Hacker News Reader

Comment by ipaddr | Hacker News Reader

I'm generally surprised no one brings up the negative health benefits of processed foods. It is not healthier to get rid of meat only to replace it with high salt chemically processed food that tastes like meat.

It seems like we are going backwards.

You know what uses less greenhouse emissions, less water and less land? The orginal plant based food that gets processed into a beyond burger.

If you really care about the planet why are you buying processed anything? That get's shipped nationwide / worldwide that creates factories, chemical waste, greenhouse gases. Buying locally and growing locally really helps the planet. Going to burger king and getting an absolute burger instead of a whooper is just pretending.

View on HN

All food is processed. Cows are genetically engineered. There's no reason to be afraid of simple chemistry. Cranks like Michael Polian have made a fortune selling FUD with no science. Just read a label. Boxed food with a ton of salt and sugar is probably not good for you whether it's corn syrup or agave nectar. Similarly, boxed fiber and protein is perfectly fine. Buying locally is not scalable and fails to take advantage of the climate advantage of different geographies.

Real meat is lindy. Fake meat is not. We won't know until multi-decade studies have been done on the health effects of a fake meat diet.

Fortunately, we at least know that meat consumption, specially red meat, is bad for you and a WFPB diet is better. So my suggestion is to use products like beyong as a gateway to a WFPB diet.

Meat, literally millions of years in our evolutionary past VS seed oils barely 100 (more like 50 for mass adoption), but surely "the science" is never wrong nor corrupted. Inform yourself on the history of this with Ancel Keys etc.

Modern humans don't go back literally millions of years. If one were to look at how humans evolved then looking at "Comparative Anatomy of Digestive System of Carnivores, Omnivores, Herbivores, and Humans" to me implies a strong bent towards fruits and nuts. Personally, I think whatever could be eaten got eaten. The consensus of the IPCC is that we should eat less meat.

Food has extremely strong cultural significance and a lot of people tie up their identity with it. I can understand that. If they feel that their diet is under attack they see it as life and death for their identity.

I imagine you've picked a side and will seek whatever information or studies suits you; everyone is doing that these days. It's anti-scientific.

I arrived at this conclusion both from personal experience (I've tried all the apparently reasonable diets) and the scientific data. Nuts are barely digestible. Our digestive system doesn't look like a herbivore / fruit eater at all. Surely we've had some, but that's not what we're build for. I think we're like dogs, we can survive on a diversity of foods (and get sick from some of them) but we thrive on meat. That's my n=1 intimate conviction, not one I sought to arrive at, but once I had experience it there's absolutely no doubt in my mind. Naturally I sought the people that had the same experience and they do have the data and the explanations for why, but it's too lengthy to provide here, although I can give hints if you wish.

Oh and australopithecus ate meat, this goes far beyond modern humans. This is why we got smart, because intelligence pays off far more for hunting than for foraging, particularly for an otherwise frail creature.

Sure hints would be good and much appreciated! When you say "our diet doesn't look like a herbivore/fruit eater at all", I see tables like this [1] and it would strongly suggest the opposite. Maybe it's propaganda... I don't know, I should like to see something like a ScienceBrief on it.

In terms of the last thing you said. You phrased it as "australopithecus ate meat"; it seems they predominantly were herbivorous according to wikipedia[2]. Which doesn't preclude eating meat, but could easily be misinterpreted from the way you put it.

[1] https://livinontheveg.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/compara... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus#Diet

Re: human digestion, this comparison of human digestive tract vs other animals https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David-Bravo-10/publicat...

I didn't mean to imply that australopitecus was predominantly carnivorous, but I recently found out they had tools for hunting and/or cutting flesh, just to make a point that the trend started much earlier than homo sapiens.

Might come back with more links/thoughts later

Yes, thank you for this! Well more the paper behind the picture. This is much more interesting stuff.

Dogs can synthesize vitamin C and we can't.

Just one quick find: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-...

> In 2013, Ramsden resurrected another long-lost randomized study, the 1960s-era Sydney Diet Heart Study. Reanalyzing its unpublished data—also stored on old nine-track computer tapes—he found that volunteers who replaced much of the saturated fat in their diet with polyunsaturated fats high in linoleic acid had a higher risk of death from coronary heart disease

"Fake meat" is an epithet. It's a meat substitute made of real food. None of the ingredients are remotely dangerous. People have been eating tofu and seitan for centuries. We know very what the effects of vegetarianism and veganism are. Some nutrients like iron and B12 need to be looked after but otherwise you can have robust good health.

> There's no reason to be afraid of simple chemistry

Food chemistry is one of the most complicated chemistries ever. Not only we can't simply construct an argument of safety from first principles but also nutrition labels hardly makes an exhaustive list of the contents and processes involved. Not even mentioning the labeling regulation quirks.

> All food is processed.

This is reduction to absurdity. Even if genetically engineered, the process of cell divisions that end up being a living cow is so complicated that it would lend itself more readily to a claim of integrity, one much stronger than a decade old factory assembly process of dead nutrients. We've co-evolved with the former process for millions of years and created the latter in the last several decades in the name of profit maximization.

> Cows are genetically engineered

That's not what processed food means. A slice of steak from a GMO cow is not processed food, except inasmuch as slashing a knife is a process.

Furthermore, more or less traditional cheese is not considered "processed food" in that context even though it is definitely processed for a long time and with significant effort. Nor is wine or sauerkraut for that matter.

Yeah "not considered" processed because it's what people are used to, not because it's safe or natural. Livestock have been genetically engineered via selective breeding for millenia before we knew what DNA was. Unless we have reason to believe that mixing pea protein and heme in sterile vat is actually more dangerous than fermentation, it's FUD. Grilling meat can release carcinogens (https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/d...).

Thanks, this is the most underrated answer. Selling processed food as one solution to climate change is genius marketing BS but still just BS. It reminds me of Soylent, Juicero and the like.

If you care about the environment, your health and animal well being then just eat less animal product (you need some anyway), buy only local food (local meat) and above all stop wasting so much of it.

Just a few decades ago people knew what they were eating, no processed food in any way. They were raising their livestock in their yard, they knew their single sheep / pork / cow and poultry and respected them. At some point you need to eat and kill them, people getting shocked by this have just become brainwashed or oversensitive. Go spend some time in Africa, Asia or Eastern Europe, they're laughing at this nonsense trend.

>If you really care about the planet why are you buying processed anything?

If I'm really going to be dead within 100 years, why am I doing anything?

Lots of reasons, but the easiest is because it's more enjoyable than the alternative. Who cares if a plant burger is heavily-processed? I like it and I don't have to think about whatever died to bring me my meal.

Yes, it would be better if I grew my own lentils and only ate homemade dal. But that's not realistic for most people, and from a health and environmental perspective, it seems like it's hard to do worse than red meat.

You won't be around but your burger will be.

If you are going to not care about any life in 100 years why should you concern yourself with thoughts of death now?

Seed oils are toxic. These fake "meats" are the some of the worst processed foods around. It's sad people are being duped once again by the food industry and medical establishment. This will only further worsen the awful health of the population.

I never understood beyond for a health product though. Is that really their branding?

That's people's perception: meat is unhealthy, but now there's this vegetable-based "meat" that's better, tastes just as good and as a bonus it's saving the planet etc.

Also, do you have more on thst "seed oils are toxic"? Literally never heard about that.

See this for the example https://youtu.be/ZdhywL6icZU

There is a ton of info, just look around. Also, what is the common ingredient in all processed foods? This is what is making people fat. Omega-6 integrates in body fat, easily oxidized and unstable, rendering our own fat inaccessible for energy, so we're chronically hungry, tired, and inflamed. Than add in sugar and salt for hyperpalability. We've been hacked.

Seed oils are nothing more than industrial waste sold as food for profits.

Chia and flax seeds are some of the best sources of Omega-3s...

Flax doesn't have omega-3, but alpha-linolenic acid, which depending on your genetics you might not be able to convert to omega-3 sufficiently (see rs174547 gene).

Sufficient omega-3 intake doesn't entirely mitigate the ills from omega-6 anyway, and there are other toxins in seed oils as well.

Just like meat is not toxic, neither is seed oil. I've been eating large amounts (~1000kcal a day) of flaxseed oil, olive oil, pumpkin seed oil, coconut oil and there has been no ill-effect on my cardiovascular or general health at all, after years of doing that.

This orthorexic behavior by labeling certain foods as unhealthy or healthy is the real problem.

Any kind of diet needs to be accompanied by a proper lifestyle. Eating a high calorie diet and then not having any physical activity is just asking for a bunch of metabolic issues.

Particular food item is not healthy or unhealthy, toxic or rejuvenating. It's the lifestyle+diet that can be labeled as healthy/unhealthy.

You're evidently misinformed, I've provided references (see Dr. Cate Shanahan for one) here regarding seed oils. There is no doubt they are toxic. Glad you're healthy, but look around you.

These are the worst ones: Canola, Corn, Cottonseed Soy, Sunflower, Safflower, Grapeseed, and Rice bran.

Also, olives and coconuts are fruits.

This idea that physical activity will balance out an unhealthy diet is wrong and has been proven wrong by decades of people attempting just that. It doesn't work. Once your metabolism is damaged by your diet, no amount of physical activity (if you can muster it) will fix it.

How am I misinformed? These doctors are exhibiting and supporting orthorexic behavior. I'm surely not going to listen to them.

There's a bunch of papers on Neu5Gc, should I start being scared of meat toxicity?

Diet containing seed oils can be healthy. Nowhere have I made an argument that an unhealthy diet will be countered by physical activity.

You keep saying "orthorexic" and I keep saying "toxic", up to you to look up the info which is abundant.

Cyanide in apple seeds is toxic in proper amounts, should I avoid consuming apple seeds, or apples completely?

Toxicity of certain compounds in meat or other foods has nothing to do with the food itself being healthy or unhealthy.

Similarly how antioxidant, vitamin or macronutrient content has nothing to do with that particular food being healthy or unhealthy.

Promoting the idea that a particular food or ingredient is healthy or unhealthy is promoting orthorexic behavior, an obsession over what to include or not include in your diet because of a made up measure of (un)healthiness.

Here's a riddle for you: if seed oils were not toxic, why are mice given seed oils as low as 4-5% of calories in order to cause cancer in the presence of other carcinogens? They don't get cancer with the carcinogens alone, they have to add the seed oils to trigger the cancers.

There are similar studies on meat/Neu5Gc being combined with fibre to reduce the toxicity - more carcinogens present the less fibre there is.

There are similar studies on casein/whey.

These studies do not make meat, milk, cheese or seed oils inherently unhealthy or show that you can't have them as a part of a healthy diet.

edit: doing a quick Google Scholar search I can find a bunch of studies that show positive outcomes after regular consumption of flaxseed (rich in omega 3s) or pumpkin seed (rich in omega 6) oils. These studies do not make these oils healthier.

Flax has alpha linolenic acid, which in some people (I am one of them) can't efficiently be converted into omega-3

20g of flaxseed oil (180kcal) contains a bunch of ALA, pick a massively low conversion ration to DHA/EPA of 0.5% or 1% or whatever, and you'll see that you'll get very near if not over the recommended daily amounts of 250-750mg.

Maybe, I don't have the exact figure either but it is known that a specific mutation (which I don't have) is needed for efficient conversion. This is telling that at some rather recent point (agriculture) humans started consuming less animal fats.

The WHO directly said that meat is an important contributor to many forms of cancer: https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/cancer-carcinogenic...

The problem here is that everyone takes the info they want and discards the rest.

Eating meat is not problematic, if done moderately. But nowadays there is not such moderation. There is meat in every meal.

Fake burgers are probably not healthy too, but this is not proven yet.

Just be moderate with what you eat.

This is all based on awfully bad epidemiological studies. Humans were eating MUCH more meat for most of our evolutionary past. Look how unhealthy we are now, and we aren't eating more meat. We're eating more plant fats and sugar. There is literally nothing unhealthy in eating meat, not more for us than for a lion.

Lions, and our ancestors, ate much leaner grass fed animals compared to our factory-fattened cows and pigs. I don't believe hunter gatherers were eating meat with 15-20% fat content as often as Americans eat burgers.

On the contrary, fat is prized by hunter-gatherers and humans likely had access to much more fat (megafauna) for much of our evolutionary history. Fat allowed us to supply for the high energy needs of our brains. This isn't my own speculation but collated from various sources, I can provide if interested just don't have them on hand.

Yes, it was certainly prized because of its high calorie content and relative scarcity compared to today, when one can have a virtually unlimited supply. That's why it tastes good.

The problem today is not an unlimited supply of meat (for most of the world) but an unlimited supply of sugar and seed oils. And the super / unnaturally sweet fruit, this is what's hacking us.

I didn't say it was the problem causing the obesity epidemic. Donuts being worse for you doesn't make eating fatty red meat so often healthy.

Also, while super sweet fruit can be problematic, it's far from one of the biggest problems. No one is getting diabetes from eating too many bananas.

Saturated fat consumption is way down compared to historical patterns: https://slatestarcodex.com/blog_images/croissant_animal.png

(thankfully a recent uptick since official sources are starting to admit that saturated fat isn't bad)

Red meat consumption has been going down for decades: https://content.fortune.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/annua...

I agree on the whole fruits, but processed fruits, with the fiber thrown out, are just as bad.

You seem to throw all food processing into the same pot, so to speak. Humans have an under-developed digestion system. Why? Because they can pre-process their foods to compensate. They know that some plants are poisonous unless cooked, for example.

And obviously, few food-processing factories or bulk shipping methods of ingredients cause enough greenhouse gasses that you can just eat local meat instead, if you care about your footprint. Saying that none of this is solving a real problem is wishful thinking.

About once a month I have a huge craving for a burger, so I’ll eat a Beyond burger. It’s worse than eating veggies but it helps keep me vegetarian. Without it, I’d probably eat a real burger to satiate my meat craving. Since I’m an all-or-nothing person (major personality flaw), eating meat once a month would turn into a slippery slope. Beyond meat helps to keep me on the vegetarian straight and narrow

Health is not the reason these products exist. I buy them because I want an unhealthy treat that doesn't have the same ecological or animal rights impacts as beef.

If 10% of whopper sales switch to impossible whoppers, that's a big deal, and foods like this can provide a bridge to consumers who have never considered vegetarianism.

I do buy or grow local food, I'm a vegetarian myself. Your view is, in my opinion, too black and white. There's serious momentum around plant based meals, and that's making even more plant based foods available elsewhere.

Couldn't agree more. It's highly proceeded fake food.

I think you could do better by simply eating more veggies and cutting red meat consumption.

yep

I think this is a counterproductive view. Gas turbines are bad for greenhouse gas emissions, but the fact is that gas turbines have displaced coal generators in many places in the US reducing net emissions.

Are gas turbines a part of a zero emissions electricity grid? No of course not. But are they an improvment on what's happening today? In some cases yes.

Ultimately you're right, eating locally grown plant based diets would be better for an individual, but you're also wrong because the beyond burger is a hell of a lot better than the food it's replacing in most cases.

I don't think anyone's buying a burger for the health benefits though

I did try it. It was revolting. Never again.

Vat-grown meat may have a future, but fake meat does not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com