Ask HN: What should we eat?
113 comments
"I get anxious"
In my highly unscientific opinion: That's worse for you than anything you could ever eat.
Stop eating when you are full. Avoid excessive junk food. Try to eat fruit and vegetables more than occasionally. Reserve the cheeseburgers and onion rings for the celebration of Friday. Hold that celebration with friends and family more often than just Friday. Drink some wine or a beer. Laugh about it. Don't dwell on anything.
Even if you don't live longer, you'll live better.
In my highly unscientific opinion: That's worse for you than anything you could ever eat.
Stop eating when you are full. Avoid excessive junk food. Try to eat fruit and vegetables more than occasionally. Reserve the cheeseburgers and onion rings for the celebration of Friday. Hold that celebration with friends and family more often than just Friday. Drink some wine or a beer. Laugh about it. Don't dwell on anything.
Even if you don't live longer, you'll live better.
I get your point, and I appreciate it. I could do worse than what you advise.
But I'd prefer to dismiss my anxiety through solid information rather than abandoning the concern and adopting what seems to be a "sensible" approach to diet founded on a cultural melange of how we ought to eat and drink.
If I can do something to reduce the chance that I get cancer--or that my wife gets cancer--then that's worth fretting.
But I'd prefer to dismiss my anxiety through solid information rather than abandoning the concern and adopting what seems to be a "sensible" approach to diet founded on a cultural melange of how we ought to eat and drink.
If I can do something to reduce the chance that I get cancer--or that my wife gets cancer--then that's worth fretting.
This is tangential, but does anyone know of a field of study that specifically investigates traditional dietary frameworks in different parts of the world? Not what people actually eat per se, but what local tradition advises? The comparative philosophy of food, the anthropology of normative diets?
In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others "cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.
If one could compile a set of such recommendations, cross reference them, and control for variations in climate, soil and whatnot, perhaps some interesting patterns might emerge.
In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others "cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.
If one could compile a set of such recommendations, cross reference them, and control for variations in climate, soil and whatnot, perhaps some interesting patterns might emerge.
Did someone call for a nutritional anthropologist?
www.nutritionalanthro.org/
www.nutritionalanthro.org/
My wife is Chinese & one thing I noticed is that I have never felt better than when I stayed for extended periods in China. They take that hot/cold stuff seriously & based on anecdotal evidence I think I'm living a healthier lifestyle & eating better when I'm in China.
Also, Chinese traditional medicine healed an ailment for me that stumped the best (european) specialists, even though I had absolutely no faith in that nasty chinese medecine.
One of the things that may make a difference is that more traditional cultures take food more seriously. We tend to think about food as either a trendy thing to do, like eating out, or just 'filling up on calories', like junk food. A healthy middle ground where people actually take the time to cook & enjoy fresh food seems to be lost.
Also, Chinese traditional medicine healed an ailment for me that stumped the best (european) specialists, even though I had absolutely no faith in that nasty chinese medecine.
One of the things that may make a difference is that more traditional cultures take food more seriously. We tend to think about food as either a trendy thing to do, like eating out, or just 'filling up on calories', like junk food. A healthy middle ground where people actually take the time to cook & enjoy fresh food seems to be lost.
In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others "cooling".
That's very interesting. That concept also exists in Indian, Pakistani and (I believe) Persian culture.
That's very interesting. That concept also exists in Indian, Pakistani and (I believe) Persian culture.
> some foods are considered "heating"
Tangential anecdote - pregnant women apparently should not eat lamb, because it is "heating food" and will cause the growth of myomas (uterus tumors). No scientific confirmation what-so-ever. Can't eat it just because it's "heating" and causes "things to grow". Try countering this when talking to a pregnant wife choke-full of interesting mind-altering hormones :)
Tangential anecdote - pregnant women apparently should not eat lamb, because it is "heating food" and will cause the growth of myomas (uterus tumors). No scientific confirmation what-so-ever. Can't eat it just because it's "heating" and causes "things to grow". Try countering this when talking to a pregnant wife choke-full of interesting mind-altering hormones :)
> In China, for example, some foods are considered "heating", while others "cooling". Based on the time of year and your own condition, you may be advised to eat this set of foods, and avoid that.
gah... I dated a chinese girl, and she would discuss that with me when she got sick. It feels like folk medicine, the decision of what makes something 'hot' or 'cold' and so on seemed so arbitrary.
gah... I dated a chinese girl, and she would discuss that with me when she got sick. It feels like folk medicine, the decision of what makes something 'hot' or 'cold' and so on seemed so arbitrary.
Hmm I don't know if its arbitary, I can tell if a food is 'hot' or 'cold' just by eating it, even if I've never seen it before.
For me, only eating 'hot' foods means I get more ulcers, so I am always watching out.
For me, only eating 'hot' foods means I get more ulcers, so I am always watching out.
if the hot/cold idea is deeply rooted in you, it makes sense that you are able to tell what is what, but that does not mean it's not arbitrary, just that you have assimilated the method on a deeper level.
Consider italians, and pasta. Basically everybody knows "instinctively" if a sauce makes sense with short or long pasta, but in the end it's still completely arbitrary :)
Consider italians, and pasta. Basically everybody knows "instinctively" if a sauce makes sense with short or long pasta, but in the end it's still completely arbitrary :)
Not sure you have a basis for declaring it arbitrary yet, not even in the absence of evidence that it isn't.
To me, the hotness/coldness of a food is not always obvious.
Would you have guessed that apples are 'hot'?
Would you have guessed that apples are 'hot'?
My tendencies, which seem to work well:
- Foods with less processing - more fresh stuff, less stuff that needs preservatives
- High ratio of vegatables/fruit to meat
- Less high-carb stuff, and always the low-gi versions (e.g. wholemeal/rye bread, brown rice)
- Eat what you enjoy. Find a balance between healthy and tasty you can live with.
- Indulging in stuff not on this list is serious business - it has to be really good, and every mouthful should be savored. Remove the concept of a "casual snack" from your life.
- Foods with less processing - more fresh stuff, less stuff that needs preservatives
- High ratio of vegatables/fruit to meat
- Less high-carb stuff, and always the low-gi versions (e.g. wholemeal/rye bread, brown rice)
- Eat what you enjoy. Find a balance between healthy and tasty you can live with.
- Indulging in stuff not on this list is serious business - it has to be really good, and every mouthful should be savored. Remove the concept of a "casual snack" from your life.
Fine, but personal diet anecdotes aren't what eavc is asking for. What trustworthy sources are these decisions based on?
Unfortunately I have the same problem with sources as the original poster. Nutrition science has become so sensationalized that it's hard to take any of it seriously.
I take my cue mostly from an instinct developed over years of paying attention to how my diet makes me feel. Stuff like CSIRO's book [http://www.csiro.au/science/TWD.html] do influence that instinct - I feel that their research is somewhat removed from the profit motive.
I take my cue mostly from an instinct developed over years of paying attention to how my diet makes me feel. Stuff like CSIRO's book [http://www.csiro.au/science/TWD.html] do influence that instinct - I feel that their research is somewhat removed from the profit motive.
I prefer science to instinct. One human lifetime doesn't provide nearly enough opportunities for diet experiments to determine all the correct answers for yourself, even if you could separate real diet effects from personal bias, the placebo effect, and other influences in your life.
On the contrary, it only takes about 4 weeks to try a new protein/fat/carb split. Try high protein and high fat, then fine tune whatever worked best for you.
I agree you can't detect subtle long term health problems this way, though.
I agree you can't detect subtle long term health problems this way, though.
Alas, science has the same trouble. Too many variables, hard to tell anything for sure.
This is very near to the diet prescribed by Dr William Davis - author of Track Your Plaque. The book is a lot more than just a diet book and is heart-health specific, though.
Thanks, modeless. You seem to understand where I'm coming from.
Is this something you are personally interested in as well or were you just passing through?
Is this something you are personally interested in as well or were you just passing through?
Just passing through really, though I have been thinking lately that I need to improve my diet and was hoping to find some interesting sources to read through in here.
The last is probably the most important. A snack should a treat; not a thing you do every day at 4pm.
What are we defining as a snack? My 'snacks' are whatever I can find in my house, which basically means sugar snap peas, cereal or a sandwich.
Enjoying food is a tricky thing.
People love the taste of sweet and companies have engineered such foods so people eat it, but it doesn't mean it's good for you.
People love the taste of sweet and companies have engineered such foods so people eat it, but it doesn't mean it's good for you.
I'm surprised and disappointed at how many of the recommendations here are pure anecdote, intuition, or folk wisdom.
If I wanted to eat based on common sense or a fad diet, I'd do so. I was hoping to be pointed to something more scientific. Walter Willet's book is probably a good recommendation, but Pollan (as well as Taubes) have so impugned the track record of nutritional epidemiology that I think a resource that directly responds to those attacks is necessary.
I suppose I can continue the search on my own, but it's kind of amazing that with 74 comments in this thread, even a community as science-minded and educated as this one is relatively in the dark about this stuff.
If I wanted to eat based on common sense or a fad diet, I'd do so. I was hoping to be pointed to something more scientific. Walter Willet's book is probably a good recommendation, but Pollan (as well as Taubes) have so impugned the track record of nutritional epidemiology that I think a resource that directly responds to those attacks is necessary.
I suppose I can continue the search on my own, but it's kind of amazing that with 74 comments in this thread, even a community as science-minded and educated as this one is relatively in the dark about this stuff.
I'm surprised that you are so naive about what being "science-minded" on this issue means. There is so much variation in human physiology and digestive tract composition that a universal "healthy" diet is probably even more backwards of a notion than the USDA recommendations. What will be best for you to eat needs to be determined by your experiments with various different diets and will depend on how much you exercise and many other factors. Until we understand more about the bacteria that live in our body and how we interact with them, "science" is not going to be any better than folk wisdom. There is nothing wrong with eating the foods that have proven to work over 100,000+ years of human society.
I see several themes in the advice on this thread - don't eat too much, eat whole foods, and drink water. I have to say that this is probably the most scientific advice you will find.
I see several themes in the advice on this thread - don't eat too much, eat whole foods, and drink water. I have to say that this is probably the most scientific advice you will find.
No need to be disingenuous. You don't know me from Adam, so your surprise is just rhetorical. Mine was genuine and aimed at getting additional responses, maybe responses more in line with the intent of the OP.
In adjacent sentences, you say that there are no probably no universals, science can tell us nothing, but that we have certain foods that are proven to work.
Yes, there are common themes in this thread, and that can be useful sometimes. But there were common themes in popular opinion about flat earth, Adam's ribs, and the four humors as well.
Again, without the context provided by an expert, things that are factually incorrect can seem incredibly persuasive.
In adjacent sentences, you say that there are no probably no universals, science can tell us nothing, but that we have certain foods that are proven to work.
Yes, there are common themes in this thread, and that can be useful sometimes. But there were common themes in popular opinion about flat earth, Adam's ribs, and the four humors as well.
Again, without the context provided by an expert, things that are factually incorrect can seem incredibly persuasive.
Look - I think that my sparse history of commenting on HN says more than I can express here about my stance on flame wars. I don't want to start one.
But this whole food issue is something that I feel quite strongly about. My surprise is hardly rhetorical, and while I may have treated you as a straw man for a moment, I think that the larger point is still valid. The attempt to get scientific about eating strikes me as the problem, and I think that my post was a response in line with the OP in that sense. What I am trying to tell you is that I have been in your shoes; I have read all the books about diet; and I think that asking for more books is not going to give you the answers that you need.
Your anxiety is not caused by a lack of data - it is caused by an unhealthy reliance on outside opinion for your mental stability. Nobody who is writing the books knows enough to give you the answers that you want. Don't rely too much on scientists and experts. The scientists invented the HFCS that is giving us all diabetes and lay people in the 1400's didn't think that the earth was flat - the "experts" did. I am not asking you to rely on common themes or popular opinion - I am asking you to do some experiments and gather data - try eating different foods and see what makes you feel best. Don't ask a scientist what to do - become one.
But this whole food issue is something that I feel quite strongly about. My surprise is hardly rhetorical, and while I may have treated you as a straw man for a moment, I think that the larger point is still valid. The attempt to get scientific about eating strikes me as the problem, and I think that my post was a response in line with the OP in that sense. What I am trying to tell you is that I have been in your shoes; I have read all the books about diet; and I think that asking for more books is not going to give you the answers that you need.
Your anxiety is not caused by a lack of data - it is caused by an unhealthy reliance on outside opinion for your mental stability. Nobody who is writing the books knows enough to give you the answers that you want. Don't rely too much on scientists and experts. The scientists invented the HFCS that is giving us all diabetes and lay people in the 1400's didn't think that the earth was flat - the "experts" did. I am not asking you to rely on common themes or popular opinion - I am asking you to do some experiments and gather data - try eating different foods and see what makes you feel best. Don't ask a scientist what to do - become one.
Your strong feelings are evident. Thanks for taking the time to share your viewpoint.
I disagree with much of what you say, but I want to let you know that I did read it. Beyond that, we'll agree to disagree.
I disagree with much of what you say, but I want to let you know that I did read it. Beyond that, we'll agree to disagree.
Thanks. And while I am still thinking about it - you might be interested in reading about Linus Pauling's take on nutrition and health. Something like this book: http://www.worldcat.org/title/vitamin-c-and-the-common-cold/....
Why is this getting downvoted?
Read my original post, read the responses. It's not that I'm not appreciative that people are trying. I'm genuinely surprised that answers of the sort I was looking for seem to be lacking.
Read my original post, read the responses. It's not that I'm not appreciative that people are trying. I'm genuinely surprised that answers of the sort I was looking for seem to be lacking.
This is the one I am following, and it's quite the opposite to the USDA recommendations:
* The Paleo Diet ( http://amzn.com/0471267554 )
I don't know if that's the type of book you were looking for, but the authors' arguments and conclusions are based on their own scientific research.
I don't know if that's the type of book you were looking for, but the authors' arguments and conclusions are based on their own scientific research.
Yes. This intro (and the whole site) gives a good overview of what a Primal diet entails:
http://www.marksdailyapple.com/definitive-guide-to-the-prima...
The best answer I can give you is to spend some time on http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ -- Stephan's own diet (which you can divine with a little reading) is based on his survey of food science. He provides references for everything. The closest thing you'll find to a "diet" is a list of real foods:
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/real%20fo...
Good luck.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/search/label/real%20fo...
Good luck.
Cool. Thank you. Another good answer.
I have been in your situation on many occasions. I have gone vegetarian, vegan, omnivore, whatever you want to call it I have been there. It is a questions that can never be finitely answered. Everyone is different and the human body adapts to what it is given. (An eskimo community in Wales eats 90% fat)
The most rewarding diet(I hate the term diet because it ensures only short-term gain) that I have found is the Paleo Diet. http://paleodiet.com/ (horrible website I know)
Pretty much you just eat what you would expect to find hundreds of years ago.
Dean Karnazes(One of the best Ultra-Marathoners) swares by this diet. Here is a PDF of his daily diet plan. http://cl.ly/26c8cffdcda16a8dd212
I pretty much follow that regular plan, I do also run marathons, but it is definitely worth following in a normal phyical environment.
I would also reccomend the green smoothie. 7:3 fruit:greens ratio.
Usual Ingredients:
Strawberries Banana Water (Ice if you want it thicker) Greens
As you continue to get more accustomed to greens you can up the ratio. I LOVE it.
Best of luck to you man. Don't let my opinion deter you from others. Although I would NEVER follow Gary Taubes. He is also the guy who questions exercise. That's just insane.
On that note. It is important to exercise. Start small, and do an activity that you know you would enjoy.
The most rewarding diet(I hate the term diet because it ensures only short-term gain) that I have found is the Paleo Diet. http://paleodiet.com/ (horrible website I know)
Pretty much you just eat what you would expect to find hundreds of years ago.
Dean Karnazes(One of the best Ultra-Marathoners) swares by this diet. Here is a PDF of his daily diet plan. http://cl.ly/26c8cffdcda16a8dd212
I pretty much follow that regular plan, I do also run marathons, but it is definitely worth following in a normal phyical environment.
I would also reccomend the green smoothie. 7:3 fruit:greens ratio.
Usual Ingredients:
Strawberries Banana Water (Ice if you want it thicker) Greens
As you continue to get more accustomed to greens you can up the ratio. I LOVE it.
Best of luck to you man. Don't let my opinion deter you from others. Although I would NEVER follow Gary Taubes. He is also the guy who questions exercise. That's just insane.
On that note. It is important to exercise. Start small, and do an activity that you know you would enjoy.
In layman terms: The body requires ATP for power, it is the rawest energy base unit for your body and is produced from Carbohydrate.
Your body is a machine built for changing fat into carbohydrate and then into ATP.
If you give your body too much carbohydrate it takes what it needs and converts the rest into fat. The fat you eat is already fat, so it just stores that too because it has already taken the raw carbohydrate it needs.
If you reduce your carbohydrate intake and eat more protein and fat (read "red meat" but also chicken, pork, non root vegetables et cetera) then your body will stop being lazy and start doing what it did for thousands of years before we invented preservatives and microwaves and cocacola and take that fat and make it into carbohydrate.
If you give your body less carbohydrate then you are doing it a massive favour.
That said, everyone is as genetically different as they are similar, so what works for some people wont work for others. For instance, Doctors are currently researching a hormone that comes from your bowls that tells you that you need carbohydrates, like all hormones they can over produce and make you crave them even if you aren't hungry, and they are working on a blocker which will help the super obese and probably reduce the need for any gastric band surgery.
Your body is a machine built for changing fat into carbohydrate and then into ATP.
If you give your body too much carbohydrate it takes what it needs and converts the rest into fat. The fat you eat is already fat, so it just stores that too because it has already taken the raw carbohydrate it needs.
If you reduce your carbohydrate intake and eat more protein and fat (read "red meat" but also chicken, pork, non root vegetables et cetera) then your body will stop being lazy and start doing what it did for thousands of years before we invented preservatives and microwaves and cocacola and take that fat and make it into carbohydrate.
If you give your body less carbohydrate then you are doing it a massive favour.
That said, everyone is as genetically different as they are similar, so what works for some people wont work for others. For instance, Doctors are currently researching a hormone that comes from your bowls that tells you that you need carbohydrates, like all hormones they can over produce and make you crave them even if you aren't hungry, and they are working on a blocker which will help the super obese and probably reduce the need for any gastric band surgery.
The difficult thing is that it depends completely on the person.
Some might thrive on meat and vegetables while bread and wheat makes them lose energy. Some really need the grain and the crops and meat makes them feel ill. Some need something in between and some people balance themselves on a totally different axis. Moreover, anything you crave for is probably bad for you at that time.
Eating vegetables seems pretty universal. I've never heard of a person who couldn't eat vegetables, sans extreme cases of sensitivy or allergies with regard to specific produce. So, start with vegetables and add what you feel like.
Personally, I buy fresh ingredients and cook most of my own food. Organic, if available. Very little bread and if so, it's 100% rye: this one is easy in Finland. No processed foods unless I'm enjoying the occasion of eating out and can't really control where the stuff originally comes from.
Some might thrive on meat and vegetables while bread and wheat makes them lose energy. Some really need the grain and the crops and meat makes them feel ill. Some need something in between and some people balance themselves on a totally different axis. Moreover, anything you crave for is probably bad for you at that time.
Eating vegetables seems pretty universal. I've never heard of a person who couldn't eat vegetables, sans extreme cases of sensitivy or allergies with regard to specific produce. So, start with vegetables and add what you feel like.
Personally, I buy fresh ingredients and cook most of my own food. Organic, if available. Very little bread and if so, it's 100% rye: this one is easy in Finland. No processed foods unless I'm enjoying the occasion of eating out and can't really control where the stuff originally comes from.
As a number of other people have pointed out, the prevailing opinion on what is good and what is bad changes regularly. I'm inclined to go with Michael Pollan's advice of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." as a good place to start. Skip most processed foods (ie, anything in packaging). Also pass on refined sugars (HFCS, etc). Drink lots of water instead of soda. Eat fresh fruit, vegetables, lean meats, eggs, etc. If you live in an area with a farmer's market, take advantage of it. Learning to prepare food for yourself is very rewarding.
Yeah, that's sort of how I've been leaning as well, but Taubes's book tosses a wrench in Pollan's indictment of animal proteins for me.
It would be nice to see direct treatment of each of these approaches by someone with expertise.
It would be nice to see direct treatment of each of these approaches by someone with expertise.
I guess this is getting downvoted for being frivolous, but I think it's actually relevant (as well as pretty funny). Cooking for yourself is a lot healthier than always eating restaurant food, ready meals or takeaway. Of course you have to cook balanced, healthy dishes; the linked site seems to link mostly to such dishes.
Actually it mostly seems to link to "Sorry
There has been an error processing your request. We apologize for the inconvenience. Please try again later."
Could just be recipe.com though...
Could just be recipe.com though...
Start by trying to identify some foods that are clearly good for you and increase how much you eat them. EX, oatmeal - fantastic food, almost universally agreed to be healthy, and has no real potential downsides. Then find foods that are clearly bad for you and decrease how much you eat them. EX, Coca-Cola - pretty much no micronutritional value, all you're getting is sugars and bad stuff.
That's the way forwards. There's some disagreement on certain places, but definitely increase clearly good foods while reducing clearly bad foods, and that'll be a good start.
That's the way forwards. There's some disagreement on certain places, but definitely increase clearly good foods while reducing clearly bad foods, and that'll be a good start.
I would just like to point out that oatmeal has a glycemic index of about 50 (out of 100). That's for plain oatmeal with nothing added, not the instant stuff or the sugar laden version most people end up with.
Ah yes, use whole oatmeal instead of instant oatmeal - it actually doesn't take much longer to cook. Definitely stay away from the sugary junk.
The real advantage to oatmeal is that the fiber is quite high - this has many advantages, a big one being that you'll feel full and satisfied for the first part of the day. Also, 300 calories of oatmeal is 56 grams of carbohydrates, but only 1 gram of sugar [1]. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think oatmeal is pretty much all glucose-based carbs and fiber, which is the healthier form of carbohydrate. (Fructose/sucrose/sugars being the worse form)
[1] http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/breakfast-cereals/1597/2
The real advantage to oatmeal is that the fiber is quite high - this has many advantages, a big one being that you'll feel full and satisfied for the first part of the day. Also, 300 calories of oatmeal is 56 grams of carbohydrates, but only 1 gram of sugar [1]. Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think oatmeal is pretty much all glucose-based carbs and fiber, which is the healthier form of carbohydrate. (Fructose/sucrose/sugars being the worse form)
[1] http://nutritiondata.self.com/facts/breakfast-cereals/1597/2
The ratio of fiber/sugar is high, but by any other index(fiber/total carbs or fiber/calories) it's terrible. (doesn't stop me from having it on rare occasions though)
A complete picture of the benefits and drawbacks of oatmeal, like any other food, has to acknowledge that:
-It's carb-heavy -The carbs are from grain and thus glutenous -Total nutrition is low(compared to say, an avocado)
A complete picture of the benefits and drawbacks of oatmeal, like any other food, has to acknowledge that:
-It's carb-heavy -The carbs are from grain and thus glutenous -Total nutrition is low(compared to say, an avocado)
(I.A.NOT.A.Dietician/Nutritionalist, so more lay/anecdotal/armchair discussion follows)
I've had the same problems in trying to sort out truth and nonsense, so I just try to maintain an elementary understanding of the basic components of our diets and experiment. List the fundamentals of human nutrition and spend a day on wikipedia taking notes on what we do know. My rules:
1. Know my calorie requirements. How many to maintain current weight, to lose weight, to gain weight?
2. Pay attention to calorie ratios - Protein/Carbs/Fats. Am I working out this week? Anaerobic or aerobic? Do I have extra energy stores right now? What am I burning and what am I storing?
3. Protein quality & diversity of protein sources. Highly bio-available proteins? Simple or complex carbs, high or low GI? Saturated, mono-, or poly-unsaturated fats? No trans fat.
4. Vitamins and minerals. Where are the major gaps in my diet?
5. As little processed food as possible.
There's plenty of information out there on these things. Do your own research. Every week learn exactly what is in one particular food. See what works for you, then eat what you're knowledgeable about and what makes you feel right.
I've had the same problems in trying to sort out truth and nonsense, so I just try to maintain an elementary understanding of the basic components of our diets and experiment. List the fundamentals of human nutrition and spend a day on wikipedia taking notes on what we do know. My rules:
1. Know my calorie requirements. How many to maintain current weight, to lose weight, to gain weight?
2. Pay attention to calorie ratios - Protein/Carbs/Fats. Am I working out this week? Anaerobic or aerobic? Do I have extra energy stores right now? What am I burning and what am I storing?
3. Protein quality & diversity of protein sources. Highly bio-available proteins? Simple or complex carbs, high or low GI? Saturated, mono-, or poly-unsaturated fats? No trans fat.
4. Vitamins and minerals. Where are the major gaps in my diet?
5. As little processed food as possible.
There's plenty of information out there on these things. Do your own research. Every week learn exactly what is in one particular food. See what works for you, then eat what you're knowledgeable about and what makes you feel right.
Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.
[deleted]
Easy.
Eat food that our bodies (as hunters and gatherers) are designed to consume.
- no processed/fast/junk food
- no soft drinks, etc
- food that has low-gi carbs (quinoa, buckwheat, whole grains) to prevent insulin spikes, etc. Insulin spike is fine after a heavy workout.
- food heavy in fiber (such as whole grain food above)
- my typical meal: side of veggies, quinoa and wild salmon
Do a month where you only drink water. I typically don't drink anything except water or tea (green, etc).
I used to weight lift, so I researched heavily what kind of food I should be consuming.
Sugar is pretty much your enemy due its insulin spikes and glycogen storage. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is evil.
Eat food that our bodies (as hunters and gatherers) are designed to consume.
- no processed/fast/junk food
- no soft drinks, etc
- food that has low-gi carbs (quinoa, buckwheat, whole grains) to prevent insulin spikes, etc. Insulin spike is fine after a heavy workout.
- food heavy in fiber (such as whole grain food above)
- my typical meal: side of veggies, quinoa and wild salmon
Do a month where you only drink water. I typically don't drink anything except water or tea (green, etc).
I used to weight lift, so I researched heavily what kind of food I should be consuming.
Sugar is pretty much your enemy due its insulin spikes and glycogen storage. High fructose corn syrup (HFCS) is evil.
This idea of 'designed to consume' is ridiculous. We are omnivores, anything that doesn't kill us on the spot is fair game.
Healthy is a different issue, but as omnivores we are 'designed' to eat anything we can.
Healthy is a different issue, but as omnivores we are 'designed' to eat anything we can.
Our bodies are extremely resilient and can take a beating from crappy foods. That's why such food 'does not kill us on the spot'.
That's the justification. If that suits you, that's fine--it's your health.
We are NOT designed to eat french fries made from genetically modified potatoes.
We are NOT designed to consume soft drinks made from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
Etc Etc
That stuff is not natural. Not for omnivores, herbivores, carnivores or any other living organism.
That's the justification. If that suits you, that's fine--it's your health.
We are NOT designed to eat french fries made from genetically modified potatoes.
We are NOT designed to consume soft drinks made from high fructose corn syrup (HFCS).
Etc Etc
That stuff is not natural. Not for omnivores, herbivores, carnivores or any other living organism.
Of course we aren't designed to digest French fries and soft drinks. But to say that, simply because our bodies were not created with the preconceived notion of digesting them, we should not eat them, is silly.
I'm not saying we should eat them, but 'because we weren't designed to' is not a relevant point. We sure as heck weren't intended to eat potatoes or wheat either (rather impossible to eat without cooking, which hasn't been around forever), and they leave the diet a little deficient, yet the Irish sure did survive on them, and most of Europe built up on wheat. Would you condemn them as fools for eating something that wasn't tailor made for their stomachs? I applaud them for surviving and growing where food didn't previously exist.
French fries and soft drinks are terrible food, but the idea that there are some small collection of 'right foods' that we existed especially designed to eat is simply silly. The only time that sort of 'right food' idea is relevant, is with some animals that can only get a given nutrient one way, or animals that can only successfully hunt one type of prey.
I'm not saying we should eat them, but 'because we weren't designed to' is not a relevant point. We sure as heck weren't intended to eat potatoes or wheat either (rather impossible to eat without cooking, which hasn't been around forever), and they leave the diet a little deficient, yet the Irish sure did survive on them, and most of Europe built up on wheat. Would you condemn them as fools for eating something that wasn't tailor made for their stomachs? I applaud them for surviving and growing where food didn't previously exist.
French fries and soft drinks are terrible food, but the idea that there are some small collection of 'right foods' that we existed especially designed to eat is simply silly. The only time that sort of 'right food' idea is relevant, is with some animals that can only get a given nutrient one way, or animals that can only successfully hunt one type of prey.
I've generally adhered to a "paleolithic diet" this year and have seen a steady improvement in my health. Meat, eggs, fish, vegetables.
More recently I've become wary of gluten, particularly its harmful effects on the gut and on the Thyroid.
I found this article very enlightening: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-gluten-thyroid-connection
I'm now avoiding gluten altogether and plan to stay this way for several months. So far the results are positive.
More recently I've become wary of gluten, particularly its harmful effects on the gut and on the Thyroid.
I found this article very enlightening: http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-gluten-thyroid-connection
I'm now avoiding gluten altogether and plan to stay this way for several months. So far the results are positive.
Mark Bittman, food writer at NYT strikes a balance between food hyperbole and science that appeals to me. (e.g. full appreciation of health, weight, environment, pleasure trade-offs)
His personal goal of "vegan until 6" is an example. Veggies & fruit during the day, then a balanced dinner with protein.
A bit more detail and links to his sources (books): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/article967801.ece
His personal goal of "vegan until 6" is an example. Veggies & fruit during the day, then a balanced dinner with protein.
A bit more detail and links to his sources (books): http://www.theglobeandmail.com/books/article967801.ece
My personal first "contextualisation" about the food industry was a book called "A Diet for a Small Planet" (the reedition, not the original one). I liked it because it was the first time I saw some data and graphs about how and why (hint: profit) our food production is plain wrong.
Now, I try to be as cheap and sane as I can, mostly by cooking more stuff myself and eating more vegetables (non-industrial whenever possible).
Now, I try to be as cheap and sane as I can, mostly by cooking more stuff myself and eating more vegetables (non-industrial whenever possible).
My take:
Nutrition is probably only about 20% of the picture. You should be exercising, meditating, stretching, sleeping well, etc.
Humans can survive on all sorts of different foods. I think the optimal diet contains lots of fresh whole fruit and veggies, kale, and a bit of meat and fish.
Listen to your body. Does a food make you feel sluggish? Drugged? Energized? Strong?
Nutrition is probably only about 20% of the picture. You should be exercising, meditating, stretching, sleeping well, etc.
Humans can survive on all sorts of different foods. I think the optimal diet contains lots of fresh whole fruit and veggies, kale, and a bit of meat and fish.
Listen to your body. Does a food make you feel sluggish? Drugged? Energized? Strong?
I recommend Eat Drink and Be Healthy for credible advice grounded in scientific research http://www.amazon.com/Eat-Drink-Be-Healthy-Harvard/dp/068486...
Thanks, Alex. Yours is one of the few answers in the entire thread that attempts to give me what I'm looking for.
Do you know of any other resources that more directly address the criticisms of nutritional science set forth by Taubes and Pollan?
Do you know of any other resources that more directly address the criticisms of nutritional science set forth by Taubes and Pollan?
No I'm afraid I haven't read either of those books. On a more general level I recommend reading Bad Science and Trick or Treatment. They'll equip you with the tools to form your own opinion on health issues.
Thank you.
There are some interesting articles here:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=207
The author of the linked article, "What's for Dinner" favours Pollan's approach.
The author of the linked article, "What's for Dinner" favours Pollan's approach.
I'd go with Pollan, as "In Defense of Food" contains extensive cites to sources (including a lot of peer reviewed science journals) so you can check for yourself if he's giving good information.
This doesn't need to be hard or confusing. Let's start with the basics -
* It needs to be tasty and satisfying, or you won't stick with it. Don't start with some extreme diet: e.g. "only raw food", "only stuff grown within 20 yards of your house", "No X where x is some macronutrient".
* Set a goal of eating zero processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't eat it. If it comes in a can and it isn't just preserved, pure veggies (e.g., canned tomatoes) or fish (e.g., sardines), don't eat it. What can be done in a typical kitchen is about the max amount of processing you should regularly tolerate.
Very few will argue with the above points, unless they have some sort of agenda or ideology beyond just eating well. If that's all you do, you'll be eating more healthily than the vast majority of Americans. You'll probably feel better.
If you want to go further, you can:
* If you're going to eat animals, stick to animals that eat a diet for which they've evolved. i.e., prefer grass-fed beef to corn-fed.
* Prefer a variety of plants, and prefer plants that have been raised without chemical fertilizers or insecticides. We don't have enough data to know, but it seems likely that plants have evolved all sorts of chemicals to protect themselves from their environment that may also help protect us from their environment.
The theme of the above two points is- "let's not fuck with the diet that kept humans alive since the development of agriculture and cooking. Let's let other poor saps be the experimental subjects"
I also prefer to do things whose benefits are less obvious, such as eating very little meat. That's likely healthy, but I do it more to be a decent neighbor.
That's my reasoning, and how I eat. Changing to eat that way was surprisingly easy and enjoyable, and I no longer feel like I need to change my diet. I physically feel better: fewer headaches, better sleep, more energy, better "digestion". When I started eating that way, I dropped 10 pounds without trying (I wasn't overweight to begin with, and I'm not underweight now).
Here are the downsides - I expect them to apply to any reasonable diet:
* It's more expensive.
* It's more time-consuming. I cook more. I enjoy it, but it is less convenient.
* It's a challenge to not come across as a snob, especially when around less urban folks. I most frequently compromise on my diet when with family members.
* It's hard to eat that way outside of real cities. Produce at major supermarkets is frequently awful. Chain restaurants sell preprocessed garbage.
* It needs to be tasty and satisfying, or you won't stick with it. Don't start with some extreme diet: e.g. "only raw food", "only stuff grown within 20 yards of your house", "No X where x is some macronutrient".
* Set a goal of eating zero processed foods. If it comes in a box, don't eat it. If it comes in a can and it isn't just preserved, pure veggies (e.g., canned tomatoes) or fish (e.g., sardines), don't eat it. What can be done in a typical kitchen is about the max amount of processing you should regularly tolerate.
Very few will argue with the above points, unless they have some sort of agenda or ideology beyond just eating well. If that's all you do, you'll be eating more healthily than the vast majority of Americans. You'll probably feel better.
If you want to go further, you can:
* If you're going to eat animals, stick to animals that eat a diet for which they've evolved. i.e., prefer grass-fed beef to corn-fed.
* Prefer a variety of plants, and prefer plants that have been raised without chemical fertilizers or insecticides. We don't have enough data to know, but it seems likely that plants have evolved all sorts of chemicals to protect themselves from their environment that may also help protect us from their environment.
The theme of the above two points is- "let's not fuck with the diet that kept humans alive since the development of agriculture and cooking. Let's let other poor saps be the experimental subjects"
I also prefer to do things whose benefits are less obvious, such as eating very little meat. That's likely healthy, but I do it more to be a decent neighbor.
That's my reasoning, and how I eat. Changing to eat that way was surprisingly easy and enjoyable, and I no longer feel like I need to change my diet. I physically feel better: fewer headaches, better sleep, more energy, better "digestion". When I started eating that way, I dropped 10 pounds without trying (I wasn't overweight to begin with, and I'm not underweight now).
Here are the downsides - I expect them to apply to any reasonable diet:
* It's more expensive.
* It's more time-consuming. I cook more. I enjoy it, but it is less convenient.
* It's a challenge to not come across as a snob, especially when around less urban folks. I most frequently compromise on my diet when with family members.
* It's hard to eat that way outside of real cities. Produce at major supermarkets is frequently awful. Chain restaurants sell preprocessed garbage.
Canned food is heated or cooked in the can and its plastic lining subsequently leaks into the food.
Here's my diet which works very well for me:
- I prefer fish to meat
- I almost never eat red meat,
- I organize my meals to eat fish/meat only once a day - Lots of vegetables and fruits
- No desert, no cakes, no sweetie, no ice cream, no soda, no sugar (by "no" I mean on very rare occasions)
- Very little dairy products, especially no cheese at all. Milk is ok.
- No butter, ever would it be directly or indirectly
- No alcohol
- Avoid processed food
- Little or no bread
You need to understand there's no universally good diet, depending on the individual some diet work well and some don't. What matters is to eat different stuff and of good quality.
- I prefer fish to meat
- I almost never eat red meat,
- I organize my meals to eat fish/meat only once a day - Lots of vegetables and fruits
- No desert, no cakes, no sweetie, no ice cream, no soda, no sugar (by "no" I mean on very rare occasions)
- Very little dairy products, especially no cheese at all. Milk is ok.
- No butter, ever would it be directly or indirectly
- No alcohol
- Avoid processed food
- Little or no bread
You need to understand there's no universally good diet, depending on the individual some diet work well and some don't. What matters is to eat different stuff and of good quality.
What do you mean by "it works very well for me"? It hasn't killed you yet?
When I eat bad for a while, I feel unenergetic, I get sporadic bowel cramps and headaches. When I eat consistenly healthy for a period, I really feel it. Maybe he means that?
I'm addicted to refined carbs and caffeine and junk food, so when I don't eat those for a while, I feel pretty awful.
How things feel doesn't always give you the best guidance, especially if you're not good at tracking those things accurately.
How things feel doesn't always give you the best guidance, especially if you're not good at tracking those things accurately.
Excellent health, sleep and blood tests.
> I prefer fish to meat
As much as I like fish, and though it is in general good for you, commercial fishing is emptying our oceans at an alarming and unsustainable rate. If humans keep fishing at the current rate, we'll have emptied the oceans of fish by some time in the later half of this century. We'll be left with jellyfish, worms and krill as our only seafood.
Do you want your grandchildren to eat fish? Only buy sustainably sourced seafood!
See the documentary "The end of the line" for evidence and info: http://endoftheline.com/
As much as I like fish, and though it is in general good for you, commercial fishing is emptying our oceans at an alarming and unsustainable rate. If humans keep fishing at the current rate, we'll have emptied the oceans of fish by some time in the later half of this century. We'll be left with jellyfish, worms and krill as our only seafood.
Do you want your grandchildren to eat fish? Only buy sustainably sourced seafood!
See the documentary "The end of the line" for evidence and info: http://endoftheline.com/
Where does sustainable start? I was looking into farm raised fish today and it seems they cause problems for wild populations, AND are worse for you. One example I read was about farm raised salmon having almost no Omega-3 and lots of Omega-6.
You might want to check out Monterey Bay Aquarium Seafood Watch program for guidance. They have both small cards fold up guides you can keep with you or an iphone app that gives recommendations on the type of seafood that can be eaten sustainably and which ones you should avoid.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/SeafoodWatch/web/sfw_i...
Most fish eat smaller fish. So farmed fish are fed fishfood which is made from caught wild fish. It takes something like 5kg of anchovies to make 1kg of farmed salmon.
Sustainable fishing means taking less from the sea, adhering to quotas, not continuing to catch species at risk, and setting up sanctuaries where fish stocks can replenish.
Sustainable fishing means taking less from the sea, adhering to quotas, not continuing to catch species at risk, and setting up sanctuaries where fish stocks can replenish.
My friend, the problem is not that we eat too much fish, but that we are just too many.
If you want to leave a beautiful Earth to your grandchildren you must not have children.
If you want to leave a beautiful Earth to your grandchildren you must not have children.
The USDA recommendations are almost universally considered wrong, perhaps even exactly backwards.
I'm not familiar with the USDA recommendations, but from quickly looking at them[1] I can't see what would be so wrong.
[1] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm
I'm not familiar with the USDA recommendations, but from quickly looking at them[1] I can't see what would be so wrong.
[1] http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dietaryguidelines.htm
[deleted]
I try to restrict my intake of junk food. Apart from that, I believe a -healthy- human body is capable of working well on all kinds of food.
I figure if you eat things that's been around for thousands of years you'll probably be OK.
It seems that everyone agrees on:
- Lots of fruit and vegetables
- Legumes
- Fish twice a week or more
- Red meat but not for every meal
- Avoid highly processed foods
- Avoid dairy products
There doesn't seem to be any consensus on wheat products. Rice seems fine, and potatoes too if you don't deep-fry them.
Of course nobody knows for sure what the optimal diet is, and I guess 'optimal' is also going to depend on your DNA and the specific mix of bacteria you have in your gut right now.
Your body requires loads of different nutrients to live but many of them can be synthesized in your body using other nutrients if need be. If you really want the optimal nutrient mix you could always try cannibalism. Human flesh, by definition, has the exact mix of amino acids and other nutrients your body needs. Not sure if you should be cooking your human flesh or not though.
It seems that everyone agrees on:
- Lots of fruit and vegetables
- Legumes
- Fish twice a week or more
- Red meat but not for every meal
- Avoid highly processed foods
- Avoid dairy products
There doesn't seem to be any consensus on wheat products. Rice seems fine, and potatoes too if you don't deep-fry them.
Of course nobody knows for sure what the optimal diet is, and I guess 'optimal' is also going to depend on your DNA and the specific mix of bacteria you have in your gut right now.
Your body requires loads of different nutrients to live but many of them can be synthesized in your body using other nutrients if need be. If you really want the optimal nutrient mix you could always try cannibalism. Human flesh, by definition, has the exact mix of amino acids and other nutrients your body needs. Not sure if you should be cooking your human flesh or not though.
Avoid dairy products is not something everyone agrees on.
My body sure agrees on avoiding dairy. I suppose I'm mildly lactose intolerant, but once I stopped eating dairy I started feeling a lot better. Less gas if nothing else.
Anecdotal for sure but most of the people I know who take diet seriously agree that dairy is bad.
I also believe the saying that humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy.
Anecdotal for sure but most of the people I know who take diet seriously agree that dairy is bad.
I also believe the saying that humans are the only animals that drink milk after infancy.
We're also one of the few animals to actually prepare our food, too. Does that mean we shouldn't do it?
Cooking just denatures the proteins. It doesn't change that much. And highly processed food is indeed worse than fresh food.
Some anthropologists think cooking changes everything--that the invention of cooking was a vital step in human evolution: http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/culture-society/articles/i...
Fermented dairy products, e.g. yogurt, kefir, are usually fine even if you're lactose intolerant. They're also high in protein and help maintain healthy intestinal flora.
Some cows quite successfully milk themselves.
Not 'everyone' agrees but most experts seem to.
Bigger problem with the cannibalism: so much of the human livestock around would be poorly fed. Just as corn-fed cattle are less healthy than their grass fed brethren, so too would the many unhealthy humans around provide for poor meals, I think.
Kurt Harris does a great job breaking it down.
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Taubes. His main message is more that carbohydrates are bad, and saturated fat is good.
http://www.paleonu.com/get-started/
I think you're somewhat misrepresenting Taubes. His main message is more that carbohydrates are bad, and saturated fat is good.
Fruit is delicious and digestible in its natural state. It attracts us with its appearance and smell. It has incredible amounts of sugar and nutrients. We should eat mangos and the like.
One very scientific book you can read is The China Study.
One very scientific book you can read is The China Study.
I personally believe we should be eating raw food. (plant based foods etc) and not meat, although I still do :|
Some great points are:
+ Look at our teeth, they are made for eating plants/veggies and not meat, unlike lions etc.
+ Cooked foods kill the nutrients, unlike eating raw organic food.
+ Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant based foods, compared to a meat eating anmial like a lion, they have a short digestive tract, so they can process raw meat quickly.
+ Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol.
Get this movie and watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmV8b1wr10
Some great points are:
+ Look at our teeth, they are made for eating plants/veggies and not meat, unlike lions etc.
+ Cooked foods kill the nutrients, unlike eating raw organic food.
+ Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant based foods, compared to a meat eating anmial like a lion, they have a short digestive tract, so they can process raw meat quickly.
+ Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol.
Get this movie and watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZmV8b1wr10
This is incorrect and naive. Our teeth evolved to eat a wide verity of things, molars to chew plants, and incisors and canines to rip meat. Look at the diet of chimps, they eat whatever they can get their hands on, meat included.
"Cooked foods are bad" is a crock. You can over cook foods, and maybe cooking some foods is bad, but cooking increases the nutritional value of many foods. Processing makes more nutrients available to the body. Humans don't have a super efficient digestive system (despite your claims otherwise) and cooking is one way to pre-digest. Besides the fact that cooking kills off critters so you don't have to.
Meat might be the only source of cholesterol, but so what? Cholesterol doesn't enter the body as cholesterol, it's broken down into fatty acid and glycerol, the liver puts it back together later. You can be vegetarian and have high/bad cholesterol. What you eat is only one part of the cholesterol story.
This "all food should be raw" crap is just reactionary, anti-science ludditeism, as are parts of the "organic" movement, specifically the no GMO part.
"Cooked foods are bad" is a crock. You can over cook foods, and maybe cooking some foods is bad, but cooking increases the nutritional value of many foods. Processing makes more nutrients available to the body. Humans don't have a super efficient digestive system (despite your claims otherwise) and cooking is one way to pre-digest. Besides the fact that cooking kills off critters so you don't have to.
Meat might be the only source of cholesterol, but so what? Cholesterol doesn't enter the body as cholesterol, it's broken down into fatty acid and glycerol, the liver puts it back together later. You can be vegetarian and have high/bad cholesterol. What you eat is only one part of the cholesterol story.
This "all food should be raw" crap is just reactionary, anti-science ludditeism, as are parts of the "organic" movement, specifically the no GMO part.
"specifically the no GMO part"
That's a huge unscientific leap to say that. We don't know GMO is safe. And it's certainly not logical to say that concerns about them are crap.
That's a huge unscientific leap to say that. We don't know GMO is safe. And it's certainly not logical to say that concerns about them are crap.
We've been modifying and breeding plants and animals for thousands of years. All that's happening now is the process is speeding up. We know that sometimes it doesn't work (see Banana's), but in general things get better.
Better == What we optimize for. Which lately has unfortunately been appearance and shelf life, not taste and nutrients.
Better == What we optimize for. Which lately has unfortunately been appearance and shelf life, not taste and nutrients.
Whats more unscientific; genetics are scary and we should never intentionally modify genes for our benefit, or lets investigate what can be done with this new tool? I'd say that investigation and experimentation would be the scientific thing to do.
Sure experimentation is great, but they're doing it on people. Those food aren't even labeled as such in the markets in the US and the effect they are having on agriculture is enormously problematic. e.g. Monstanto suing farmers. And how do they modify those organism? With radiation. This is not your father's brand of genetics.
> Processing makes more nutrients available to the body.
This is certainly true, but it's just as important that processing eliminates toxins. Despite the moaning you hear about processed food, a major problem is that our modern diet is under-processed.
There are many foods that used to universally be soaked & aged, sprouted, fermented, or treated with lye, or a combination of these steps, in order to eliminate anti-nutrients and allergens. This is rarely done on the modern industrial scale for reasons of cost. Modern flour is not the same thing as people were eating 150 years ago. The native americans always treated corn with lye. The settlers didn't and consequently got pellagra, and we continue to eat untreated corn.
Read Stephan Guyenet and the Weston Price Foundation have literature on various traditional processing steps and chemically what they were achieving.
This is certainly true, but it's just as important that processing eliminates toxins. Despite the moaning you hear about processed food, a major problem is that our modern diet is under-processed.
There are many foods that used to universally be soaked & aged, sprouted, fermented, or treated with lye, or a combination of these steps, in order to eliminate anti-nutrients and allergens. This is rarely done on the modern industrial scale for reasons of cost. Modern flour is not the same thing as people were eating 150 years ago. The native americans always treated corn with lye. The settlers didn't and consequently got pellagra, and we continue to eat untreated corn.
Read Stephan Guyenet and the Weston Price Foundation have literature on various traditional processing steps and chemically what they were achieving.
Lions are carnivores, their teeth are specifically targetted at tearing and eating meat, which is why they have large incisors. Cows are herbivors, their teeth are flat, and have no incisors at all.
Humans have a combination of the two, and also the rest of our digestive system is also built to makes us omnivores.
Humans have a combination of the two, and also the rest of our digestive system is also built to makes us omnivores.
This is a ridiculous point because for over two million years human related hominids have been using stone tools to kill and butcher meat.
Humans have massive predator fangs that look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Bifaz_de_...
Humans have massive predator fangs that look like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7d/Bifaz_de_...
Teeth serve two purposes- catching and chewing/ripping/tearing.
Long fangs are for catching. Cats don't really chew food, nor do snakes. Both rely on their teeth to stab and hold prey, which is why they are sharp like needles.
Our cutting teeth are for slicing and chewing- in other words, processing the meat after it's been caught. The 'massive predator fangs' take care of catching it, but have you ever eaten meat without biting off a piece, ONLY cutting it up into little bits and chewing it? There's a reason that's relegated to high society, it's not worthwhile for everyone else, and it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.
Long fangs are for catching. Cats don't really chew food, nor do snakes. Both rely on their teeth to stab and hold prey, which is why they are sharp like needles.
Our cutting teeth are for slicing and chewing- in other words, processing the meat after it's been caught. The 'massive predator fangs' take care of catching it, but have you ever eaten meat without biting off a piece, ONLY cutting it up into little bits and chewing it? There's a reason that's relegated to high society, it's not worthwhile for everyone else, and it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.
> have you ever eaten meat without biting off a piece, ONLY cutting it up into little bits and chewing it?
Uh, pretty much every day? I'm pretty sure that's what pre-humans did, too. They butchered, cooked, and cut it up. Dentition is irrelevant.
> it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.
They were kept razor sharp. It would not be hard.
Uh, pretty much every day? I'm pretty sure that's what pre-humans did, too. They butchered, cooked, and cut it up. Dentition is irrelevant.
> it'd be ridiculously hard with stone tools.
They were kept razor sharp. It would not be hard.
They cut it up into bite-sized pieces? I really doubt that. Notice only people who worry about etiquette tend to do that, and I don't think etiquette existed when we were cutting things with rocks. Perhaps chunks were sliced off, but I can't help but laugh at the thought of a Stone Age man cutting his meat into little cubes.
As a further argument, notice how most people eat a drumstick? It comes naturally.
As a further argument, notice how most people eat a drumstick? It comes naturally.
Cooking food is a form of external pre-digestion that actively increases the effective nutritional content of most food, especially vegetables, which are otherwise too hard to break down (have you tried eating raw potato?).
Some evolutionary biologists believe that learning to cook food was crucial in providing us with the extra calories required to fuel our gigantic brains.
Some evolutionary biologists believe that learning to cook food was crucial in providing us with the extra calories required to fuel our gigantic brains.
I haven't got the study, but apparently our brain size shot WAY up right after we figured out how to cook food. It was a very strong correlation.
Have you ever carefully examined how hard it is for a vegetarian, or especially a vegan, to get all the right nutrients?
I got news for you, primeval man did not have the discretionary ability we have today in our food.
Protein is an excellent example. The primary sources for vegans are nuts/seeds, and legumes. If you can't cook, it's very hard to eat legumes- have you ever tried eating a raw pinto bean? They are literally hard as rocks. Plus they cannot be found across the globe. Nuts and seeds are very seasonal, leaving man high and dry in certain seasons, and it's much much more of a challenge to harvest 6+ oz of nuts every day than it is to buy a jar of them at the store.
I got news for you, primeval man did not have the discretionary ability we have today in our food.
Protein is an excellent example. The primary sources for vegans are nuts/seeds, and legumes. If you can't cook, it's very hard to eat legumes- have you ever tried eating a raw pinto bean? They are literally hard as rocks. Plus they cannot be found across the globe. Nuts and seeds are very seasonal, leaving man high and dry in certain seasons, and it's much much more of a challenge to harvest 6+ oz of nuts every day than it is to buy a jar of them at the store.
It seems to me that humans evolved as herbivores. I've never heard anyone argue that humans should be carnivores, but it seems like that's what you're arguing against.
1. Our teeth evolved to chew plants and veggies, true. As omnivores, we have to eat plants, not just meat. Plants are more difficult to digest, so most of our teeth resemble herbivores' teeth (chewing is the first step in digestion). Notice that we also chew meat just fine. I don't know anyone who can't chew meat because their teeth are too flat. We can even rip it right off the bone with certain teeth. Is that not an evolutionary adaptation?
My point is that just because we chew plants relatively well, that does not mean we also don't chew meat well.
2. Cooked foods kill the nutrients
Since I'm addressing the herbivore vs. omnivore argument, I'll ignore this one, as it obviously applies to plants and not meat.
3. Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant[s]...
Similar to #1. A long digestive tract may be necessary to process plants, but it does not preclude digesting meat.
4. Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol [sic].
.... which is okay in moderation. People can't survive on fruits alone, either. That doesn't mean that fruit should be eliminated from our diet.
1. Our teeth evolved to chew plants and veggies, true. As omnivores, we have to eat plants, not just meat. Plants are more difficult to digest, so most of our teeth resemble herbivores' teeth (chewing is the first step in digestion). Notice that we also chew meat just fine. I don't know anyone who can't chew meat because their teeth are too flat. We can even rip it right off the bone with certain teeth. Is that not an evolutionary adaptation?
My point is that just because we chew plants relatively well, that does not mean we also don't chew meat well.
2. Cooked foods kill the nutrients
Since I'm addressing the herbivore vs. omnivore argument, I'll ignore this one, as it obviously applies to plants and not meat.
3. Our digestive tract is long, apparently to process plant[s]...
Similar to #1. A long digestive tract may be necessary to process plants, but it does not preclude digesting meat.
4. Animal meat is the only food that gives us colesterol [sic].
.... which is okay in moderation. People can't survive on fruits alone, either. That doesn't mean that fruit should be eliminated from our diet.
You have people like Michael Pollan saying we should eat traditional foods, mostly plants, and not too much.
Gary Taubes says we should eat meat, lots of it. Red meat.
The prevailing wisdom from nutritional science is--well, I have no idea what it is. I guess it's to eat foods high in polyunsaturated fats, avoid red meat, and avoid refined starches and sugars, but I'm not sure.
I hate that I get anxious when trying to decide something so simple as a shopping list for groceries.
Based on my experience in fields where I have a measure of expertise, the difference between a persuasive bunch of garbage and the truth can be incredibly hard to discern until someone contextualizes it all for you.
Does anyone have any suggestions for books or articles that cut through these various arguments in an authoritative way, explain shortcomings and virtues, and makes a straightforward recommendation based on a full appreciation of the all the arguments involved?