Comment by joshuahaglund | Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshuahaglund | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The article barely mentions it but one big loss with processed foods is dietary fiber, which seems to help regulate carbohydrate absorption (iirc).

I scaled the nutrition facts to match serving size grams, all number are grams except cal: calories. I hope formats ok...

                Serving
                size    cal    fat   protein carbs fiber
  Impossible    113     240    14    19      9     3
  Beans(pinto)  113     161.90 0.66  9.91    29.74 9.91
  Refried beans 113     85.45  1.92  4.79    12.78 3.51
  Ground Beef   113     308    20    31      0     0

Looks like impossible managed to keep the 3/1 ratio of carbs to fiber that beans have, while increasing the protein ratio and adding fat.

Hummus is technically a processed food. But if it's not too high salt or filled with preservatives, it's not less healthy than eating garbanzo beans with sesame seeds, etc. From my perspective, impossible is a little healthier than a burger (a lot healthier if you count the environment) but it's not a salad.

https://faq.impossiblefoods.com/hc/en-us/articles/3600189392... https://www.nutritionix.com/food/pinto-beans/1-cup https://www.nutritionix.com/food/refried-beans https://www.nutritionix.com/food/ground-beef

Thanks for doing all that work.

> Hummus is technically a processed food. But if it's not too high salt or filled with preservatives, it's not less healthy than eating garbanzo beans with sesame seeds, etc.

I'm not sure what the properties of hummus (or artichokes or beer) implies about the properties of Impossible burgers.

The hummus comment was to point out that there are foods which people might consider processed, but it doesn't mean it's less healthy than their unprocessed ingredients. Just depends on how it was processed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding "processed" tho

But I guess it's kinda obvious that there are levels of processing and IDK what impossible is doing. But I'm curious.

> The hummus comment was to point out that there are foods which people might consider processed, but it doesn't mean it's less healthy than their unprocessed ingredients.

Nixtmalized corn is a good example here, too.

> The hummus comment was to point out that there are foods which people might consider processed, but it doesn't mean it's less healthy than their unprocessed ingredients. Just depends on how it was processed. Maybe I'm misunderstanding "processed" tho

I see. Here's what I understand, but can't substantiate or explain the mechanics myself:

* Eating foods with less processing is one of the strongest consensuses in nutrition - almost universal, in a field where there is a lot of uncertainty.

* Processing is a matter of degree. From the OP (and based on it, I'd guess that Impossible food is ultra-processed, hummus somewhere between minimally processed and processed, depending on the hummus):

Ultra-processed: Foods with additives or few whole food ingredients; includes most packaged snacks, frozen meals, granola bars, soda, and cereal.

Processed foods: “Foods such as canned fish, vegetables and artisanal cheeses, which are manufactured by adding salt, sugar, oil, or other processed culinary ingredients to minimally processed foods.”

Processed culinary ingredients: Table sugar, oils, fats, and salt.

Minimally processed foods: Frozen fruit or vegetables, breads with just a few ingredients, milk, canned beans.

* Why does processing matter? Essential question and I don't know much of the answer, but part of it is that context matters: The effects of foods relies on much more than individual nutrients in the food, but what they are contained in (obvious when you think about it: you couldn't ingest a pile of carbon, etc.). But what are the factors that matter and why? No idea. I'd love to learn about it.

The best source I've found, which examines it on a basic level, recommended several years ago by a leading nutritional expert, is the Brazillian government's dietary recommendations (note these are from 2015):

https://bvsms.saude.gov.br/bvs/publicacoes/dietary_guideline...

This is something that actually differs for people [citation needed]. As in, please do google, but fiber works perfectly for some people while fiber does nothing for others. It's genetics. So you're both right and wrong ;)

I'd be more interested in scaling that by calories. I.e. what happens if you make all of those the same amount of calories instead of grams. I think that does wonders for how we eat.

One of the benefits of keto for example (once you're actually in at least mild ketosis) is that you don't actually feel hungry any longer and the calories are just taken from your fat stores. The body no longer 'cares' for easily usable carbs. It has come to terms with the fact that there are no carbs to use and thus it no longer 'sends the signal to go eat more carbs'. It 'knows' that there's a lot of fat stored in the body that it can use up and so it just does that.

I dunno if you're done keto but one thing that happened, at least for me, is that foods that normally don't taste sweet started tasting sweet. E.g the first pancake I had after starting keto (and being in blood test verified ketosis) did definitely taste sweet (recipe: spelt flour, egg, milk) without anything on it.

This is where I think the 'fasting' of many religions has health benefits (nevermind that none of that is explained and it's just religious tradition/rules - but they were onto something basically).

You basically said "fiber needs are different, google it" so I did, and I don't see anything supporting that statement. You bring up ketosis but I though we're talking about more or less "normal" diets that consume carbs.

I think keto is (in most instances) a dangerous fad diet, but feel free to experiment. Tho I have at various times cut sugar and processed carbohydrates (only eating whole grains) out of my diet and everything was sweeter.

Fasting and keto are not the same thing.

Looks like we have a different understanding of my words.

I never said that fiber needs are different. I said that fiber works for some people but not for others. I should have specified better. What I meant is that apparently while many if not most people feel satiated from eating fiber, others don't. I.e. it does not help them feel full. You still want to eat a good amount of fiber for other reasons, such as having enough "bulk".

I never said keto and fasting were the same. I drew a link between some of the benefits that I saw from going keto and some of the benefits of fasting.

I am interested though to hear more about why you say it is a dangerous fad diet. I think you're definitely are onto something, if I interpret correctly but I don't want to mis-interpret. I say that because I see a lot of "keto bomb", "keto bar", keto this and keto that pre-packaged food popping up in the grocery stores. I wouldn't trust any of that either. There's also a lot of fluffy and shiny info out there on the internet about it. As with any topic really, one has to be careful while doing research, especially if someone wants to sell you something.

Ok but I'm just not gonna continue the discussion if you make claims, tell me to google, I come back and say "didn't find anything" and you still don't support your claim with links. Feels like i'm being trolled.

ETA: this isn't about "feeling full" or "bulk" this is about how the body processes food, and extracts energy using bacteria, who feed on fiber in our diet. google "fiber gut bacteria" for what I'm talking about

I've never trolled anyone in my life and you're the first person to accuse me of that. Feel free to peruse my comment history. I replied by trying to clarify what I meant as we seem to have had a different understanding on what I was even trying to say. I guess we really are not compatible in having a discussion given the immediate accusatory tone and downvoting instead of trying to figure out together where the misunderstandings were and discussing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com