7 ms·

> it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species

> it fails the "if man made it, don't eat it" test spectacularly. Basically everything you see there has been shaped by man. A (stunning) example: one species of plant, brassica oleracea, has been selectively (i.e., artificially) bred to produce a wide range of different cultivars including, cauliflower, cabbage, kale, broccoli, kohlrabi, brussel sprouts, and more. NONE of these produce items are "natural." You're overthinking this. "Is this food packaged and processed with preservatives, a list of 40 ingredients, and has a shelf life of 6 months to 5 years? Then I'm not buying it. Is it meat or product? It's ok." This is referring pretty specifically to Franken-foods, not GMOs (which I too think are a great idea, and essentially optimizing our agricultural practices over the last 20,000-whatever years).

torgoguys 11y ago
I'm not overthinking it. I gave that as an example of people not thinking about food. The heuristic, even applied as you would prefer, is a poor one. I don't buy into the philosophy at all. Quick example, my mother-in-law (who is into all kinds of weird "food woo" (she's a drink-raw-milk-only, avoid-adrenal-stressing-foods, etc. kind of person) once handed me a some sort of baked good--a bread perhaps--and mentioned, "It has no preservatives." My quick, honest, reply was "bummer." She had meant to "no preservatives" as being a good thing, as lots of folks do. The thing is, preservatives are a GOOD thing (well, unless you're preserving your food with something known to be harmful). It means less food waste, and that you're less likely to be unknowingly eating (mildly) spoiled food. We have made missteps in our advancement in the production of food, and we as a whole don't eat as healthy of food as we should, but on the whole, modern agricultural practices are a good thing, as are some modern processing of food that people don't like because it's not "natural." I'm swayed by the preponderance of quality evidence on this, not anecdotes, intuition, and studies that represent noise in the data due to known problems with the generation of data.
- leonroy 11y ago
  I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best. Does that mean I'm not gonna pepper my cod fillet, of course not. But I sure as heck am not going to buy a pre-battered pack of frozen 'fish fingers' given the choice!
  - torgoguys 11y ago
    I understand your sentiment. I'm pushing back against it being expressed in terms that promote a naturalistic fallacy. Why? Various reasons, but one is because the naturalistic fallacy is actively harmful, not just as it applies to food. >This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best. That's the thing. The first and last sentence of this quote run contrary to each other in the cited example. When we process raw milk by pasteurizing it, we are making it BETTER. We've tinkered with it, to use your word. "As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best" (emphasis added) is not necessarily true. (As an aside, there is nothing "weird" about raw milk other than your lack of exposure to it. I grew up in rural Wisconsin in the 1980s--as a kid, I've had plenty of raw milk. We all did living there. Heck, I used to milk cows and I once tried to see if I could squirt raw milk directly from the teat into my mouth at arms length--it doesn't get much fresher! As an adult, I avoid raw milk because I know better.) --- Related to battered fish, what's better (from a health standpoint): if you batter your own fish or you buy pre-battered fish? All else equal, most people would still say that as a matter of intuition will say that battering your own is better. If "feels" like the correct answer. But the real answer would be that it depends on what you battered it with and what the company battered it with. The reality is that many people who actively complain about "processed foods" are fine with the processing done as long as they are the ones doing it. Regardless of what the reality may be, a homemade noodle somehow feels healthier than a store bought one to those folks. (And yes, I realize my battered fish question isn't what your fish example was talking about at all. I just ran with it in a different direction and am not trying to misrepresent what you said).
    - collyw 11y ago
      When you process your own food, you have full control over it and what goes into it. I have no idea what they are putting into commercially processed foods, how long they are cooked for at what temperature. (Well I have an idea of what goes into chicken nuggets having watched Jamie Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSoiDtdi9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSoiDtdi9s).
    - 11y ago
- specialist 11y ago
  Then ignore (filter) the woo-woo au naturale fruit cakes. Every message gets distorted, perverted thru transmission. But sometimes there's some actual signal buried in all that noise. Also, modern food production is not an unqualified great thing. Too simplistically: We consumers are harmed when optimal food production techniques drive nutrition policy, vs human nutritional needs guiding food production. Over use of HFCS, soya, whey, etc has caused a great deal of human disease. It's now an expensive public health issue. What may cause you (intellectual) discomfort is when the woo-woos conflate health and environmental issues. Again, filters. And please remember that everyone's just trying to move forward best as they can. My mother also imparts some terrible, well intentioned advice. But it's not like I'm going to fix her misunderstandings. I just try to guide best as I can and lead by example.
- logfromblammo 11y ago
  You are overthinking it. It's sound-bite-sized dietary advice. The intent, I'm sure, is to advise people to avoid foods that have undergone an industrialized food-preparation process, to produce a shelf-stable product that can be shipped in cardboard boxes. As an aggregate, those foods are overwhelmingly prepared according to USDA and FDA recommendations, resulting in the very common replacement of fats with simple carbohydrates, addition of preservatives, and the use of additional additives to improve flavor and texture. That maxim is to be applied in the grocery store, while looking at the product in your hand. If it's a bag of potato chips, you look at it and think, "how is this made?" Then you are supposed to remove the boiling in oil and the slicing, and buy raw, whole potatoes instead. If it's a package of Oreos, you're supposed to read the ingredients, be horrified at the claim that it is food, and perhaps buy a nice, crisp apple instead. You're not going to achieve optimal nutrition with sound-bite-sized dietary advice, but if there isn't a lot of space left in your brain's on-die cache, it could help to avoid making the most horrible dietary decisions. But only if it is good bite-sized advice. If you decide to only eat "natural" foods, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And also, you may have a bizarre and nonsensical concept of what is "natural". But it will probably stop you from eating the foods most highly suspected of causing health problems, such as those containing trans-fats, fructose, or poor Na:K or Ca:Mg proportions.
- sametmax 11y ago
  Yes, you are overthinking it. The statment clearly wasn't to be followed blindly, but just a reminder that processed food is generally the least quality food you can get. It's like trying to fight an add tag line with logic, it just doesn't make sense. We all know "number one in stuff" is not to be taken as is. Still, if you do avoid industrialy processed food, you usually see your health improved tremendously. TL;DR: don't be that guy : https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZ1_Tijf3LAhVGORoKHZiYD-AQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fgallery%2FgRk1uZm&psig=AFQjCNEBHaJIdRkA7akWyzYb4F7PFfCWYg&ust=1460138457565477 https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source...
- goda90 11y ago
  On the other hand, what evidence supports the need to avoid "mildly spoiled food"? We could do with a bit of healthy skepticism over the seriousness of spoiling, expiration dates, defects, refrigeration, or molds and bacteria in our food. We'd probably save more food and maybe cut back on excessive sugar and salt intake(common preservatives) if we had a better understanding of what can and can't be eaten raw, rotten, and less than perfect.
  - douche 11y ago
    The conception that salt is bad for us is, I think, ludicrous. Most of us are not eating even a smidgeon of the amount of salt that our ancestors would have eaten, when nearly all meats and fish not eaten immediately after slaughter were preserved literally caked in salt or brines.
    - maxerickson 11y ago
      The connection to hypertension is pretty conclusive, at least for some portion of the population. Here's one article about it: http://www.gbhealthwatch.com/Trait-Salt-Sensitivity.php http://www.gbhealthwatch.com/Trait-Salt-Sensitivity.php Late life heart disease probably hasn't been a major factor in our evolution, but it's easy to sketch out how a lifetime of dietary choices that encouraged high blood pressure would have some impact in the last years.
CuriouslyC 11y ago
There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects. The problem is that people are ignorant with regards to the purpose and effects of various food additives/ingredients, so they just take the simplified stance "more ingredients = bad" rather than do a little research. As a heuristic it might be fairly functional (you can still eat unhealthily without processed foods though), but it means you're going to spend a lot of time preparing food and you're missing out on the opportunity for engineered superfoods.
- rsync 11y ago
  "There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects." Cod liver oil comes to mind ...
- pc2g4d 11y ago
  I would seriously doubt claims of health benefits of the incomprehensible ingredients on the ingredient list. Those things are there because of the constraints of "manufacturing" food that is appealing, stores well, ships well, etc. It's not about what's good for you---it's about what isn't acutely toxic and maximizes the company's profits.

torgoguys 11y ago

I'm not overthinking it. I gave that as an example of people not thinking about food. The heuristic, even applied as you would prefer, is a poor one. I don't buy into the philosophy at all. Quick example, my mother-in-law (who is into all kinds of weird "food woo" (she's a drink-raw-milk-only, avoid-adrenal-stressing-foods, etc. kind of person) once handed me a some sort of baked good--a bread perhaps--and mentioned, "It has no preservatives." My quick, honest, reply was "bummer." She had meant to "no preservatives" as being a good thing, as lots of folks do. The thing is, preservatives are a GOOD thing (well, unless you're preserving your food with something known to be harmful). It means less food waste, and that you're less likely to be unknowingly eating (mildly) spoiled food. We have made missteps in our advancement in the production of food, and we as a whole don't eat as healthy of food as we should, but on the whole, modern agricultural practices are a good thing, as are some modern processing of food that people don't like because it's not "natural." I'm swayed by the preponderance of quality evidence on this, not anecdotes, intuition, and studies that represent noise in the data due to known problems with the generation of data.

leonroy 11y ago
I think some folk here are misinterpreting my original post (perhaps I wasn't clear enough). Neither I, nor I imagine Jack Lalanne were advocating we return to hunter gatherer foraging. Whilst Jack Lalanne's quote 'if man made it don't eat it' is simplistic it's basically saying go for the steak or the bag of salad leaves rather than the corn dog and powdered mash potato. This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best. Does that mean I'm not gonna pepper my cod fillet, of course not. But I sure as heck am not going to buy a pre-battered pack of frozen 'fish fingers' given the choice!
- torgoguys 11y ago
  I understand your sentiment. I'm pushing back against it being expressed in terms that promote a naturalistic fallacy. Why? Various reasons, but one is because the naturalistic fallacy is actively harmful, not just as it applies to food. >This isn't about 'weird' foods like raw milk, or taking things to the nth-degree. It's just common sense advice that humans seldom make a food healthier by tinkering with it. As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best. That's the thing. The first and last sentence of this quote run contrary to each other in the cited example. When we process raw milk by pasteurizing it, we are making it BETTER. We've tinkered with it, to use your word. "As close to its natural form as possible is invariably best" (emphasis added) is not necessarily true. (As an aside, there is nothing "weird" about raw milk other than your lack of exposure to it. I grew up in rural Wisconsin in the 1980s--as a kid, I've had plenty of raw milk. We all did living there. Heck, I used to milk cows and I once tried to see if I could squirt raw milk directly from the teat into my mouth at arms length--it doesn't get much fresher! As an adult, I avoid raw milk because I know better.) --- Related to battered fish, what's better (from a health standpoint): if you batter your own fish or you buy pre-battered fish? All else equal, most people would still say that as a matter of intuition will say that battering your own is better. If "feels" like the correct answer. But the real answer would be that it depends on what you battered it with and what the company battered it with. The reality is that many people who actively complain about "processed foods" are fine with the processing done as long as they are the ones doing it. Regardless of what the reality may be, a homemade noodle somehow feels healthier than a store bought one to those folks. (And yes, I realize my battered fish question isn't what your fish example was talking about at all. I just ran with it in a different direction and am not trying to misrepresent what you said).
  - collyw 11y ago
    When you process your own food, you have full control over it and what goes into it. I have no idea what they are putting into commercially processed foods, how long they are cooked for at what temperature. (Well I have an idea of what goes into chicken nuggets having watched Jamie Oliver https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSoiDtdi9s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKSoiDtdi9s).
  - 11y ago
specialist 11y ago
Then ignore (filter) the woo-woo au naturale fruit cakes. Every message gets distorted, perverted thru transmission. But sometimes there's some actual signal buried in all that noise. Also, modern food production is not an unqualified great thing. Too simplistically: We consumers are harmed when optimal food production techniques drive nutrition policy, vs human nutritional needs guiding food production. Over use of HFCS, soya, whey, etc has caused a great deal of human disease. It's now an expensive public health issue. What may cause you (intellectual) discomfort is when the woo-woos conflate health and environmental issues. Again, filters. And please remember that everyone's just trying to move forward best as they can. My mother also imparts some terrible, well intentioned advice. But it's not like I'm going to fix her misunderstandings. I just try to guide best as I can and lead by example.
logfromblammo 11y ago
You are overthinking it. It's sound-bite-sized dietary advice. The intent, I'm sure, is to advise people to avoid foods that have undergone an industrialized food-preparation process, to produce a shelf-stable product that can be shipped in cardboard boxes. As an aggregate, those foods are overwhelmingly prepared according to USDA and FDA recommendations, resulting in the very common replacement of fats with simple carbohydrates, addition of preservatives, and the use of additional additives to improve flavor and texture. That maxim is to be applied in the grocery store, while looking at the product in your hand. If it's a bag of potato chips, you look at it and think, "how is this made?" Then you are supposed to remove the boiling in oil and the slicing, and buy raw, whole potatoes instead. If it's a package of Oreos, you're supposed to read the ingredients, be horrified at the claim that it is food, and perhaps buy a nice, crisp apple instead. You're not going to achieve optimal nutrition with sound-bite-sized dietary advice, but if there isn't a lot of space left in your brain's on-die cache, it could help to avoid making the most horrible dietary decisions. But only if it is good bite-sized advice. If you decide to only eat "natural" foods, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And also, you may have a bizarre and nonsensical concept of what is "natural". But it will probably stop you from eating the foods most highly suspected of causing health problems, such as those containing trans-fats, fructose, or poor Na:K or Ca:Mg proportions.
sametmax 11y ago
Yes, you are overthinking it. The statment clearly wasn't to be followed blindly, but just a reminder that processed food is generally the least quality food you can get. It's like trying to fight an add tag line with logic, it just doesn't make sense. We all know "number one in stuff" is not to be taken as is. Still, if you do avoid industrialy processed food, you usually see your health improved tremendously. TL;DR: don't be that guy : https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiZ1_Tijf3LAhVGORoKHZiYD-AQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2Fgallery%2FgRk1uZm&psig=AFQjCNEBHaJIdRkA7akWyzYb4F7PFfCWYg&ust=1460138457565477 https://encrypted.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source...
goda90 11y ago
On the other hand, what evidence supports the need to avoid "mildly spoiled food"? We could do with a bit of healthy skepticism over the seriousness of spoiling, expiration dates, defects, refrigeration, or molds and bacteria in our food. We'd probably save more food and maybe cut back on excessive sugar and salt intake(common preservatives) if we had a better understanding of what can and can't be eaten raw, rotten, and less than perfect.
- douche 11y ago
  The conception that salt is bad for us is, I think, ludicrous. Most of us are not eating even a smidgeon of the amount of salt that our ancestors would have eaten, when nearly all meats and fish not eaten immediately after slaughter were preserved literally caked in salt or brines.
  - maxerickson 11y ago
    The connection to hypertension is pretty conclusive, at least for some portion of the population. Here's one article about it: http://www.gbhealthwatch.com/Trait-Salt-Sensitivity.php http://www.gbhealthwatch.com/Trait-Salt-Sensitivity.php Late life heart disease probably hasn't been a major factor in our evolution, but it's easy to sketch out how a lifetime of dietary choices that encouraged high blood pressure would have some impact in the last years.

CuriouslyC 11y ago

There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects. The problem is that people are ignorant with regards to the purpose and effects of various food additives/ingredients, so they just take the simplified stance "more ingredients = bad" rather than do a little research. As a heuristic it might be fairly functional (you can still eat unhealthily without processed foods though), but it means you're going to spend a lot of time preparing food and you're missing out on the opportunity for engineered superfoods.

rsync 11y ago
"There are highly processed food ingredients like whey protein and resistant corn starch, oat fiber, etc which have compelling health-promoting effects." Cod liver oil comes to mind ...
pc2g4d 11y ago
I would seriously doubt claims of health benefits of the incomprehensible ingredients on the ingredient list. Those things are there because of the constraints of "manufacturing" food that is appealing, stores well, ships well, etc. It's not about what's good for you---it's about what isn't acutely toxic and maximizes the company's profits.