Comment by spirit557 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by spirit557 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Lots of comments on how processed foods are bad here. They are bad but it is also the frequency of eating/snacking itself. It is not healthy to constantly stimulate your insulin multiple times a day with high protein/carb foods whether processed or retained in nature's package. That goes for whole foods and processed foods, except processed foods are just a lot worse. Constantly elevated insulin is not how we evolved for millions of years. Insulin resistance can precede T2D by years and years before there is a flag raised by elevated hba1c. You should be able to eat 2 or 1 nutritionally dense whole foods meal(s) per day not crave snacks constantly. Eat until you naturally feel full and do not want to eat anymore. I quit all processed foods and 1 or 2 meals in a 4-6 hour window is normal, I've never felt better. Snack cravings are addictive cravings, not real hunger. Snack cravings can also indicate you are overresponding with insulin and crashing your blood sugar after the spike from snacking. So processed foods are bad but it's how you deliver them to your body constantly is where the damage gets done IMO.

That’s conjecture. We don’t know how much foraging humans snacked from berries, tubers and nuts all day. Prolonged insulin spikes are certainly a problem, as has been shown by research.

Just visit a tribe still living the old ways. We know lots about how people live, and how (incredibly) malnourished they are. Say what you want, but most modern humans are incredibly healthy compared to old humans.

> Just visit a tribe still living the old ways.

This is actually much worse data than it is usually assumed to be. People still living the old ways today have been shoved into the most worthless and inhospitable corners of the world. Back when the old ways weren't so old, the people practicing them lived in much better environments.

(Pygmies living in the jungle are something of an exception to this - farmers cannot live in the jungle, so even if the jungle is fairly productive its residents can avoid being displaced, until the farmers start clearing the trees.)

History is not a guide for healthy nutrition.

At least many of the berries and fruit we eat today are not their wild varieties but human cultivars, which usually have both more sugar and less fibre than their wild counterparts.

I agree. Still, no justification for a blanket statement that snacking is bad.

And didn't they die at 35 on average?

That is including birth fatalities. It turns out when you improve health care during pregnancy, the average life span goes up enormously.

How long were these ancestors of ours living, while eating this idealized diet of which you speak?

While I agree that that evolutionary context is interesting to consider for nutrition, I don't think that it stands on its own as incontrovertible evidence. Evolutionary pressure is for passing on of genes, not necessarily for longevity.

How long were these ancestors of ours living

Threescore years and ten, modulo infant mortality (which was horrific) and various accidents and injuries, easily fatal if the sepsis set in. You can find scholarly treatment by searching for the biblical phrase. That number wasn't put there by accident.

Also citation needed for a society >= 500 years ago with life expectancy of 70 years, infant mortality excluded.

Sepsis, injuries, and diseases of adulthood should not be excluded, we're talking about passing on of genes here.

That is all beside the point of whether or not evolutionary pressures would optimize for longevity or for "good enough for passing on genes."

Guess based on anecdotes (primitive tribes etc.) possibly well into their nineties, notably they were physically very strong well past their seventies. One really need not go that far. The 'idealized' diet often shows results in a matter of few weeks.

Do you take these anecdotes seriously?

If so, with what frequency do you think this would happen?

And what evolutionary pressures would lead to their occurrence with any frequency?

This is definitely arguable. Dawkins in "The selfish gene" does argue that having grandparents around greatly increases the probability that children live to reproduce, and therefore there is a genetic imperitive for longevity.

> This is definitely arguable

What is?

> Dawkins in "The selfish gene"

I've read The Selfish Gene. The same arguments are relevant regarding the utility? of menopause.

> having grandparents around greatly increases

How much is "greatly" -- or at least how strong does Dawkins argue is the effect? No doubt it could have some effect.

Ultimately, this is all completely contained in and consistent with my statement that "evolutionary pressure is for passing on of genes, not necessarily for longevity."

I can confirm that a policy of only eating full meals has kept me thin and healthy into middle age even when those meals frequently include a full package of Oreos or bag of Doritos. You might overeat, but that just means your body won't tell you it's hungry again until you actually are, because you only eat when you're hungry enough for a full whole foods meal.

From what I understand fats and proteins in your digestion cause a number of signaling hormones like leptin and probably others to make you feel full. Carbs do not stimulate any of that signaling afaik. A pure carb snack would stimulate zero leptin, for example.

>Carbs do not stimulate any of that signaling afaik. A pure carb snack would stimulate zero leptin, for example.

Source? That seems doubtful, given how much of the developing world lives on carb heavy diets.

Carb heavy but also quite heavy in fat too. Unless you have a specific example?

Ignore the trolls that have shown up here on HN. This is a positive and helpful comment. Personal responsibility is the key to ignoring the stuff on the grocery store shelves. Cheers.

I don't really know what is and isn't healthy, but it's worth pointing out that the very same brands and types of fast food available to Americans are also available, and fashionable, in Europe. Ultra processed, high in sugar, carbs, E numbers and whatnot. And people are generally much healthier.

So the processed-ness can only be a part of the picture.

They also walk more due to not being tied to cars quite as badly as Americans are.

Protein high foods stimulate insulin...?

https://thestrongkitchen.com/blog/post/insulin-response-it-c....

Next paragraph (quick tip) states that it also stimulates glucagon which is an insulin antagonist and keeps it in balance.

My read is that protein and fiber are better for keeping your blood sugar in balance but whole grain can give a safer boost if you’re low. Too much protein can hurt your liver/pancreas, but it’s actually hard for most people to eat “too much” protein as it makes you feel full quickly.

Interesting, learned something new! Thanks

Absolutely. One of my favorite nutrition papers is titled something like "an insulin index of 1000 kJ portions of common foods" -- should be easy to Google, and worth a read.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com