pasta vs store bought? Worlds of difference. When I lived in Europe the quality of produce and dairy blew me away compared to what we were eating in America. Tons of flavor in fresh natural produce.

If by store bought you mean dry, dry pasta is not ‘worse’ than fresh pasta, it is just suited to different dishes
Post reply on HN