Hacker News Reader

Comment by darth_avocado | Hacker News Reader

There’s two different effects hidden in that statement

> living in France

I have had similar experience where my gut health was immediately, noticeably better in Europe. I was eating the same foods and somehow it was better.

> Eating stinky raw cheeses and different fermented foods

Raw and fermented foods in cultures across the world are linked to better gut health. However, industrial fermentation and packaging won’t help you as much because the diversity of microbes drops and packaging often kills most of them. We need to bring back the culture of home fermentation.

View on HN

>I have had similar experience where my gut health was immediately, noticeably better in Europe. I was eating the same foods and somehow it was better.

Could be due to you being in a better mental state. Gut-brain axis is very evident for me personally. If I am tense gut is the first to get affected.

The refusal to over-industrialise food in Europe (compare to the US) leads to higher quality, more "natural" food.

Another possibility: dishwashers are more rare in Europe - the soap residue some of them leaves on irritates some stomachs.

That sounds counter-intuitive? I doubt most people take the time to rinse everything off with clear water. Dishwashers on the other hand always have a rinsing step

Maybe the problem is rinse aids in dishwashers? These prevent spotting on glass by adding detergent.

I just put water in the rinse aid dispenser of my dishwasher.

redacted, see correct info in replies

I don't believe that's true. To quote wikipedia: "Rinse aid (sometimes called rinse agent) contains surfactants and uses Marangoni stress to prevent droplet formation, so that water drains from the surfaces in thin sheets, rather than forming droplets."

Looking at the back of a bottle of Finish Jet Dry (which I have refilled with water), the original stuff's first ingredient (after water) is "C 12-15 Alcohols Ethoxylated Propoxylated". These are nonionic surfactants, and are not what one normally means by "alcohol" (ethanol).

I can understand where the idea came from. Drinks like wine will exhibit sheeting on the sides of glasses too. The concentration of alcohol needed for that to happen is probably too high in a dishwasher, I'd imagine.

> I just put water in the rinse aid dispenser of my dishwasher.

Curious... Rinse cycle already uses plain water, so you are adding water to... water?

It's to keep the annoying "fill the rinse aid dispenser" light from always being on.

Yeah but dishwasher soap is a different kind of soap, it's way stronger. Plus dishwashers also use rinse aid which has its own set of problems.

There is enough residue left over that even diluted 1:10 its still cytotoxic. [1]

I seem to recall a post here a while ago showing that dishwasher residue was genotoxic as well but can't find it atm.

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009167492...

It was about the rinse aids in commercial dishwashers at commercial dose levels. Residential levels were not shown to be harmful.

I've healed several friends' tummies by telling them to stop using rinse aid.

It's very, very definitely a thing.

Here is the full text of that article:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S009167492...

https://www.statista.com/forecasts/1174175/dishwasher-owners...

I'd love to see this stat but I don't have access - mind posting the gist of it?

the travel makes people on average bodily better. usually a lot of walking involved, which has a lot of health benefits, especially for folks who come from the US

> my gut health was immediately, noticeably better in Europe

Its because a lot of the weird artificial junk that are allowed to be put into your food is illegal in Europe. Even things like popular sweeteners have been shown to have a negative effect on your gut health.

Most sweeteners also have been shown to cause more weight gain than sugar (they screw up your metabolism). Unless you’re diabetic, there’s literally no reason to consume them.

I'd like to see a source on that, because (excessive) sugar literally causes diabetes.

And of course high sweetener consumption is must be strongly linked with in general high calorie input and overweight people trying to reduce calorie consumption.

Your first point probably isn't actually true. The research that first connected the two showed that across a population sugar consumption up -> diabetes rates up. But it turns out that when you control for weight the effect of sugar specifically is much much smaller. To the point where if you're a healthy weight your sweet tooth isn't moving the needle.

Oh that's not true at all. First I think they taste better, they're sweet without being syrup-y. Second it allows me to drink a lot of soda, 5+ cans a day adds up when it has calories. I have no expectation that it helps me lose weight, it's just tastier water.

It's funny that folks will look down on diet soda but then be fine with tea and coffee and sports drinks like the bubbles make it meaningfully different.

5+ cans of soda a day seems unhealthy even if it's not caloric, the gas and acid will mess up your stomach.

It is not just tastier water.

Given that in France "water" means carbonated water and you have to specifically ask for "still water" I can't imagine the gas being that bad for you.

Acid I can get behind but soda is by far the least acidic thing I consume on the daily.

The carbonation creates carbonic acid in your teeth. It’s a huge driver of calories.

Of the of the issues with diet soda in particular is your tastes favor sweets. I used to drink 4-8 cans of Diet Dr Pepper daily. When I stopped, after a couple of weeks I found my taste preferences to be very different. I’d favor savory more attractive and sweet stuff would seem too sweet.

I can't fine anything talking about carbonic acid and calories. Is there something you're referring to?

Maybe they meant cavities?

Probably typed “caries” and got autocorrected

Sorry - it was supposed to be “cavities”. Too late to edit I’m afraid.

No, they have not. The evidence points the opposite way (people lose more weight on non-nutritive sweeteners than sugar).

Also non-flouridated, non-chlorinated water.

I lived most of my life in an alpine European village; water was chlorinated and flourinated, more than in my current US location. There was a huge difference in mineral content, US water being almost distilled (1 to 3 French degrees hardness) VS something like 15-20 in Europe

Water hardness varies by location worldwide, including the US.

Non-flouridated is gluten-free, right?

Artisanal

The preservatives in flour / bread / etc are illegal in Europe. My sister is allergic and can’t have any bread in the USA. But can in France and Italy.

Yeah, things like titanium dioxide are considered a carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) yet FDA says its safe for use in food. But i guess trust the science and authorities

IARC usually says that something has carcinogenic potential, which is almost completely useless information for something that we already ingest in absurd quantities without a cancer epidemic.

Please share the names of these preservatives.

Durex and Trustex.

Europe puts plenty of E numbers in their food (the US just spells it out versus hiding it under a number). There are things illegal in the US that are used in food in Europe. A lot of the time, at least for things like pesticides, the different is country of origin of manufacturer.

E numbers have very little to do with this. They are just a way to categorize food additives.

What else would you characterize “ weird artificial junk” as?

E numbers cover everything that can be added to food. Some examples would be E164 Saffron, E290 carbon dioxide, E428 gelatin.

None of these are anywhere near the "weird chemicals category". You'll find that all euro foods have Es in them, but it doesn't mean they have half-tested industrial food additives in them.

Those are very selective things you picked.

E100–E199: Food coloring, such as turmeric (E100) and paprika (E160c)

E200–E299: Preservatives, such as sulfur dioxide (E220)

E300–E399: Antioxidants and acidity regulators, such as ascorbic acid (E300)

E400–E499: Thickeners, stabilizers, emulsifiers, and gelling agents

E500–E599: Acidity regulators and anti-caking agents

This is pretty much the spectrum. Red 40, aka Allura Red AC aka E129 is illegal in the US, legal in the EU, and carries a warning in the EU. Let’s not pretend that the wonderful world of chemicals and industrialization doesn’t exist in Europe.

No one is pretending anything. I said all foods in the EU have E numbers in them, but it doesn't mean they have industrial chemicals.

Allura red isn't illegal in the US.

Also, just wondering, what do you think is the problem with turmeric and paprika?

Growing up in the EU in the 00s there was always the public health concerns of E numbers causing this or that.

Ironic in a way, because E numbers mean that the specific chemical has been cleared as a foodstuff in the EU, IIRC.

Though I suppose it’s more concerning if an approved substance has some unforeseen effect versus an unapproved one and you’d want to investigate further.

I guess it shows how government regulation of naturally occurring substances (though perhaps synthesized, or refined) carries with it a new set of incentives, and reasons to be political. Not that I’m against regulation, but it’s hard if not impossible to have a truly politically neutral approach.

> a lot of the weird artificial junk that are allowed to be put into your food is illegal in Europe

What are some examples? A list would be helpful.

I don’t follow this too closely, but having been in Europe for a few weeks, the food tastes noticeably better and is often cheaper than the US.

One of the things you notice is shorter ingredient lists on prepared food. The ingredients in Italy for McDonald’s French fries are: potato, salt, oil. In the US there’s 7-8 including hydrogenated soybean oil and flavor/color agents. Oreos were similarly different, and arguably better tasting.

I believe they regulate flavors and coloring additives differently, and many people feel both of these type of items can be problematic.

I agree about diversity. We use a very limited range of cultures in mass manufactured foods.

But of course can never happen because it only takes a minority to cry about a few factual bad stories and present the fallacious "is it worth it" argument. "Is your epicurian enjoyment worth even one dead baby?" And a majority who have no reason to think much about it go along with it because no one will say "yes it's worth it" and few are able to articulate how the question was invalid in the first place.

The opposite minority argument, that variety, depth, richness, are important, not luxuries, don't have their own dead babies to present. They do exist, but they aren't visible except in aggregate. You can measure a change in average health over the course of entire generations, and from that you can extrapolate the change in number or frequency of deaths, and then you could compare numbers of dead babies. But you can't obviously show any particular cause & effect because there are so many other variables, and even if you could, it took entire generations whole lives lived and died before they could benefit anyway.

okay wow deep breath, you can just ferment things at home, it’s fine, I did it twice last week

That doesn't actually solve anything.

How do you know until you've fermented something at home and risked life, limb, dead babies etc. by consuming it? I think more people die from food poisoning in restaurants each year than people do from doing something stupid while making sourdough bread, natto, tempeh, kombucha, beer, wine etc. at home.

Also, it’s usually pretty obvious when fermenting goes bad. My take is fermentation takes a while which really allows the biological process to become really positive or really rancid.

It doesn't solve anything because it's an individual action to a societal problem.

There's no societal problem of hidden deaths because of fermented foods. But assuredly there is because of "safe" ultra-processed convenience foods.

The societal problem is that we have low quality food. Across the board. Every where you go, all that's available is mostly low quality.

The option to spend more money, or have your own garden, or do some kind of home production is a vanishingly insignificant individual action that solves nothing except for like 11 people.

But of course can never happen

Home fermentation of foodstuffs is allowed, and always has been.

Lots of people do it. Kits are available on Amazon, and many grocery stores will even sell them in-store. As other people on this thread of have pointed out, they ferment a lot of their own foods and drinks.

What isn't allowed is selling home-fermented stuff to others. When someone goes commercial, rules kick in to protect their customers

What can never happen is the majority agreeing that it's good, and actually doing it, and having this become so accepted that it is no longer disallowed for selling. Without selling, most people will not get it.

It's possible. A wave could go through where it becomes popular and the majority adopt some new attitude on that topic. But it "can never" because of the dynamic I expressed. That works against it. The new thought is not developing in a vacuum.

having this become so accepted that it is no longer disallowed for selling.

This is a nonsensical train of thought that conflates multiple distinct issues.

Fermented products are already widely sold in stores and restaurants. And homemade foodstuffs can already be sold but are subject to the same rules and regulations that govern foods made in commercial facility. These rules generally preclude the sale of homemade fermented foodstuffs, because the risk of contamination if the foods are improperly fermented is extremely high and most home kitchens lack the necessary equipment or facilities needed because this is all very expensive compared to consumer equipment. This is why there are so few fermented foodstuffs available at farmer's markets in the U.S.; the initial capital outlay puts it out of reach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com