I was just quoting Pollan yesterday, which is the quote right at the top of the article.
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Succinct, doesn't alienate anyone, or make a lot of rules, or shame you for doing the wrong thing. Don't complicate food.
I own a fresh organic produce delivery outfit in the Seattle region, and we basically run our operations off what he explains in more words. The more steps involved between the soil and your mouth, the less "food" it is. It might not kill you, but it also won't help you.
"Not too much" and "mostly plants" are good, but trying to redefine food is a bit wacky, once you learn that that's his game.
I'm not even against the idea that processed food is often bad and should always be treated with skepticism, but naturalism as a foundational principle is just way too exploitable. I called "companies are going to start marketing sugar as a natural alternative to low-calorie sweeteners" a decade before I saw it in grocery stores and I would like to pre-register my prediction that tobacco products will soon come back as "natural alternatives to vapes" in the not too distant future.
> trying to redefine food is a bit wacky
No, it’s incredibly simple and makes sense. Coke are Doritos are not food, they are a science experiment designed for the express purpose of getting you hooked. They have virtually no health benefits and a ton of negatives. Nobody should ever put them into their body, or certainly as little as possible.
Our “food” has changed more in 50 years than the preceding 500. Take away all the science experiments and eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much” and a massive number of health epidemics go away.
> eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much”
My great grandma is from eastern-ish europe and grew up on a farm. Her diet mainly consisted of potatoes, bread, corn, milk, sausage, lard, butter, fermented cabbage or turnip, various preserved fruits (jams and compotes), and copious amounts of extra salty preserved meats. Fresh food was a luxury reserved for the summer (fruits, veggies) or slaughter weeks (fresh meat). No refrigeration, remember?
If I ate like her I'd die of a heart attack before I turned 40. And I'd be pretty obese, too. Many of those farmers got pretty chunky in their 30's despite working on the farm all day.
Oh and I almost forgot: liters of wine per day per person. Liters!
Farmers do an intense amount of work. The only other profession that works out as much in the modern economy are professional athletes and maybe elite soldiers. Also, farmers get tons of sun, which has beneficial effects on health as well as the deleterious effects people endlessly repeat: although it does raise the risk of skin cancer, it decreases the risk of other cancers so much that total cancer risk is lowered.
> If I ate like her I'd die of a heart attack before I turned 40. And I'd be pretty obese, too.
No you wouldn’t. Obesity rates back then were near zero. For the general population, not just for farm laborers. Heart disease killed far fewer people per capita per year. If you remove the infectious diseases that we have practically cured, mortality per capita per year in 1900 and 2020 is pretty similar.
Mind you, those infectious diseases were 90% eliminated by sanitation and understanding and 10% modern medicine; tuberculosis deaths were down by 90% from the 1860s to 1947, which is when streptomycin, the first antibiotic effective against TB, was used.
For some time I ate similar diets to the one you describe - a poor farmer’s diet high in potatoes and bread, with some vegetables, meats and dairy - and I know people who eat that diet today. None of them are fat. It’s because potatoes and bread aren’t very calorie-dense. It is difficult to eat a caloric surplus every day when the majority of the food in front of you is greyish brown, vaguely mushy and of a sufficiently insufficient density that you must take your time to eat it. Modern processed foods, even the fairly simple ones, take the labor out of eating and make the regular things around us infinitely snackable. Modern foods have just the right amount of sweetness and salt and crunch with the right color and appealing packaging and advertising and so on. A standard potato in a standard kitchen will never have that. There’s a reason why obesity rates precisely track consumption of processed foods.
> No you wouldn’t. Obesity rates back then were near zero.
Define back then. My great grandma lived from 1910’s to 1990’s. I believe she got indoor plumbing and electricity sometime in the 1950’s or 60’s.
Because everyone grew their own food, supermarkets were mostly for sugar, salt, and such. Vegetable oils and margarine started becoming popular in the 70’s as a healthy alternative to lard.
From what I remember visiting those farms as a kid, the farm guys all had big bellies. Maybe from the alcohol? They weren’t american fat, true, more like power lifter fat.
PS: sausages are extremely calorie dense. A good blutwurst will pack about 1000 calories in 1 portion.
edit to add: Heavily processed american style food started entering our market in the late 90’s early 2000’s. It never got quite as popular or common as it is here (I moved to USA in 2015)
Alright, to the core argument here: you say if we all ate a diet of potatoes, bread, corn, milk, etc we would all die young of a heart attack and be obese. I say the opposite, which is that modern processed foods are what is giving us heart attacks and making us obese. So, about the article we're all commenting on. Pollan wrote this in 2007, and I quote:
>Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.)
Generation length varies significantly across human history, geographical location, population groups etc. but the average across the last quarter million years is twenty seven years [5].
The average American is 39 (Pollan was 52 when he wrote this) so let's say roughly speaking we're looking at 39+(4*27) =147 so 2007-147=1860. In the 1860s life expectancy at birth was about 36 and life expectancy at age 15 was about 60. So we're talking roughly the mid-late 1800s to early 1900s. In other words, before the modern use (and quantity) of vegetable oils, food processed on a large scale, most preservatives, modern food advertising, packaging, foods designed for texture, et cetera. These things only started in the early 1900s, but it took time for production to increase, around WW2 - and by the 1960s the average Eastern European was consuming about 6kg of mass-produced vegetable oil a year. Not enough to make everyone obese, but enough to show up as a blip on a chart. Does it? Yes. The heaviest segments of society were already increasing in weight at this time [0].
In the 1960s, texture science and research on the appearance of food started to take off [3] - and yes, even in the USSR this was something people paid attention to. Packaging was now intentionally designed to stimulate appetites. Stabilizers, colorants and flavorings were in use, even in many poorer countries. By the 1970s, soda was in full swing. There were local sodas (Baikal in the USSR, Kofola in Czechoslovakia) but even Pepsi entered the Soviet market in 1971, and it was immediately popular, despite its high price. Now you can see obesity becoming a problem societally; in 1975 it was considered an issue and measured nearly worldwide for the first time [4].
Defending my claim that "obesity rates back then were near zero" is a bit tricky because it was so rare it wasn't considered a societal problem in the early 1900s. But we do have some data points. For example, the heaviest 1% of 18-26yo men in Denmark had a BMI of 28 in 1939 [0], and this did not cross 30 (obese) until 1951. The heaviest 5% of 18-26yo men had a BMI of under 25 in 1939; today, the Danish national average is 25.3.
As for heart issues, in 1900 there were 137.4 deaths of heart disease per 100k, vs 192.9 deaths per 100k in 2010. That is despite the fact that 92 million US adults are on statins, which often have serious side effects.
Personal anecdotes unfortunately don't hold up to the data, which is crystal clear: in the year 1900, when we ate a pre-modern diet, rates of obesity were near-zero and deaths from heart disease were significantly fewer.
But, like you said, what if someone ate that farmers' diet today? Turns out the Amish have significantly lower rates of obesity than their neighbors. Must be the physical exercise, not the diet, no? Well... the US military is quite physically active compared to your average person, and yet 70% are overweight or obese.
[0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg6237
[1] see e.x. Romania, Yugoslavia https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/vegetable-oil-production?...
[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113569
[3] https://doi.org/10.1080/20549547.2017.1355720
Doritos are just fried corn tortillas with salt, and depending on the variety, some flavourings like dehydrated cheese and bell pepper. It's not a perfect food, but it's food. In fact, combine that with some refried beans and you might be able to live off it for a long time.
> Take away all the science experiments and eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much”
I don't know about your great grandma, but mine was mostly eating bread and potatoes, not mostly greens. Certainly generations before her were as well.
> Doritos are just fried corn tortillas with salt
Actually, they aren't. They're what's left of corn tortillas after the industrial frying process stripped anything that could be considered nutrients (hyperbole, of course), with a little salt added for flavor. Now you just have a calorie dense but non-nutritious glorified salt lick.
It's hardly food, and if you don't think so, try living on nothing but Doritos for a week and see how that works out for you. Potatoes may not be much more than starch and fiber, but I could live off those for any length of time because they are food.
> try living on nothing but Doritos for a week and see how that works out for you
Try living off fried corn tortillas with salt for a week for the same effect.
How, specifically, are they different?
The difference is that the fried corn tortillas that I make fresh actually retain the majority of their innate nutrients and could sustain me for a week, more even.
Look, I get that not treating snacks like staple foods is a good idea overall, and we're probably not going to see eye to eye on this, but it's not clear to me that the profile of "innate nutrients" is actually different in Doritos. They might have that taint of being a mass-produced snack, but they start with corn just like your homemade tortillas. Unless I'm missing something, the industrial frying, packaging, and seasoning is not stripping nutrients, intentionally or unintentionally.
It's a relatively simple product, as packaged snacks go.
you're forgetting the corn maltodextrin in doritos, which is a kind of predigested food-derivative that this article is warning about. Your body turns it into glucose much more efficiently than just corn, and overdosing over a long period of time probably leads to health issues.
> Doritos are just fried corn tortillas with salt, and depending on the variety, some flavourings like dehydrated cheese and bell pepper.
More than 47 ingredients , many of which did not exist 100 years ago and I can’t pronounce. I would not call that just fried corn tortillas with salt.
https://shipmesnacks.com/products/doritos-nacho-cheese-reduc...
Grandparents from both sides had a small patch of garden, and it was used to the fullest, produce was eaten for rest of the year. Yes a significant portion were potatoes, which are much healthier side dish than ie rice. Mostly boiled or oven baked ones. Rest were veggies, cabbage, onions, some greenhouse stuff. And some fruit trees, but veggies mostly.
One side they lived till higher 80s, another both till 95. Active till very late, basically maybe 1-2 years before death.
The thing is, they all lived frugally (and under hardships of communist rule, thats why garden). No junkfood as we know today. Tons of slow physical work on that garden. No vices like frequent alcohol consimption or cigarettes.
One of their sons (aka my uncle) smoked half a pack a day. Dead at 54 from heart attack, had a cancer before but got cca cured. Another daughter got over time overweight, little physical activity, and as I learned only recently became over time an alcoholic. Dead from an heart attack at 62.
Some folks I know have much worse lifestyles (ie smoke more than uncle, plus are more overweight, plus are alcoholics) yet keep living much longer.
Not sure what I want to say with all this, maybe that eating veggies is not enough. Its whats the rest of the plate and how much of it, how active you are, how stressed, how much exposure to bad chemicals. And genes, one thing completely out of control, but as mentioned above they alone wont save you.
> In fact, combine that with some refried beans and you might be able to live off it for a long time.
Might it be the beans that are what you're able to live off?
What are Doritos adding to the equation here?
Carbohydrates. Slow-release caloric intake - the main thing you need in your diet after your protein/vitamin/mineral needs are met. Also provides some fat.
Living off beans alone sounds hellish.
People are being really weird about greens which have almost no caloric value and supplementary health benefits at best when for all of human history the name of the game is cheap readily available carbs, fats, sugars, and protein. That's stuff is food. Everything else, while good for you, is a garnish.
Doritos are bad because poor people can afford them. Making your diet mostly organic greens is good because you need lots of money to afford them and you will be underweight and incapable of performing peasant style manual labor.
It's far from simple. There is no clear delineation between food and non-food offered by saying Doritos are a science experiment. Is an ear of corn real food? It has of course been significantly modified by selective breeding. And your grandma ate GMO corn.
It’s extremely simple.
Only buy things with one ingredient. There, now you’re not eating the science experiment.
You're just doing the science experiment yourself when you cook it? Your view is simple, just wrong.
No, I’m eating what mammals have been eating for a few hundred thousand years, not what a single one of them concocted in a lab in the last 50 years, which has lead to skyrocketing illnesses that basically didn’t exist before. Diabetes, heart disease, hypertension and on and on.
Actually it is really simple, there’s no “doritos plant” corn is turned into cornmeal, dried, mixed with oils, salt, then fried in more oil then sprinkled in chemical flavorings and more salt. Roast some corn cobs and that’s real food.
At what point in the process does it stop being food? Is cornmeal with oil and salt still food, even though there's not a "cornmeal with oil and salt" plant? I think the point of the parent comment is that it's not clear that there's a single place to draw the line between "food" and "not food" in a way that everyone will immediately agree on.
Of course, if you’ll go to the semantic approach then anything edible would be “food”, foods are no simply “good” or “bad”, they’re “better than…” “worst than…”
As a side observation and not particularly referring to your reply, I see that people tend to put food or nutrition if you want, almost in the same scope of politics and religion, many people I know who I consider very open-minded will get very on the defensive whenever I tell them that the best thing to do is to reduce the intake of proteins of animal origin and increase plant consumption. That goes to show that years of propaganda have worked very well.
Okay, but what's the alternative to the "semantic approach"? People keep alluding to it in this thread, but no one seems to actually be explaining it.
I'd argue that the main part of the confusion here is that people don't seem to agree on what "food" means, and I'll personally admit that I don't have any confidence in my ability to define it in a clear way that would satisfy most people here. I don't have any particular strong feelings against what you're saying about animal proteins and plant consumption (despite knowing that I fall far short of what anyone on either side of that argument would consider a healthy diet), but that's because it's at least clear to me what you're arguing. The issue to me is that saying something edible is "food" or "not food" implies a binary that's really hard for me to wrap my head around, and it really doesn't seem like anyone is willing to define that in a way that I can understand; as soon as I try to ask questions to understand, it feels to me like the people using this stricter definition of "food" are the ones who get defensive. I want to keep an open mind, since I'm well aware of my lack of knowledge when it comes to nutrition, but it's hard not to feel confused when someone argues that there's a strict boundary where processing something makes it no longer food, but no one seems to be willing to elaborate on what it is. From my perspective, it seems like some people might have a more nuanced understanding of what they consider food, but because it's inconsistent with the previous idea I had of what "food" is, I don't have any way of understanding what their understanding is. If there are people treating nutrition the same way as politics and religion, it's the ones who make bold claims without further explanation and reject any disagreement as the result of illogical forces.
Have you read Michael Pollen’s books?
It’s actually trivially simple to define what is food, and what you should be eating. Every vegetable and fruit on the planet. Grains, rice, nuts. Chicken , meat, seafood, etc Put simply: it grows.
This is what all mammals have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years. We know it works. They have one ingredient. They have existed for at least as long as humans.
Then it is trivially simple to define what is not good, and no mammal should ever consume. (But realistically we will just minimize as much as possible). Coke. Fairy floss. MSG. HFCS. These things were grown in a lab. They have very minimal nutrition value, and often a host of negatives. They have only been concocted in the last century, and a massive number of severe health problems have come along with them. These things have many ingredients. They did not exist 100 years ago.
Then there is an enormous grey zone in the middle that people will argue about till the end of time.
It’s not worth your time. Just eat what is clearly food and pretend the rest doesn’t exist. The fact twizzlers and KFC exist have no impact on my life, and I am much healthier for it.
There are plenty of plants that aren't safe to eat though, right? I don't think anyone would advocate going out and eat random grass or wood from trees. Given that, it seems like you'd have to extend the definition to be something that's both edible and grows. At least in my experience, most people equate the idea of being edible with being food, which seems to me like what the parent comment way up the thread was talking about with redefining what "food" means being wacky; from a purely linguistic perspective, it's kind of wild to redefine a term to be a subset of the former usage but still require the old definition in order to state the new one. Essentially, you're trying to argue that what a lot of people have considered to be synonyms their entire lives should be distinct terms, with one of them remaining the same but redefining the other, and I don't think that will make sense to a lot of people. It would be like telling people that the word "quick" should only refer to speedy things that existed before 100 years ago, and anything else is "speedy" but not "quick". Even if you had a compelling argument for why this was better, it would still be kind of wacky.
Yes, exactly. The world has changed around us. Only 200 years ago it was impossible to move faster than a horse, or go higher than climbing a tree. So “quick” and “high” were well know for hundreds of thousands of years across all languages. Now we have invented race cars and spaceships, that go a lot faster and higher, so those words don’t mean what they used to mean.
Similarly, We have now invented new lab concoctions that companies want to call “food” because it helps them make money, but it is a very, very different thing than what “food” meant 200 years ago.
Go to an uncontacted tribe and give them fizzy black liquid. No way in hell they’ll drink it, because that ain’t food, and it wasn’t for a few hundred thousand years.
> At what point in the process does it stop being food?
Just because you cannot see a clearly defined boundary does not mean it is not there. A corn cob is food, a processed piece of corn mixed with <insert flavoursome/colourful/preserving chemical> sealed in a plastic bag with a six month shelf life is notWhat you're saying sounds reasonable, but it completely avoids the question I asked about what point in the process it stopped being food by only mentioning the first and last steps. I'd argue that in order for a boundary to be clear, there needs to be specific step in the discrete process where the output of that step isn't considered food anymore. I honestly can't tell if you're saying that I personally can't see the boundary but you are able to, or if you're using "you" generically when you say "you cannot see", but if you mean the former, I don't think it's particularly helpful to assert that you know what it is without explaining further, and if you mean the latter, I don't think I agree with you on what constitutes a boundary being "clear".
Someone better tell the Mexicans about tostadas not being food
40% of Mexico population is over the obesity level.
My 15 year old son is now taller than I am and most of his nutrition is not food. It’s horrid. I suspect this is why Dutch people are so tall. Mostly cheap processed food and hormones in the milk. Ymmv
The cognitive dissonance here is striking. A growing man needs a shit ton of calories to grow to their full potential. You might as well fill your caloric needs with "junk" food otherwise you will need to spend an inordinate amount of time preparing and eating "natural" food at a higher cost for the exact same effect.
>otherwise you will need to spend an inordinate amount of time preparing and eating "natural" food at a higher cost for the exact same effect.
This is a myth, healthy whole foods are way cheaper than any ready-made “meal” and that is not even taking in account the future savings in healthcare!
...if you don't take into account the labor of preparation. Then they are surely more expensive than a bag of doritos.
That is true
I eat well.
I spend a lot of time cooking
That’s a good point. I believe people need to reconcile with the rituals of food like cooking and sharing the table with loved ones.
> The cognitive dissonance here is striking
Agreed!
The SAD diet despite its critcism is perfect for spurring growth, as it's calorie-dense, balanced, and very palatable. It's hard to come up with a better diet if the goal is to produce big people or athletes. The problem is when adults continue to eat it, long past the growth phase, and get obese as a result.
>It's hard to come up with a better diet if the goal is to produce big people or athletes.
Submitting children to the standard american diet (or mostly western diet as sadly it is not relegated just to the USA anymore) should be considered child abuse, by feeding them high calorie, high cholesterol, high protein, high sugar meals you’re condemning them to a certain disease-ridden future.
Child self-abuse -- It's what the kids demand to eat!
Would you prefer that he graze natural plants 20 hrs/day? He's the premium calorie consumer of all humans: a pubescent male. Are Dutch people statistically taller than Germans? Do they eat more junk food? Does your milk have more hormones? Are Dutch taller today than previous generations? Have you accounted for all the other variables.
You can't throw out shit like this and then tack on "ymmv" as a disclaimer.
> Would you prefer that he graze natural plants 20 hrs/day?
No, it would interfere with his Vibecoding
> Are Dutch people statistically taller than Germans?
Yes. 183 vs 179cm
> Do they eat more junk food?
Arguably. Few would argue that the food quality is better in the Netherlands than Germany.
> Does your milk have more hormones?
Well, there are hormones in milk, and the Dutch drink a lot of it. 25% more than Germans.
> Are Dutch taller today than previous generations?
Yes. But a centimeter shorter than those born in the 1980s, when it was still legal to pump cows up with hormones.
>You can't throw out shit like this and then tack on "ymmv" as a disclaimer.
I can’t exactly advocate for his diet — nor disclaim it. It’s confusing for me!
Govt statistics linked here, O3: https://chatgpt.com/share/6838c51d-c4a4-8007-97e7-431006f495...
and yet I can do nothing and live a much better, longer life than my grandma.
Agreed, it really depends because "processing" can mean so many different things. A Twinkie is processed, but so is a brick of ultra-firm tofu.
[flagged]
How did I know I was gonna get a "soy = estrogen = bad" comment? :P
I have yet to see any credible evidence that tofu is bad for your endocrine system.
I don't know much about the contents and outcomes of twinkies, but a search for "soy endocrine" gave me this https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5646220/ a mixed bag, but higher reports of reproductive cancer, prolonged menstrual bleeding for young women stood out as reasons I might limit my intake, and the same for my children.
I've heard personal accounts of vegan friends turning to meat and dairy to keep up with their fitness demands (studying yoga in Astanga, and Olympic lifting.) I've been vegie for parts of my life, but it sure is a loaded topic!
[flagged]
Does it? Maybe we should just process the soy a bit more:
Traditional and Domestic Cooking Dramatically Reduce Estrogenic Isoflavones in Soy Foods https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/13/7/999
Any idea about how he feels on honey? My personal pet peeve is people who use honey as a sweetener because they are "avoiding refined sugars." Apparently if a bee does the refining, it doesn't count!
I’ll wager that sugar is probably better for you (in moderation) than artificial sweeteners. I remember reading something not that long ago about insulin response to sweeteners being similar to sugars. Give me fat coke over diet coke any day.
But yeah, I agree with your point that “naturalism” isn’t often optimal.
I’ve read the book he wrote after this article and it’s really quite good. The principal that if your great grandparents wouldn’t recognise it as “food”, then avoid, is a pretty good rule of thumb.
I will take the other side of that bet. I've joked for years about aspartame surely going to give me cancer and yet despite the not inconsiderable amount of research into it trying to find a smoking gun the results are at best vaguely suggestive, which is another way of saying there have still yet been no provable connection between aspartame and any heath problem. If you're a Bayesian thinker at this point your priors should be set on the far side of "it's for all practical purposes inert in the body."
But refined sugar, you'll be drowning in real documented health problems.
The problem with aspartame is your gut microbiome, not cancer. Sugar is probably better for you, but keep it to small amounts.
> I’ll wager that sugar is probably better for you (in moderation) than artificial sweeteners
The key is "in moderation"
Many people seem to get their entire liquid intake out of aluminum cans.
That is too much sugar.
> "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Who's going to spread the good word to the Maasai?
Where people trip-up with plant-based diets is overdoing the butters, oils, humus, tofu, nuts, and legumes. Those things are often super calorie dense. You have to stick with mostly the leafy plants and keep oils and butters to a minimum.
> "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
GLP-1 has freed Americans from the burden of thinking about what they eat. The drug dictates their appetite now, and any old junk will fill the shrunken void.
I thought it helped with cravings/addictive behavior. Which is the opposite of you're saying, if we're all accepting in this post that processed foods are designed to work on cravings and are addictive.
You're correct; they definitely make you less inclined to crave "junk," and more likely to feel a bit ill after eating it.
not really. even with GLP-1 drugs, many people are still obese or overweight. individual response to this drug is extremely variable.
yeah it's always funny how carnivorous need a lot of tiptoeing not to feel shamed for eating animals
It’s my understanding that carnivores are pretty rare among human populations
To be fair, they said "carnivorous", not "carnivores".
Omnivores are carnivorous.
I think that’s covered by “The more steps involved between the soil and your mouth, the less "food" it is.” To me, that suggests they believe you should eat what the animal eats and skip eating the animal.
nothing against my parent poster, it's just they mentioned "doesn't alienate anyone [...] or shame you for doing the wrong thing" which in my experience is necessary to get someone reasonable to think about their dietary habits
Uhm, this sounds yummie, I am in seattle, got a link?
Hope you live north of downtown:)
[dead]
Are you talking about following a raw food diet?
No. Whenever the word "diet" is used with regards to not eating "this" or only eating "that", something has already gone wrong. A "diet" is a voluntary restriction (well, usually after some involuntary event). But you only need to restrict foods with your brain by choice if you first disobey your body's needs.
You should not drink Coke because it has WAY too much sugar and WAY too little of anything beneficial. If you tried to consume the amount of sugar in Coke by eating apples, you would be too full long before you get to Coke-level sugar intake. That's because of all the other stuff in an apple; it's not concentrated sugar.
Your body is a wonderful thing. Respect it and listen to it, it will keep you healthy. That's literally its job, and it only knows how to repair and heal you. It will keep the things it needs, and discard the rest. You can't "over-consume" if you eat real foods. Your body won't let you; you'll get full and stop. You can only over-eat engineered foods, which over-saturate sugar|fat|carbs|salt|etc, which then necessitates a "diet".
This description of the word "diet" is overly simplistic and marketing centric. A diet is just the schedule (list) of foods consumed, as in "I have a terrible diet" or in "pandas exist on a diet of bamboo shoots and leaves". This term is overloaded in areas like the weight-loss industry to refer to voluntary limited intake, but it's still a diet as in an enumerated schedule of specific foods. "Going on a diet" is often used in the context of specific health goals as distinct from the normal "diet".
There's an episode of Mad Men where they are coming up with pitches for weight loss products and losing weight is referred to as "reducing", a term from before the word "diet" was used as you've described.
> A "diet" is a voluntary restriction
The word "diet" is not always about restriction. Surely you've heard people use the term "standard American diet" which doesn't have anything to do with restriction.
I assume you are talking about a raw diet (not necessarily calorie restricted diet) because of your comment about minimizing steps between soil and mouth.
You would be full eating three medium-sized apples (https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/usda/apples ; https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/coca-cola/coca-... ), with (by my back of the envelope calculation) not much more total volume than the can of Coke? Would this be longer lasting than the bloated feeling from the carbonation?
Have you tested this?
Uh, no?
Taking plants from the soil, or fruits from the tree/vine, and trimming, washing, cutting, and cooking are typically considered steps that are unavoidable for some plants.
The difference between a baked potato, potato chips, and Pringles is what we're talking about. The oil used for potato chips (and Pringles) originated from plants, but it has undergone several steps from plant to container of oil.
Aren't chips blown to smithereens and then reconstructed with the help of all those random ingredients? I think this is what "ultra-processed" means and what differentiates these foods from getting your bag of potatoes and frying them at home.
I don't know about Pringles / Lays &c, but I've never seen two potatoes of the same size and shape in a bag, so there must be some way they manage to get all their chips to look the same.
Pringles are reconstituted from powdered potato - which should be obvious as they're all the the same size and shape, and have a weird texture.
Lays and nearly every other brand are just thinner versions of potato chips you could make yourself at home (cut thin, fry in oil, dress in salt). Nothing "blown to smithereens" there.
Pringles also contain corn, rice, and wheat.
https://www.pringles.com/en-us/products/pringles-the-origina...
Lay's Classic contain only potatoes, currently with a grab-bag of oils:
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/Product?formula=LBS...
The most "basic" mass-produced snack food award goes to: Fritos!
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/product?formula=LBS...
(US formulations only. Your gas station may vary.)
I personally prefer an animal-based diet revolving around meat and milk. It is conducive to strength training and fits my taste buds, but I always incorporate fruits and vegetables to secure vitamins and minerals.
The essential nutrients that your body needs are carbohydrates, protein, lipids, vitamins, minerals, fiber, and water. The first three are macronutrients, providing most of your body's energy in the form of calories.
Traditional diets incorporate all of these nutrients naturally, as human beings formed traditional diets by sourcing needed nutrients from the surrounding environment. Before industrialization, humanity subsisted on these diets, and if you look far back enough you will find these foodways in your ancestral culture.
Industrialization provides us the luxury of choice in our diets, but it also leaves many displaced and confused as to choosing a diet. You will find that traditional dishes naturally incorporate all of our necessary nutrients. A good rule of thumb when building healthy meals is this:
Carb + protein + vitamins/minerals
Such as:
Rice + beans + tomato + onions
Potatoes + steak + green beans + milk
And so on.
The carbohydrates and proteins will provide the bulk of your calories and the feeling of "fullness" while the sources of vitamins and minerals will complete your diet.
A good metaphor is to think of the human body like a car that needs gasoline and oil primarily as well as some additional fluids to run optimally. A balanced diet will help you feel better physically and psychologically.
Whether you choose to source protein from plants or animals is entirely up to your discretion in this industrialized age, while it was previously a result of an agricultural or pastoral means of subsistence.
you should probably give the article a read, my main takeaway from your post is that people love to talk about what they eat. I will remember it next time I have an awkward pause when conversing with a stranger.
I read what he wrote, I just disagree with it. Nutrition is not really so simple and this information is both useful and objectively true. It is also relevant to the subject being discussed. I think the author has an overly simplistic and misinformed view of nutrition, so I am providing useful and relevant information.
> The essential nutrients that your body needs are
The article has an extensive discussion as to why this way of phrasing the problem is not only meaningless but actively harmful.
That's not to say your diet is necessarily bad; frankly by adhering to his "eat food, not too much" you're 2/3 of the way to what Pollan recommends. You're only missing "mostly plants", but you're doing better from his rubric than a diet consisting of mostly processed food products.
Right, I just disagree with the author as nutrition is more complex than what he posited. Following his advice, you will not acquire sufficient nutrients to do things like build muscle.
At lunch I drink a plant based protein shake. I noticed that it stops the binge cravings I used to have at night. I lost 43 pounds since last June.
Past thread from 8 years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13487886 (179 comments)
Thanks! Macroexpanded:
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13487886 - Jan 2017 (179 comments)
I have made an interesting discovery recently. The type of media I use for frying up taco shells has a dramatic impact on my consumption rate.
When fried in vegetable oil, I tend to eat 4-5. When fried in lard, 2 is starting to feel a bit much.
The animal fat option seems to be what my body prefers. There's clearly some kind of endogenous GLP-1 inhibition action going on. It sticks with me a lot longer too. I feel myself getting sucked into my work for hours on end instead of bouncing in and out of the kitchen every 30 minutes looking for a snack.
I think "mostly plants" can be interpreted as malicious advice given the realities of human biology.
That line "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." really hit me.
Sometimes when I go shopping, I catch myself checking fat and sugar first, then looking for added omega-3. The more I read, the more complicated eating seems to become. I keep staring at nutrition labels, and end up feeling more confused about what I should actually eat.
One heuristic is to choose foods without nutrition labels.
Doesn't all food have nutrition labels? We know the nutrients of potatoes and apples and vegetables, so there are labels for them.
It's just still so complicated when you are dealing with any level of digestive issues. Sometimes you're supposed to lay off high-fiber fruits like apples. And then there's soluble versus insoluble fibers (sometimes you need more insoluble), gut flora, probiotics; fats are both good and bad for gut "motility"... if your balance is off somehow it just gets really complicated really fast.
I decided I'm going to switch to a salad+meat diet will see how that goes. Been enjoying these pre-made caesar salads at work.
[flagged]
first paragraph states the opposite:
I was surprised to see Michael Pollan and Marion Nestle, two giants of food advocacy, take a clear stance in favor of genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, since the two have previously been critical of these controversial foods. The film, which purports to explore “the good, the bad and the ugly of genetic engineering,” is unusual in that it’s unabashedly pro-GMO, using science to debunk the myth that GMOs are harmful and portraying the activists who oppose them as the food-world equivalent of flat-earthers.
Read further:
> Pollan, for his part, signed a letter with a group of fellow academics (including Nestle) on June 16 to protest UC Berkeley’s screening of the film (let’s pause here to note: they are protesting the mere fact that this film was even shown). Those who signed the letter attested that the movie was nothing more than an advertisement for GMOs, and said it “marginalizes the lived experiences of farmers and eaters.”
Seems like he has a problem with the final edit of the movie and not anything specific about GMO. This is a growing problem with documentaries where the filmmakers claim a certain angle to get people to participate but reveal a corporate angle in the edit.
This is his actual position (source: https://michaelpollan.com/articles-archive/vote-for-the-dinn... 2012)
> Americans have been eating genetically engineered food for 18 years, and as supporters of the technology are quick to point out, we don’t seem to be dropping like flies. But they miss the point. The fight over labeling G.M. food is not foremost about food safety or environmental harm, legitimate though these questions are. The fight is about the power of Big Food. Monsanto has become the symbol of everything people dislike about industrial agriculture: corporate control of the regulatory process; lack of transparency (for consumers) and lack of choice (for farmers); an intensifying rain of pesticides on ever-expanding monocultures; and the monopolization of seeds, which is to say, of the genetic resources on which all of humanity depends.
Largely he's been proven correct as GMO crops from Monsanto have has negative biological, legal and financial consequences on neighboring crops and water supplies. https://cases.open.ubc.ca/monsanto-and-terminator-seeds/#:~:... GMO crops from other sources don't have the same problems.
Nice! I've been WFPB all my life :-)
Lucky duck!