7 ms·

Lol, this isn't to do with insecurities - more to do with science. I get that to many, science is a boogeyman - but come on, we're meant to be better than that

Lol, this isn't to do with insecurities - more to do with science. I get that to many, science is a boogeyman - but come on, we're meant to be better than that on HN, since you know, so many of do actually have science backgrounds? My parents owned a sheep property growing up, and I went to an agricultural school - the whole point of modern agriculture, and husbandy pratcises is that we do intentional thinks to manipulate animals/plants, to be safer for us. Oh, and my wife is a veterinarian - and occasionally she gets crazies in, who think they can roadkill or dead wildlife - she's like, yeah, genius, great way to give yourself worms. And preserved foods is...well, just that - to preserve food. You know, like pasteurised milk? Humans have been preserving food for millennia - it's just that our techniques have evolved a bit more than "add salt, let it dry in the sun". I think many people might be equating junk food (i.e. sweets, chips etc.) with all modern foods - that's a logical fallacy. Food companies optimised for things consumers want - whether that's long shelf-life, for taste, for convenience etc. We are so incredibly lucky these days - that we have massive range of foodstuff - just make sure you read the food labels, and pick the foods you want. If convenience, or high-sweetness isn't what you want - then don't buy those products. Buy other products! Ultimately, corporates aren't some evil faceless entity - nor do I believe there's some mysterious conspiracy going on. They simply create what they think people will buy - and hence, make them money. But I agree with parent - the whole "eat stuff that humans haven't touched" is a bit of a stupid argument - it's like romanticising pre-historic men. In reality - they probably had hard, short lives, and were subject to parasites and infection constantly - a lot of it via the food they ate.

colordrops 11y ago
You are attacking an invisible bogeyman you concocted yourself. No one said anything about being anti-science. Your reactionary stance is anti-science. I'm not sure what your wife's profession or crazies she met or anything else you've said has to do with the topic at hand. There are a thousand choices you can make when it comes to diet. It's not an all or nothing, democrat or republican, us vs them proposition. What the previous poster was getting at is that typically, for each choice you can make with your diet, a good rule of thumb is that the less processed a food is, the more likely it is to be better for you. That doesn't mean it's always true in every case, or that occasionally a bit of processed food will kill you, or whatever other straw man you are chasing after. In any case, there IS plenty of science backing up the negative health effects of processed foods: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021 http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sug... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesit... http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-foods-linked-to-addictive-eating http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-food... http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organiza... http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di... http://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food http://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/transfats/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/transfats/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects Plenty of linked studies here as well: https://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-are-killing-people/ https://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-a... Do you have any science to back up your claims?
- victorhooi 11y ago
  You have just confirmed my point. It isn't an all or nothing stance. And the whole black-and-white "Don't eat processed foods" rule is exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good rule of thumb - you need to actually put some thought and consideration into what you're eating - e.g. read the food labels! Everybody's personal stance is difference. For example, I eat heaps of "processed foods" - heck, I eat Soylent (https://www.soylent.com/ https://www.soylent.com/) which is about as processed as you can possibly get. Please also read the parent I was replying to - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941# https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941# Also, with regard to the articles that you spammed your post with (I assume you just keep a notepad with these around grins): 1. Article 1 (Too much added sugar is bad for you, and can lead to heart disease) - not to put a fine point on it, but no sit sherlock? Like, seriously? It doesn't matter whether it's processed or not (e.g. "natural" sugar, or say, honey), if you drizzle sugar all over your food, to the point of excess, yes, it's going to make you fat and at higher risk of heart disease. 2. Article 2 (Diet Quality) - There are two paragraphs (or clustered paragraphs) that reference "processed" in this article - the first refers to eating less red meat and less processed meat - so yes, I'm guessing that too much "natural" steak, or too much spam isn't great for you. I don't think anybody ever regarded spam as a health food (although I could be wrong, spam was before my time). There are ways to process meat and have it be healthy - the tradeoff, is I suppose you don't get the awesome taste of spam (lol), or the incredibly long shelf-life. The second point is that whole grains are better for you, as they are digested more slowly - you get the full grain, as opposed to just the tasty part. 3. Article 3 (Processed food can be addictive) - Reading the article, we learn that processed foods in this case is code for foods like "chocolate, French Fries, pizza, and ice cream" - umm, I think the point of those foods it that they taste good? As in, nobody ever said, gee, I feel like health food, let me get some of that pizza or ice cream. sigh*. The whole damn point of these foods is that they're engineered to taste food - they're not exactly marketed as "health foods", so it's not exactly like pizza or ice cream companies are misleading you. Also, chocolate is interesting, in that it can be very "natural" - but still very addictive. I'm not going to go through and decipher/debunk every single one of your articles. But my point is simple - there's very little in the way of a blanket "don't eat processed foods" in the links you posted. For some people, they might think it a useful guideline - but I suspect in this case, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For myself - I just read the food label, and exercise some common-sense. If it's confectionery, or it's a "treat" food (whether processed or natural - although to be honest, it's more a spectrum of how processed, since nearly any food you can legally buy is processed to some degree), I exercise moderation. With 5 minutes of Googling, I can find similar analogues to argue that so-called "organic" or natural food is bad or even toxic for you: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss... http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/ http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be... In general - I think modern agriculture and food techniques have been a boon for humanity - they've given us safe, large-scale food production to feed the masses. We've eradicated pests/diseases from our crops, and also engineered our crops to be more pest/disease resistant, have higher-yields and taste better. So we've been "processing" food for a long time. And we've moved from salting/drying things, to more modern preservation techniques, that preserve the nutritional content and taste of our food as well, and prolong shelf-life and packability of foodstuffs. But of course, then we have modern inventions like the Twinkie, or the <insert junk food of choice>. I honestly hope people aren't arguing these are health foods. But if you argue that "processed" foods are bad, because they also gave us the Twinkie - well, you're basically throwing out all the added benefits (convenience, low-cost, shelf-life) of modern foods. Even the fresh fruits/vegetables we buy are quite "processed" - I actually prefer this to so-called organic food-stuffs, because I know the food safety regulations around your supermarket fruit/vegetables are so much stricter than for organic farms. And I'm also fine with buying a pre-packaged salad in a sealed plastic bag, even though it's processed, because I know it was probably washed by machine, and they have health and safety checks in the processing pipeline, to ensure pathogens are at acceptable levels. (although I do confess to occasionally rinsing them again, for possibly irrational reasons).

colordrops 11y ago

You are attacking an invisible bogeyman you concocted yourself. No one said anything about being anti-science. Your reactionary stance is anti-science. I'm not sure what your wife's profession or crazies she met or anything else you've said has to do with the topic at hand. There are a thousand choices you can make when it comes to diet. It's not an all or nothing, democrat or republican, us vs them proposition. What the previous poster was getting at is that typically, for each choice you can make with your diet, a good rule of thumb is that the less processed a food is, the more likely it is to be better for you. That doesn't mean it's always true in every case, or that occasionally a bit of processed food will kill you, or whatever other straw man you are chasing after. In any case, there IS plenty of science backing up the negative health effects of processed foods: http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sugar-increases-the-risk-of-dying-with-heart-disease-201402067021 http://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/eating-too-much-added-sug... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesity-causes/diet-and-weight/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/obesity-prevention-source/obesit... http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-foods-linked-to-addictive-eating http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/22693-highly-processed-food... http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organization-says-processed-meat-causes-cancer http://www.cancer.org/cancer/news/news/world-health-organiza... http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/diet/acrylamide-fact-sheet http://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/causes-prevention/risk/di... http://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food http://www.ewg.org/research/bpa-canned-food http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/transfats/ http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/transfats/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olestra#Side_effects Plenty of linked studies here as well: https://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-are-killing-people/ https://authoritynutrition.com/9-ways-that-processed-foods-a... Do you have any science to back up your claims?

victorhooi 11y ago
You have just confirmed my point. It isn't an all or nothing stance. And the whole black-and-white "Don't eat processed foods" rule is exactly what I'm arguing against. I don't think it's a good rule of thumb - you need to actually put some thought and consideration into what you're eating - e.g. read the food labels! Everybody's personal stance is difference. For example, I eat heaps of "processed foods" - heck, I eat Soylent (https://www.soylent.com/ https://www.soylent.com/) which is about as processed as you can possibly get. Please also read the parent I was replying to - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941# https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11444941# Also, with regard to the articles that you spammed your post with (I assume you just keep a notepad with these around grins): 1. Article 1 (Too much added sugar is bad for you, and can lead to heart disease) - not to put a fine point on it, but no sit sherlock? Like, seriously? It doesn't matter whether it's processed or not (e.g. "natural" sugar, or say, honey), if you drizzle sugar all over your food, to the point of excess, yes, it's going to make you fat and at higher risk of heart disease. 2. Article 2 (Diet Quality) - There are two paragraphs (or clustered paragraphs) that reference "processed" in this article - the first refers to eating less red meat and less processed meat - so yes, I'm guessing that too much "natural" steak, or too much spam isn't great for you. I don't think anybody ever regarded spam as a health food (although I could be wrong, spam was before my time). There are ways to process meat and have it be healthy - the tradeoff, is I suppose you don't get the awesome taste of spam (lol), or the incredibly long shelf-life. The second point is that whole grains are better for you, as they are digested more slowly - you get the full grain, as opposed to just the tasty part. 3. Article 3 (Processed food can be addictive) - Reading the article, we learn that processed foods in this case is code for foods like "chocolate, French Fries, pizza, and ice cream" - umm, I think the point of those foods it that they taste good? As in, nobody ever said, gee, I feel like health food, let me get some of that pizza or ice cream. sigh*. The whole damn point of these foods is that they're engineered to taste food - they're not exactly marketed as "health foods", so it's not exactly like pizza or ice cream companies are misleading you. Also, chocolate is interesting, in that it can be very "natural" - but still very addictive. I'm not going to go through and decipher/debunk every single one of your articles. But my point is simple - there's very little in the way of a blanket "don't eat processed foods" in the links you posted. For some people, they might think it a useful guideline - but I suspect in this case, they're throwing out the baby with the bathwater. For myself - I just read the food label, and exercise some common-sense. If it's confectionery, or it's a "treat" food (whether processed or natural - although to be honest, it's more a spectrum of how processed, since nearly any food you can legally buy is processed to some degree), I exercise moderation. With 5 minutes of Googling, I can find similar analogues to argue that so-called "organic" or natural food is bad or even toxic for you: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/ http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogss... http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be-harmful-the-truth-behind-organic-produce-doug-smith/ http://www.elephantjournal.com/2013/03/eating-organic-may-be... In general - I think modern agriculture and food techniques have been a boon for humanity - they've given us safe, large-scale food production to feed the masses. We've eradicated pests/diseases from our crops, and also engineered our crops to be more pest/disease resistant, have higher-yields and taste better. So we've been "processing" food for a long time. And we've moved from salting/drying things, to more modern preservation techniques, that preserve the nutritional content and taste of our food as well, and prolong shelf-life and packability of foodstuffs. But of course, then we have modern inventions like the Twinkie, or the <insert junk food of choice>. I honestly hope people aren't arguing these are health foods. But if you argue that "processed" foods are bad, because they also gave us the Twinkie - well, you're basically throwing out all the added benefits (convenience, low-cost, shelf-life) of modern foods. Even the fresh fruits/vegetables we buy are quite "processed" - I actually prefer this to so-called organic food-stuffs, because I know the food safety regulations around your supermarket fruit/vegetables are so much stricter than for organic farms. And I'm also fine with buying a pre-packaged salad in a sealed plastic bag, even though it's processed, because I know it was probably washed by machine, and they have health and safety checks in the processing pipeline, to ensure pathogens are at acceptable levels. (although I do confess to occasionally rinsing them again, for possibly irrational reasons).