[HN Gopher] Unhappy Meals (2007)
___________________________________________________________________
Unhappy Meals (2007)
Author : pramodbiligiri
Score : 49 points
Date : 2025-05-28 19:04 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (michaelpollan.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (michaelpollan.com)
| tobinfekkes wrote:
| 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.
| criddell wrote:
| Are you talking about following a raw food diet?
| tobinfekkes wrote:
| 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".
| criddell wrote:
| > 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.
| thwarted wrote:
| 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.
| zahlman wrote:
| 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?
| drjasonharrison wrote:
| 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.
| vladvasiliu wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| 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.
| milesward wrote:
| Uhm, this sounds yummie, I am in seattle, got a link?
| tobinfekkes wrote:
| Hope you live north of downtown:)
|
| https://boxofgood.com
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| "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.
| testing22321 wrote:
| > _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.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| 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
| s_m_t wrote:
| 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.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| > The cognitive dissonance here is striking
|
| Agreed!
| neuralRiot wrote:
| >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!
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| 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.
| dr_dshiv wrote:
| > 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/shar
| e/6838c51d-c4a4-8007-97e7-431006f495...
| paulpauper wrote:
| 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.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| >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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| 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.
| s_m_t wrote:
| 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.
| drekipus wrote:
| > 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?
| badc0ffee wrote:
| 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.
| dmonitor wrote:
| 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.
| jajko wrote:
| 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.
| stronglikedan wrote:
| > 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| > 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?
| stronglikedan wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| 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.
| dowager_dan99 wrote:
| and yet I can do nothing and live a much better, longer
| life than my grandma.
| Swizec wrote:
| > 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!
| aggie wrote:
| 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.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| 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.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| Someone better tell the Mexicans about tostadas not being
| food
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| 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.
| sellmesoap wrote:
| Both will disrupt your endocrine system!
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| 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.
| oldpersonintx2 wrote:
| > "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.
| chermi wrote:
| 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.
| spondylosaurus wrote:
| You're correct; they definitely make you less inclined to
| crave "junk," and more likely to feel a bit ill after
| eating it.
| paulpauper wrote:
| not really. even with GLP-1 drugs, many people are still
| obese or overweight. individual response to this drug is
| extremely variable.
| paulpauper wrote:
| 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.
| croisillon wrote:
| yeah it's always funny how carnivorous need a lot of tiptoeing
| not to feel shamed for eating animals
| criddell wrote:
| 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.
| croisillon wrote:
| 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
| dilap wrote:
| > "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
|
| Who's going to spread the good word to the Maasai?
| pramodbiligiri wrote:
| Past thread from 8 years ago:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13487886 (179 comments)
| runamuck wrote:
| 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.
| m4rc3lv wrote:
| Nice! I've been WFPB all my life :-)
| drjasonharrison wrote:
| Lucky duck!
| ge96 wrote:
| 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.
| bdbenton5255 wrote:
| 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.
| andrewla wrote:
| > 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.
| bdbenton5255 wrote:
| 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.
| ericmcer wrote:
| 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.
| bdbenton5255 wrote:
| 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.
| tunesmith wrote:
| 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.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-05-29 23:02 UTC)