3 ms·

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 quanti

by 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
    More recent research is indicating that much higher minimums are needed in order to not lose too much lean muscle.
galdosdi 10y ago
Baloney! If scale/cost was the only issue, we would not have a problem. You could replace most processed food in a typical naive modern diet with potatoes, beans, and/or eggs (which are extremely cheap) and increase the healthiness of the diet tremendously. It is very cheap to eat healthy. The problem is knowledge. The modern processed food/ad industry in the 20th century somehow managed to a lot of destroy traditional cultural knowledge in the west about cooking and eating, and replace it with its own brand new, untested ideas. It's getting better, but very slowly. Too many people have been tricked by the newest big food lie: that choosing which foods to eat (eg, beef vs avocado) is not the most important thing, but rather what's important is the label -- it should be organic, local beef, not conventional, it must be an organic avocado, not just any old avocado. In this world view, eating healthy is reserved for those who can afford it and unhealthy industrial food is indeed unfortunate but a necessity. This world view is very convenient for food businesses, but is also wrong. In real life, the conventional potato eater is healthier than the organic white bread eater, despite spending much less money.

by Toine 10y ago

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
  More recent research is indicating that much higher minimums are needed in order to not lose too much lean muscle.

galdosdi 10y ago

Baloney! If scale/cost was the only issue, we would not have a problem. You could replace most processed food in a typical naive modern diet with potatoes, beans, and/or eggs (which are extremely cheap) and increase the healthiness of the diet tremendously. It is very cheap to eat healthy. The problem is knowledge. The modern processed food/ad industry in the 20th century somehow managed to a lot of destroy traditional cultural knowledge in the west about cooking and eating, and replace it with its own brand new, untested ideas. It's getting better, but very slowly. Too many people have been tricked by the newest big food lie: that choosing which foods to eat (eg, beef vs avocado) is not the most important thing, but rather what's important is the label -- it should be organic, local beef, not conventional, it must be an organic avocado, not just any old avocado. In this world view, eating healthy is reserved for those who can afford it and unhealthy industrial food is indeed unfortunate but a necessity. This world view is very convenient for food businesses, but is also wrong. In real life, the conventional potato eater is healthier than the organic white bread eater, despite spending much less money.