Hacker News Reader

Comment by alfor | Hacker News Reader

Look at https://nutritionfacts.org it's a doctor that does the digging through research paper and try to find a place to draw the line. Spoiler: The best diet is complete avoidance of process food and animals products. It also correlate highly with the blue zones findings.

edit: wow! I was expecting some pushback, but this is still a surprize. Please take a bit of time to look at the actual content before being to critic. Also it's made to be a bit entertaining and simple so it can reach a larger audience.

View on HN

My problem is that I don't know what exactly constitutes "processed food". Like, isn't cooking a steak on a pan constitute a "process" on a food? If processed foods don't consider my steak example, how much process on a food causes it to fall into the unhealthy category you are describing?

I'm not trying to be nit-picky, this seriously is confusing for me (probably no small-part due to marketing).

https://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Goodfood/Pages/what-are-processe...

I suspect everyone's definition varies.

What I think is generally meant by "processed food" is processed prior to your acquisition.

But you're obviously capable of doing any number of harmful processes on your own, it's just somewhat unlikely. Most people aren't incentivized to process their own foods for optimal shelf life and profitability over nutrition and health.

My personal rule of thumb: if it wasn't available for pre-agricultural human, it doesn't have to be part of your diet (doesn't mean you can't eat it at all, but you surely shouldn't make it the foundation of your diet).

Dead animal and the fire are definitely part of Homo, especially Homo Sapiens.

You can call that a Paleo diet if you will, I don't, as the term as been tainted by quackery (see also: Superfood).

That site looks like spam - long form copywriting in video format - driving visitors toward buying his books.

"does the digging through research paper and try to find a place to draw the line" < That's not science, that's literary interpretation plus tendentious guess work.

"animals products" - We have been omnivores since before the genus Homo evolved. Our physiology has evolved to extract nutrition from animal products efficiently. A herbivore diet isn't sufficient for our species. Even our closest relatives, Chimpanzees, eat meat.

> We have been omnivores since before the genus Homo evolved

So? Evolution doesn't optimize for the lifespan we're targeting currently.

Please take a look at a few of his video, you will see. If for exemple you look at the antioxidant effects in blueberries there is probably hundreds of published papers. If you want to explain the scientific consensus in a few minutes video so people can take action in their food choice you need make some simplifications. Also, you might need to discard the papers that got financed by the blueberries association if their finding are wildly differents than the general consensus.

And by all mean, you are still free to read all the papers if you have the time, but that is probably a one man job just for the blueberries.

It also completely ignores any science that goes against vegan orthodoxy. So, take it with a very large grain of salt (and a slice of bacon).

I would like veganism a lot more if so many of its representatives didn't act like it's a cult. The moralizing, in ingroup/outgroup dynamic etc.

Do you have exemples, I think he his genuinely concern by the health of people, but I would like to see some counter arguments.

Here’s a point-by-point takedown of many of Greger’s antiscientific claims: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-as-a-foodborne-illnes...

The fact is, Greger is not a scientist. Science requires honest investigation, and a willingness to update one’s beliefs. Greger is an activist — he has already decided what his beliefs are, and he is selectively choosing to emphasize studies that support his beliefs (while ignoring those that don’t).

I wouldn’t have a problem with this if his site was called veganopinions.org. You’re allowed to have beliefs based on morality, not science. But when you corrupt the science to advance your cause, you’ve lost me entirely.

Thanks, I will have a look. I find too that his conclusions seems skewed in that direction. My other reference for alimentation was the blue zone that also pointed mostly in the same direction, no process food, plenty of vegetable or vegan but also in some case a bit of meat and cheese.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com