Hacker News Reader

Most Vegans are not Vegans for the health benefits. They have other reasons.

Likewise, I think most people going after "impossible burgers" aren't doing it because they think it's healthier. (I won't deny that some think that, though.) Some were just trying it out, some were thinking they're saving animals, and yes, a few thought it was healthier in some way. (And in some ways, they probably are, but not in others.)

That said, I don't think "impossible burgers" are "food-like". They are food. Food-like, to me, would be things like gummy bears and Jello. Not only are they oddly manufactured, but they aren't part of a balanced diet. They are pure luxury. Other snacks like potato chips and Cheetos are in this category, too.

If I weren't dieting because I'm overweight (and just a smidgen away from "medically obese", which is less than it sounds but still medically relevant) I'd eat that kind of food all the time. (Thus how I got into this weight situation.)

Interesting - hadn't considered that idea. I associate vegan diets with the desire for a more optimal diet (thus healthier). The point was not really one criticizing vegans. I think it is very possible today to be plant based and have a rich and health diet. What I was pointing out is that I've noticed a slippery debate tactic where a proponent of one diet will put forth nutrient rich food on their side and "Big Mac" quality food on the opponent's side.

That quote sounds silly to me. What is real food? How much can you handle and manipulate a food until its not real anymore? Can you grind it up and make homemade burgers? Can you add a little bread crumbs to help it bind? Is bread a real food?

Real food is food that has a high nutritional value and is not a processed food.

So do white bread and white rice count? They're both processed and are mostly just carbs. White rice for example has to have Thiamin added, otherwise you would get Beriberi.

If you are prioritizing intake, greens and seeds would probably rank above brown rice and bread, which would rank above white rice and bread. Instead of a "I can or can't eat this" the guidelines help you choose between options in front of you, or steer your cooking towards certain dishes.

The question that follows naturally is how do you define "processed food"? Different people have different definitions for this, so it's a rather vague term.

To some people, it means anything you can't make in your own kitchen. However sausages are commonly cited as an example of processed food, and those are relatively simple to make at home, using the exact same ingredients as the commercially-produced sausages you buy in a store.

Others consider it to mean anything made commercially, in a factory and not by hand, others would only include pre-packaged ready-to-heat box meals, others again have yet another definition, and may talk about "minimally processed foods" and "ultra-processed foods".

Without context, we may not even be talking about the same thing.

Unfortunately coming up with a concise definition of exactly what constitutes "processed food" is exceedingly hard, because all food preparation includes some amount of processing.

Slow carbs instead fast carbs. Consume way less sugar. Eat way more veggies.

Honestly if you can afford it, just start shopping at farmers markets and buy local seasonal veggies.

> Without context, we may not even be talking about the same thing.

I hear you. But maybe this is also because of the brainwashing of the American mind by advertising and corporate-funded biased studies. I've found that in the US it is hard not to buy 'processed food', because nearly everything is processed. I also believe processed foods are why average American life expectancy is so low.

> "Slow carbs instead fast carbs. Consume way less sugar. Eat way more veggies."

Decent baseline advice, but it doesn't really have anything to do with "processed" vs "unprocessed" foods.

It seems to me that a lot of people equate "processed" with "contains one or more things/processes which I consider unhealthy/undesirable", which makes it a subjective and biased term.

What is your exact definition of "processed food"? If you're a raw fruitarian, you would consider anything not plucked directly from a tree to be processed. If you follow a paleo diet, you wouldn't consider butchered and dry-aged meat to be fine, but also consider bread to be processed.

Perhaps you would find more people who would agree that ready-to-heat frozen meals are processed, based on their nutritional profile and heavy sugar/salt content, but they aren't really too different from something you could cook at home in your own kitchen. The best definition I've seen is "food that is already cooked ready to eat or requires minimal preparation", but that also covers a lot of things that would be considered healthy or at least not unhealthy, such as a pre-packaged salad.

There is a lot of dietary misinformation out there, and the marketing rush to "all natural" and "avoid all processed" foods stems is also part of it.

What's your definition of "processed"?

“Alkalinity

Thanks largely to the work of Dr. Robert O. Young, the public are becoming more widely aware of the benefits of a high alkaline diet. Most junk foods and heavily processed foods are acidic, causing a stress on the body which increases weight gain and decreases immunity. Ideally, the diet should be made up of at least 70% alkaline foods. A raw food diet high in vegetables easily satisfies this requirement. When our systems are alkalized, we feel calmer, can think more clearly, feel more on top of things, and have a stronger immune system.”

- Kate Magic, Raw Magic (you can find this book on libgen)

Is this the same "alkaline diet" that considers all citrus fruits to be alkaline?

That should be all you need to know about how silly that whole thing is.

Human blood has a normal pH range of 7.35 to 7.45, very tightly regulated by the body. The pH value of food does nothing to change this, especially since it has to go in the stomach, which as you hopefully know is full of strong acid.

This Dr Robert O Young? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-38650739

> The father of the alkaline diet, Robert O Young, is hailed as an inspiration by one of the UK's most popular food writers, Natasha Corrett, but he faces a jail sentence for practising medicine without a licence. One patient who believed he could cure her cancer, British army officer Naima Houder-Mohammed, paid thousands of dollars for his alkaline treatment, which consisted mainly of intravenous infusions of baking soda.

Ha! Nice find!

I think the original quote is simpler: "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." The essay from the NYT is a good read: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/28/magazine/28nutritionism.t...

Now, Pollan broadly speaking does get a bit more into what constitutes "food". But I'd argue in general: this is mostly a heuristic. It's not a clear set of rules, because such a thing is likely impossible. And advice of this sort is inherently kinda hand-wavy and (in Pollan's words) "flagrantly unscientific".

That doesn't mean it's useless as a guide – everyone will have a bit of a different view on that. Bread, as something which has been consumed for tens of thousands of years, is recognisable as food. It's got perhaps three ingredients and is minimally processed. Cheese might be similar. Maybe it could be as simple as "something you can reasonably make in your own kitchen", or maybe it needs to be a bit more complex.

The point is – it's too easy to get caught up in litigating the precise meaning of a vague phrase. The intent is clear, and the focus should be more on general diet rather than the needless semantics of "does bread stop being food when I make it into crumbs".

That's fair. Feels like a "you know it when you see it" kind of thing. I feel guarded against the inevitable health zealots who need a much simpler model to proselytize against, and therefore bin everything into good or bad. I can get on board with "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." I also really like, "try to have a variety of colours on your plate" (not sure where I heard this one from).

Yes - you stated this better than I did. For me the idea of bread made with "Enriched bleached flour" is a good example of 'deceptive' food where you strip nutrients in one process and re-inject nutrients of questionable value. So bread is a great example of a food which can go from empty calorie food to dense nutrient.

I think the issue is that this is a good heuristic, but a shitty rule.

You'll do well if you follow it, but you can find another set of rules (or heuristics) that you can follow, and you'll do well too despite completely violating that one.

30 year vegetarian here, not vegan, but I definitely look askance at all the massively processed fake meats. I'll happily eat seitan, but I make my own out of maybe 6 ingredients.

I don't know too many vegetarians who eat them with any regularity...to me, they're more to transition meat-eaters to vegetarianism than anything else. Or maybe something for me to bring to a BBQ so I can not stand out like a sore thumb AGAIN.

Roast mushrooms, elephant garlic, peppers and eggplant planks are essential at any BBQ! And I say that as a meat eater... Years ago in NYC Chinatown I went to a restaurant called "Vegetarian Paradise" with all sorts of fake meat dishes. It was fun at the time but not particularly good. One notable exception which I have had in other restaurants is mock duck breast with mushrooms layered in sheets of seitan. I've had nice versions of that but yes I'd agree on your assessment.

"A breakfast of a super-processed, vegan, organic waffle, soy egg replacement and faux bacon is not much better for you than the pancake house originals"

Waffle, egg and bacon vs. plant and vegan based alternatives.

Sure about that? Do you have a citation?