Eating habits – parsing the moral language of modern diets | Hacker News Reader

Eating habits – parsing the moral language of modern diets

mag.uchicago.edu

48 pointsjoe515054 comments

Processed foods can be better, in some cases. For instance, frozen vegetables are picked ripe, and packaged very close to harvest, whereas "fresh" vegetables are picked green, and spend weeks in a truck traveling across the country, and you end up eating them long after they were picked. Frozen vegetables are better for you!

I was with you all the way until "Frozen vegetables are better for you!" On the plant ripening definitely feels right but then that itself is falling prey to the narrative appeal to naturalness isn't it? Seems like another empirical question (on vs off plant ripening) I'm pretty sure we can really answer any better than the salt, fat, msg, gluten, etc questions.

of course its unfathomable to eat food that doesnt need to spend weeks travelling. If locally grown and bought at a farmers market (or from CSA) then one could have food that was picked a few days before consumption.

I'll just drive an hour to the nearest farmer's market, hoping they're actually open according to their loose-at-best schedule, also hoping there's something on offer that I can/want to eat. To desire anything more convenient or reliable is unfathomable!

I'm not sure if you can count frozen food as "processed food"? If I wash and cook a tomato, I would still count that as an unprocessed food, wouldn't I? So frozen food is still unprocessed in my opinion. Either that or no one except for raw foodists who don't wash their food eats unprocessed food.

And of course: freshly harvested vegetables beat frozen ones.

> In his philosophy classes, arguments rested on logic and evidence; in his religion classes, “you could use a story to make an argument.”

An interesting excerpt that says a lot about the mindset that goes into his argument.

The core observation, I suppose, is that this is what's really pushing popular beliefs about diet, far more than logical argument. It makes sense to me, especially considering the character of opposition to gluten and GMOs.

Well, not all arguments against GMOs are stories. I'm thinking specifically of Taleb's argument: http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/pp2.pdf

Nice recent post on the "mathiness" of Taleb's paper: http://www.inexactchange.org/blog/2015/07/24/the-mathiness-o...

Best resource on GMOs remains this Grist series: http://grist.org/series/panic-free-gmos/

Taleb makes the classic mistake of an intellectual. Misapplying his field of expertise into another.

Sometimes it seems that sort of misapplication is his field of expertise.

I say this having read and enjoyed three of his books. b^)

I think he's not totally wrong. We're just starting to understand gene transfer among bacteria, which is very real.

GMOs might open the door to some very unlikely but potentially devastating events.

Philosophers call stories "thought experiments" but they're the same thing.

The whole food scene is a little dodgy in this regard in my view. Everyone claims to have found the one true god - when I really doubt there is one.

In light of this uncertainty I subscribe to two basic "beliefs":

1) Don't eat dodgy processed stuff (think paleo mindset)

2) Restrict calories

I'm no nutritionist, but I'd venture a guess and say that I'll go far with my 2 point approach.

Do you have any evidence to support that 'processed' food is worse than the alternative?

Typically you're looking at more sugar and salt in anything processed.

Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good. The enjoyment you derive from eating contributes to your physical health.

>>Also processed stuff usually doesn't taste as good.

This isn't true. The entire reason there's more salt and sugar in processed foods is to make them taste good. Compare a Snickers bar with broccoli.

Well-prepared broccoli certainly tastes better than a Snickers bar.

Taste is subjective, can't really make general statements.

By all means, if you think processed food tastes better, then that's what you should be eating, at least as far as good taste -> enjoyment -> good mental health -> good physical health is concerned. But, it's worth your time to do proper comparisons and not write off unfamiliar things.

Indeed.

...to you.

Objectively, no. Humans have evolved to enjoy salty and sweet things, due to evolutionary reasons. You may prefer well-prepared broccoli over a Snickers bar, but I can guarantee that that's an acquired taste. 6-month old jesseaustin most likely swung the other way. :)

6-mo me consumed milk, exclusively. b^)

Do you have evidence to support that more sugar and salt is detrimental?

Not sure if you're just trolling. Regarding sugar, processed foods usually are high in high-fructose corn syrup - yes, there evidence that is bad. On youtube, search "sugar bitter truth" for a lecture from U of California.

Regarding salt, "the experts" don't seem so confident on what levels. In the past few years, the daily recommended intake of sodium has increased.

I do not 'troll'. It's an open ended question, not a forgone conclusion.

Do you have evidence to support that you do not 'troll'?

Sugar, fat and salt taste good. That means that humans and animals evolved to seek them out. If they were unequivocally bad for us, we would have evolved to find them disgusting.

We evolved those tastes at a time when 1) those things were much harder to get and b) energy needs were higher due to more physical lifestyles.

If you are burning 5000 calories a day hunting or farming, eat all the sugar and fat you want (and can get by your own efforts). But if you are burning 2000 calories a day sitting at a desk... You can't debate food in a vacuum without considering lifestyle.

So it's okay to drink sea water?

You could probably cook pasta with it.

does it taste good?

Well, trolling is I think largely based on intent.

If one does not believe that they were trolling (i.e. they do not believe that they were doing what trolling is. This is a belief about what they were doing, not a belief about what the word "trolling" means), then that seems like fairly good evidence that they were not trolling.

I don't know what would be a better (and available) measure of one's intent than one's own perception of one's own intent. (Of course, one could imagine that there might be a better source, but in practice I think it is the best evidence we have).

This would only be as convincing to oneself I suppose, but I think that one's memory of one's intent is generally fairly good evidence to present to oneself to show that one was not trolling.

I found the lectures by Robert Lustig to be very convincing. I spent a couple of hours listening and trying as best I could be verify the biological pathways referenced, it all checked out.

This question doesn't make any sense unless there's a baseline from which 'more' is measured. In my very anecdotal and useless experience of most Americans I know, more sugar would be very bad, and more salt is mostly harmless. But there's obviously levels of both which are too low and too high.

>Do you have any evidence to support that 'processed' food is worse than the alternative?

I don't. Thats why I labelled it "beliefs". If I've got a choice between 1) Carrot 2) Carrot flavoured goo then I'm not going to look for a peer reviewed journal supporting the view that the carrot is better.

I've simply drawn a line in the sand and decided that give uncertainty I'll place my faith in the carrot rather than whatever a profit seeking enterprise engineered for me. We all make decisions in the face of uncertainty & this is one of those judgement calls.

I genuinely believe science can do better than nature can (i.e. engineered functional foods)...but right now looking at the supermarket...its not there for me to buy so I will continue buying nature.

The paleo diet borrows many concepts from Weston Price, who did some serious research in contrast with the mostly faddish nature of the former.

He had many more good insights. I think a major point is some fat soluble nutrients are essential. That's why eating bone broth or organ meat is so important.

I think an optimal diet is probably mostly plant based, with high quality animal fats and no oils for cooking.

The truth is that most diets "work" in the sense that, any amount of actually thinking about what you eat is better than just shoveling in whatever was last on TV or a billboard!

I agree. When I "diet", it's more about snapping out of mindless consumption and thinking about what kinds of food and how many calories I consume. As soon as I'm in that mindset, I immediately start noticing calories, sugar levels, and quantity.

Isn't that the actual meaning of diet? It does not mean healthy. I can do a chocolate diet. It only means to plan what you eat.

"Restrict calories" is a great terminal goal, but terrible advice. Trying to be hungry and not eat is a quick way to exhaust all your willpower.

What's generally much more effective is applying rules to your eating habits that result in calorie restriction. Intermittent Fasting or Keto works best, from what I've seen. The former because it requires no willpower for what you eat, or how much - only when. Keto works well because it requires zero willpower for how much you eat or when, only what. Either approach goes to the same place as "just eat less" with much less mental effort.

telling someone who is obese to just stop eating is like telling an alcoholic to just stop drinking. accurate, but useless.

Keto isn't suitable for everyone's lifestyle. You don't have to be hungry to restrict calories, just eat foods that are more satiating per calorie. The satiety index is a decent guide. And avoid large carby meals because in my experience the insulin crash causes huge food cravings.

I've done a bit of intermittent fasting - found it to be fairly easy.

>"Restrict calories" is a great terminal goal, but terrible advice.

Well I'm not talking counting the calories. In my case its more a general principle. e.g. I'll try to avoid a carb heavy meal.

I have the same two beliefs and another one: 3) Everything in moderation.

All the things that we belief to "know" today could once again be proven wrong tomorrow. Just because someone claims that butter, coconut oil, bacon or almond meal is healthy, that doesn't mean you have to go crazy with it and eat large amounts of it daily. Or the other way around: just because some people think that dairy or grains are harmful, for a lot of people it may not be an issue at all to eat them every once in a while (at least if someone is able to e.g. eat only one slice of sourdough bread and then not go carb crazy; I'm not).

I just think given the fact how often we've been wrong in the past, it is smarter to decrease risks by not overusing any kind of food group.

The key problem is that, for the first time in history, we've basically solved the food problem. To the point where obesity is epidemic worldwide. But our genes don't know this, so they pack on the lard in preparation for lean times that never come. So the trouble is that to not get unhealthily fat, we have to eat in a completely unnatural way. And it's really hard.

It is all rooted in suffering. People fear (for their lives if they eat the wrong thing). Some create stories/myths and people believe in them because it gives them a sense of security.

Now if someone else says that what they believe (which helps them to cope with their fear) is totally wrong, the "religious" battle begins.

If you look at most religions you will discover the same pattern: fear from gods, daemons, enemies etc.

Then a religion is formed to alleviate the pain. It is stupid but hey that's what people do.

You would better confront the fears and not create more suffering with some silly stories.

edit: probably I shouldn't say silly, it's sad that we need to create all theses stories which in the end create much more suffering for everyone (just think about all the quarrels/fights/wars people have being pro or contra some myth/religion/ideology)

> And despite the fact that, as one endocrinologist and diabetes expert told Levinovitz, the only definitively established metabolic difference between fruit and candy is that “it’s a lot easier to eat tons of candy than it is to eat tons of apples.”

That endocrinologist must not think there is any value in fiber, phytonutrients, antioxidants et al. Yes, lets all just eat 300g sugar, 100g oil and 100g whey protein powder every day. Clearly a recipe for poor health.

Reductionist thinking glosses over the details that are important for health.

You're setting up a strawman against a non-essential point in the article. This article was not about the difference between apples and candy.

Most dieticians and nutritionists warn against smoothies and fruit juices. Have a small amount if you like them, but don't think of them as healthy. There's a lot of sugar in fruit juice.

This is especially true for children with milk teeth - the sugars in undiluted fruit juice cause tooth decay.

I think its more about how we eat than what we eat (within resonable limits). Having to constantly process foods and drinks in various forms cant be good, eating lunch and dinner and maybe a snack inbetween that and then let the body rest.

Green vegetables are the key to good health. It's really that simple. Modern humans consume excessive calories and shockingly remain deprived of vital nutrients!

After years of being overweight and having gut issues, I'm now lean and healthy thanks to a plant-based diet. My plan: https://github.com/DeBraid/medicine/blob/master/plant-based-...

I solved my heath problems without eating green vegetables. I do eat plant-based, but mostly beans, whole grains, potatoes and fruits.

I don't remember seeing any studies linking green vegetables with longer lifespan, but there are many linking longevity with high plant/high carb diets.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com