11 ms·

This was known for decades. People in the future will not believe how bad we were eating in the last 50 years. Food is so important to our physical and mental h

by Toine 10y ago

This was known for decades. People in the future will not believe how bad we were eating in the last 50 years. Food is so important to our physical and mental health. We are literally killing ourselves, at this point the food industry is almost guilty of mass murder for profit. Same for fossil fuels, pharma, etc. I don't understand our "developed" countries.

a_imho 10y ago
The term food industry just feels wrong to me.
- ehnto 10y ago
  That's what it is and frankly, that's what's required too. We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Agreed.. I'm not anti-grower, or anti-gmo... the cost/benefit of "organic" is dubious at best (aside from some berries, iirc). But man, the balance has to shift at least a little... we really need to move away from highly refined/pre-prepared everything, every meal, lots of snacks, lots of sugars, every day. Edit: I also know a world-class chef who agrees that the McRib is one of the most tasty things ever developed. But you don't eat that every day...
  - fidrelity 10y ago
    The Rodale Institute[1] has a long running trial comparing different farming systems. In the long run organic farming outperforms "conventional" methods in terms of yield, resilience and cost[2]. If you believe their research that is. [1] https://rodaleinstitute.org/ https://rodaleinstitute.org/ [2] https://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf https://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf
  - lawless123 10y ago
    >We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables. We would have plenty only so many want to eat meat with every meal.
  - coldtea 10y ago
    >That's what it is and frankly, that's what's required too. We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables. Citation needed. It's not like we'd have some food crisis if we didn't have a "food industry", by which people usually mean the actively harmful and inducing food staff that's mass manufactured, you know the 20,000 mass market varieties of sodas, chips, snacks, burgers and such. If you just mean "agriculture at scale", we had that since ancient Babylon. In fact, outside of floods and famines that are orthogonal to what we're talking about, many countries do just fine feeding their populations with 1/10 or 1/20 of such an industry as it exists in the US.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Diet Industry, Snack Industry, Soda Inc... what would you prefer... when most people are eating processed and or pre-prepared foods, things aren't good. And imho things like hamburger helper aren't very far off. I ate a lot of food that came from cans, boxes and packages growing up.. and today its' far worse... I know a lot of people around my age (early 40's) who never eat any vegetables at all. none... Unless it's filler in something else they're eating. Lots of refined starches, more than enough meat... but very few actual veggies. I mean, I'm not all about the veggies, I'm far from getting enough every day (per whatever standards), but I at least get 4-5 salads a week, and have at least 3-4 other times with at least a vegetable side that aren't starches (root-veg) a week. But man, there's something to be said for going from at least some, to almost none. I'll admit, I do tend to favor lower-carb (I'm diabetic, I really have to), but the anti-fat fads of the late 70's through the 90's did more harm than good. Compounded by the proliferation of snack items and refined fats (mostly vegetable source), starches, preservatives, fillers and stabilizers is astounding. I no longer have any children living with me, but I can't believe the number of ads for foods that aren't whole or at least minimally processed on TV, targeting kids... "fruit rollups", gellies, gogurt, soda, pops, drinks, fast-food and the rest... It's time to start saying no to kids, no to ourselves and trying to lead by better examples. Another issue is thinness !== healthy. Metabolic syndrome is really dangerous when you don't show the typical outward symptoms right away. Body shaming doesn't work... We, as a larger society need to start making better choices for ourselves. And I say this as someone who has McD's for breakfast pretty much every day (breakfast sandwich, sometimes just an egg and sausage, no bun with a water to drink). If you eat fast-food, skip the side of fries and the sugar-water. Hell, use a calorie tracker for a week, and be surprised how much you really take in (including snacks, drinks, etc)... it can actually be hard to take in under 2500 kcal a day.
- Toine 10y ago
  Tech people know how hard it is to scale things. More precisely, we know how hard it is to maintain quality (of code for example) in an environment where quantity increases rapidly. Take a look at this graph : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Human_population_growth_from_1800_to_2000.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Human_populat... The industrial era. What happened in the last 50 years is that the quality/quantity ratio went to almost zero. Industries now produce a LOT of stuff for a LOT of people, but the quality of this stuff is insanely low, food included. Industrial food is sometimes void of anything good for your health. In my view we have two options : rebalance the quality/quantity ratio, ie make a LOT of stuff of quality, or if we can't, drastically reduce the quantity of stuff needed. I let you imagine the consequences of the second option. I'm optimistic, but scared.
  - tracker1 10y ago
    Fortunately, at a macro level.. something like 70-80% of what we take in are purely caloric needs... I mean, under 100g of sugars a day, and over 80-120g of protein.. but otherwise, for the most part calories are calories. We do need to reduce the amount of refined sugars, starches and fats in our diets, and increase the amount of raw vegetables and fruit... I'm not talking a veggie/vegan diet.. but having some mix, and keeping some things in that above/below block. Adjusting for special dietary needs (diabetes, allergies, pku etc).
    - blacksmith_tb 10y ago
      80-120g of protein per day is on the high end of the spectrum, the minimum values are typically given as 46g for women, 56g for me[1] (unless you are a competitive athlete). Not to mention that switching away from animal protein sources is potentially a good idea[2]... 1: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/usda-protein-requirements-grams-8619.html http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/usda-protein-requirements-gr... 2: http://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/plant-protein-may-decrease-risk-of-death http://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/plant-protein-...
      - tracker1 10y ago
cies 10y ago
It follows the same trajectory as the tobacco industry. I think when it comes to tobacco we already can "not believe" how prevalent smoking was just 50 years ago. > at this point the food industry is almost guilty of mass murder for profit Agreed. Now how to fix it? I like Dr Greger's "How not to Die" book, as it brings a lot of scientific evidence to the table. He also has an app "the daily dozen" that helps people improve their diets. Given the power of lobby groups I do not expect that we can effectively use gov't to change the status quo.
- tracker1 10y ago
  The difference between diet and related (fat, diabetic, metabolic syndrome, mixed allergies) issues with things like tobacco and other drugs is you literally can't just stop eating. I agree there's been far too much effective lobbying (and spending on junk research) in and outside the government that separating agenda and getting any change to the status quo will be hard.
  - jlebrech 10y ago
    you don't have to stop eating, just eat more fibre.
agumonkey 10y ago
The more comfortable a society is the easier it is to ignore pillars of life.
- lawless123 10y ago
  >pillars of life The what?
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    Things that are important if you don't have modern technology to fix you.
- BrailleHunting 10y ago
  A corollary is "the richer the fool, the greater the acceleration of the universe's entropy (to include their body, health and a shorter life)." There are a number health effects no amount of pills or surgery can reverse because entropy, despite marketing. Eat enough peanut-butter bacon sandwiches and cause enough chronic inflammation damage from smoking, then become obese, get diabetes and cancer.
  - agumonkey 10y ago
    There are also, I believe, higher layers of health. Societal, existential; that this society tries to shield us from. Like not playing guitar because it might hurt your fingers. Often I read that there's everything to be as happy as you can on the ground, but we lock ourselves into to sweet nests.
adrianratnapala 10y ago
This silly. In the last few months I have been changing my diet because of cholesterol readings. It's annoying, because I like steak, and I like coconut, and bacon, and ghee, and prawns and, and, and... Desire for such a diet has always been with us. The food industry has, for the first time, made it affordable for hundreds of millions of us. They are guilty only of mass feeding for profit.
- Toine 10y ago
  Then drug dealers shouldn't be stopped? People should get unlimited dose of heroin ? I don't understand your point. Of course we are addictive beings, that's why we invented laws and rules in the first place : so that we can live in order and not chaos. If we let people have access to everything they want (including killing half the planet, eating your children, murdering your parents), do you realise how chaotic the world would be ?
  - scarface74 10y ago
    You mixed two different things. If a person wants to shoot heroin -- or in this case eat bad food. They should be allowed to. It only affects them. Murder takes away someone else's right. But on the other hand, the government shouldn't be subsidizing heroin or food.
    - Toine 10y ago
      No it doesn't, it affects their parents, their children, their friends, their pets, their colleagues, the companies they work in, their clients, and everyone else actually. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a interconnected system where everyone has an effect on everyone, direct or indirect. Liberty is extremely important, but we should always remember we're not alone. This belief that everyone should be 100% free and have the right to be whatever he wants with his life is, if not the only reason, part of the reasons why we're in this mess today.
      - scarface74 10y ago
adrianratnapala 10y ago
This silly. In the last few months I have been changing my diet because of cholesterol readings. It's annoying, because I like steak, and I like coconut, and bacon, and ghee, and prawns and, and, and... Desire for such a diet has always been with us. The food industry has, for the first time, made it affordable for hundreds of millions of us. They are guilty only of mass feeding for profit.
rimliu 10y ago
But many things that "were known for decades" turn out to be not known at all. Fat was root of all evil for decades, but now—maybe not? Salt was bad for decades, but now—maybe not? And growing life expectancy while we are literally killing ourselves does not compute.
- narutouzumaki 10y ago
  Our life expectancy increases despite, not because of our bad diet.
- SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
  > And growing life expectancy while we are literally killing ourselves does not compute. This is a result of the vast improvements in healthcare and medicine in the past 50-100 years. It's not rocket science.
  - ashark 10y ago
    It's also important to separate, say, life expectancy at 30 from overall life expectancy, which usually includes infant mortality and fatal childhood illnesses of all sorts. Those are important per se of course, but basically irrelevant to the effects life-long nutrition and later-in-life medical care.

by Toine 10y ago

a_imho 10y ago

The term food industry just feels wrong to me.

ehnto 10y ago
That's what it is and frankly, that's what's required too. We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Agreed.. I'm not anti-grower, or anti-gmo... the cost/benefit of "organic" is dubious at best (aside from some berries, iirc). But man, the balance has to shift at least a little... we really need to move away from highly refined/pre-prepared everything, every meal, lots of snacks, lots of sugars, every day. Edit: I also know a world-class chef who agrees that the McRib is one of the most tasty things ever developed. But you don't eat that every day...
- fidrelity 10y ago
  The Rodale Institute[1] has a long running trial comparing different farming systems. In the long run organic farming outperforms "conventional" methods in terms of yield, resilience and cost[2]. If you believe their research that is. [1] https://rodaleinstitute.org/ https://rodaleinstitute.org/ [2] https://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf https://rodaleinstitute.org/assets/FST-Brochure-2015.pdf
- lawless123 10y ago
  >We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables. We would have plenty only so many want to eat meat with every meal.
- coldtea 10y ago
  >That's what it is and frankly, that's what's required too. We have too many people to be able sustain them all with cutesy farm to table ensembles and home grown vegetables. Citation needed. It's not like we'd have some food crisis if we didn't have a "food industry", by which people usually mean the actively harmful and inducing food staff that's mass manufactured, you know the 20,000 mass market varieties of sodas, chips, snacks, burgers and such. If you just mean "agriculture at scale", we had that since ancient Babylon. In fact, outside of floods and famines that are orthogonal to what we're talking about, many countries do just fine feeding their populations with 1/10 or 1/20 of such an industry as it exists in the US.
tracker1 10y ago
Diet Industry, Snack Industry, Soda Inc... what would you prefer... when most people are eating processed and or pre-prepared foods, things aren't good. And imho things like hamburger helper aren't very far off. I ate a lot of food that came from cans, boxes and packages growing up.. and today its' far worse... I know a lot of people around my age (early 40's) who never eat any vegetables at all. none... Unless it's filler in something else they're eating. Lots of refined starches, more than enough meat... but very few actual veggies. I mean, I'm not all about the veggies, I'm far from getting enough every day (per whatever standards), but I at least get 4-5 salads a week, and have at least 3-4 other times with at least a vegetable side that aren't starches (root-veg) a week. But man, there's something to be said for going from at least some, to almost none. I'll admit, I do tend to favor lower-carb (I'm diabetic, I really have to), but the anti-fat fads of the late 70's through the 90's did more harm than good. Compounded by the proliferation of snack items and refined fats (mostly vegetable source), starches, preservatives, fillers and stabilizers is astounding. I no longer have any children living with me, but I can't believe the number of ads for foods that aren't whole or at least minimally processed on TV, targeting kids... "fruit rollups", gellies, gogurt, soda, pops, drinks, fast-food and the rest... It's time to start saying no to kids, no to ourselves and trying to lead by better examples. Another issue is thinness !== healthy. Metabolic syndrome is really dangerous when you don't show the typical outward symptoms right away. Body shaming doesn't work... We, as a larger society need to start making better choices for ourselves. And I say this as someone who has McD's for breakfast pretty much every day (breakfast sandwich, sometimes just an egg and sausage, no bun with a water to drink). If you eat fast-food, skip the side of fries and the sugar-water. Hell, use a calorie tracker for a week, and be surprised how much you really take in (including snacks, drinks, etc)... it can actually be hard to take in under 2500 kcal a day.
Toine 10y ago
Tech people know how hard it is to scale things. More precisely, we know how hard it is to maintain quality (of code for example) in an environment where quantity increases rapidly. Take a look at this graph : https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Human_population_growth_from_1800_to_2000.png https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/3a/Human_populat... The industrial era. What happened in the last 50 years is that the quality/quantity ratio went to almost zero. Industries now produce a LOT of stuff for a LOT of people, but the quality of this stuff is insanely low, food included. Industrial food is sometimes void of anything good for your health. In my view we have two options : rebalance the quality/quantity ratio, ie make a LOT of stuff of quality, or if we can't, drastically reduce the quantity of stuff needed. I let you imagine the consequences of the second option. I'm optimistic, but scared.
- tracker1 10y ago
  Fortunately, at a macro level.. something like 70-80% of what we take in are purely caloric needs... I mean, under 100g of sugars a day, and over 80-120g of protein.. but otherwise, for the most part calories are calories. We do need to reduce the amount of refined sugars, starches and fats in our diets, and increase the amount of raw vegetables and fruit... I'm not talking a veggie/vegan diet.. but having some mix, and keeping some things in that above/below block. Adjusting for special dietary needs (diabetes, allergies, pku etc).
  - blacksmith_tb 10y ago
    80-120g of protein per day is on the high end of the spectrum, the minimum values are typically given as 46g for women, 56g for me[1] (unless you are a competitive athlete). Not to mention that switching away from animal protein sources is potentially a good idea[2]... 1: http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/usda-protein-requirements-grams-8619.html http://healthyeating.sfgate.com/usda-protein-requirements-gr... 2: http://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/plant-protein-may-decrease-risk-of-death http://www.eufic.org/en/whats-in-food/article/plant-protein-...
    - tracker1 10y ago

cies 10y ago

It follows the same trajectory as the tobacco industry. I think when it comes to tobacco we already can "not believe" how prevalent smoking was just 50 years ago. > at this point the food industry is almost guilty of mass murder for profit Agreed. Now how to fix it? I like Dr Greger's "How not to Die" book, as it brings a lot of scientific evidence to the table. He also has an app "the daily dozen" that helps people improve their diets. Given the power of lobby groups I do not expect that we can effectively use gov't to change the status quo.

tracker1 10y ago
The difference between diet and related (fat, diabetic, metabolic syndrome, mixed allergies) issues with things like tobacco and other drugs is you literally can't just stop eating. I agree there's been far too much effective lobbying (and spending on junk research) in and outside the government that separating agenda and getting any change to the status quo will be hard.
- jlebrech 10y ago
  you don't have to stop eating, just eat more fibre.

agumonkey 10y ago

The more comfortable a society is the easier it is to ignore pillars of life.

lawless123 10y ago
>pillars of life The what?
- agumonkey 10y ago
  Things that are important if you don't have modern technology to fix you.
BrailleHunting 10y ago
A corollary is "the richer the fool, the greater the acceleration of the universe's entropy (to include their body, health and a shorter life)." There are a number health effects no amount of pills or surgery can reverse because entropy, despite marketing. Eat enough peanut-butter bacon sandwiches and cause enough chronic inflammation damage from smoking, then become obese, get diabetes and cancer.
- agumonkey 10y ago
  There are also, I believe, higher layers of health. Societal, existential; that this society tries to shield us from. Like not playing guitar because it might hurt your fingers. Often I read that there's everything to be as happy as you can on the ground, but we lock ourselves into to sweet nests.

adrianratnapala 10y ago

This silly. In the last few months I have been changing my diet because of cholesterol readings. It's annoying, because I like steak, and I like coconut, and bacon, and ghee, and prawns and, and, and... Desire for such a diet has always been with us. The food industry has, for the first time, made it affordable for hundreds of millions of us. They are guilty only of mass feeding for profit.

Toine 10y ago
Then drug dealers shouldn't be stopped? People should get unlimited dose of heroin ? I don't understand your point. Of course we are addictive beings, that's why we invented laws and rules in the first place : so that we can live in order and not chaos. If we let people have access to everything they want (including killing half the planet, eating your children, murdering your parents), do you realise how chaotic the world would be ?
- scarface74 10y ago
  You mixed two different things. If a person wants to shoot heroin -- or in this case eat bad food. They should be allowed to. It only affects them. Murder takes away someone else's right. But on the other hand, the government shouldn't be subsidizing heroin or food.
  - Toine 10y ago
    No it doesn't, it affects their parents, their children, their friends, their pets, their colleagues, the companies they work in, their clients, and everyone else actually. You don't live in a vacuum, you live in a interconnected system where everyone has an effect on everyone, direct or indirect. Liberty is extremely important, but we should always remember we're not alone. This belief that everyone should be 100% free and have the right to be whatever he wants with his life is, if not the only reason, part of the reasons why we're in this mess today.
    - scarface74 10y ago

adrianratnapala 10y ago

rimliu 10y ago

But many things that "were known for decades" turn out to be not known at all. Fat was root of all evil for decades, but now—maybe not? Salt was bad for decades, but now—maybe not? And growing life expectancy while we are literally killing ourselves does not compute.

narutouzumaki 10y ago
Our life expectancy increases despite, not because of our bad diet.
SmellyGeekBoy 10y ago
> And growing life expectancy while we are literally killing ourselves does not compute. This is a result of the vast improvements in healthcare and medicine in the past 50-100 years. It's not rocket science.
- ashark 10y ago
  It's also important to separate, say, life expectancy at 30 from overall life expectancy, which usually includes infant mortality and fatal childhood illnesses of all sorts. Those are important per se of course, but basically irrelevant to the effects life-long nutrition and later-in-life medical care.