4 ms·

I have a hard time figuring out the point of vegetables. They are so low calorie that I’d have to eat a massive amount of them to have them contribute any signi

by xwdv 6y ago

I have a hard time figuring out the point of vegetables. They are so low calorie that I’d have to eat a massive amount of them to have them contribute any significant amount to a meal, more than what is really practical. They are not really an efficient source of protein, carbs or fats the way lean meat, grains and beans and nuts are. So what’s the point? Vitamins and minerals?

fsflover 6y ago
https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/why-5-a-day/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/why-5-a-day/
- xwdv 6y ago
  This does a piss poor job of explaining why they should be eaten. The main points are: Vitamins and minerals (which you can still find in non-vegetables or supplements) Fiber (which you can get from whole grains) Prevents heart diseases (which is not exclusive to vegetables) Makes a balanced diet (which is pretty vague, what’s so balancing about it?) Taste good? (there are tastier foods...) I’m still not seeing the point or hassle of vegetables. If you don’t even cook them right you can destroy the vitamins which are the primary benefit. Not to mention eating the quantity required to reach recommended levels is probably not sustainable. For someone that doesn’t like eating and cooking, vegetables are a logistical nightmare, a little cup of broccoli only provides like 30 calories and just fills your stomach with useless fiber that makes it a struggle to eat other more efficient nutrient dense foods. I feel like vegetables are more for spicing up a dish than as a primary source of nutrition.
  - fsflover 6y ago
    > fills your stomach with useless fiber https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/f... > Makes a balanced diet (which is pretty vague, what’s so balancing about it?) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
    - xwdv 6y ago
      Fiber has diminishing returns after you eat a certain amount per day. You can easily get your fiber from whole grains, and pound for pound whole grains will be a richer source of carbohydrates than vegetables.
      - fsflover 6y ago
        https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/vegetables-and-fruits/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
  - sp3000 6y ago
    One of the commonalities between the longest lived people on earth: they eat food that is macronutrient poor, but micronutrient rich (think lots of vegetables, but not too many calories). This is the opposite of people who live the shortest: macronutrient rich, but micronutrient poor (think modern processed foods high in calories). A typical fruit or vegetable can have hundreds of phytonutrients and other chemical compounds that are just very hard to recreate in processed foods. This is in addition to the 30 or so micronutrients that we already know of that are essential for certain biological processes. In the black hole that is nutritional research, population and epidemiological studies simply show people who do include a lot of vegetables in their diet tend to have better health outcomes. It's likely you might draw a different conclusion from that research than people involved in the field, but it's probably one of the safest bets we can make when it comes to staying healthy.
    - JesseMReeves 6y ago
      These are good points. The Japanese (and probably many Chinese) cuisines certainly fall into the micronutrient-rich category (with seaweed, fish, etc.), have seemingly been tested for centuries and are awesome. Difficult to have these diets in the Western world though. As for the science factor, I am a bit suspicious of people who have made nutrition their life topic. I get vibes of eating disorders or very controlling food choices. Like the formerly obese or anorexic person who becomes a dietitian because they did not manage to get rid of the cognitive addiction (they chose a profession where they can talk about food all the time). This might explain the tendency for these research areas to go with diet fads, or promote food very poor in nutrients like lettuce while rarely talking dangers like pesticides or issues how you should even come close to the daily recommended values with modern-grown veggies. Also, there are some shoddy science practices in highly promoted studies. They often seem to work with mindless questionnaires („how many grams of potato did you eat last week?“). Then there is a huge correlation vs. causation problem. In some countries only rich and educated people have time and money to cook or even think about their food choices.
JesseMReeves 6y ago
I‘d like to see this statement discussed more. It‘s easy to brush it off as some very US-American PoV, point at food culture, feeling full and vitamins / minerals, and imagine some person who doesn’t watch their health at all. But given above article about declining nutritional values and the availability of more efficient ways to avoid deficits (supplements, soylent variants) it can indeed be questioned why we are wasting so much time, resources and energy globally on what is essentially a pretty bag of water nowadays. Additionally, cooking at home (which I did for years), including produce shopping, cutting, preparing, cleaning the waste is a huge investment of time, money and energy. If it doesn’t even lead to better health because you are essentially transforming bags of water into other forms it should probably not be considered more essential than other time consuming hobbies. After including a soylent variant in my diet I somehow started only buying fruits and vegetables that I’m sure have some nutritional value (i.e. garlic or avocado but no more lettuce or oranges). Otherwise I mostly get them im restaurants, but rather for foodie reasons.

by xwdv 6y ago

fsflover 6y ago

https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/why-5-a-day/ https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/why-5-a-day/

xwdv 6y ago
This does a piss poor job of explaining why they should be eaten. The main points are: Vitamins and minerals (which you can still find in non-vegetables or supplements) Fiber (which you can get from whole grains) Prevents heart diseases (which is not exclusive to vegetables) Makes a balanced diet (which is pretty vague, what’s so balancing about it?) Taste good? (there are tastier foods...) I’m still not seeing the point or hassle of vegetables. If you don’t even cook them right you can destroy the vitamins which are the primary benefit. Not to mention eating the quantity required to reach recommended levels is probably not sustainable. For someone that doesn’t like eating and cooking, vegetables are a logistical nightmare, a little cup of broccoli only provides like 30 calories and just fills your stomach with useless fiber that makes it a struggle to eat other more efficient nutrient dense foods. I feel like vegetables are more for spicing up a dish than as a primary source of nutrition.
- fsflover 6y ago
  > fills your stomach with useless fiber https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/fiber/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/carbohydrates/f... > Makes a balanced diet (which is pretty vague, what’s so balancing about it?) https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
  - xwdv 6y ago
    Fiber has diminishing returns after you eat a certain amount per day. You can easily get your fiber from whole grains, and pound for pound whole grains will be a richer source of carbohydrates than vegetables.
    - fsflover 6y ago
      https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you-eat/vegetables-and-fruits/ https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
- sp3000 6y ago
  One of the commonalities between the longest lived people on earth: they eat food that is macronutrient poor, but micronutrient rich (think lots of vegetables, but not too many calories). This is the opposite of people who live the shortest: macronutrient rich, but micronutrient poor (think modern processed foods high in calories). A typical fruit or vegetable can have hundreds of phytonutrients and other chemical compounds that are just very hard to recreate in processed foods. This is in addition to the 30 or so micronutrients that we already know of that are essential for certain biological processes. In the black hole that is nutritional research, population and epidemiological studies simply show people who do include a lot of vegetables in their diet tend to have better health outcomes. It's likely you might draw a different conclusion from that research than people involved in the field, but it's probably one of the safest bets we can make when it comes to staying healthy.
  - JesseMReeves 6y ago
    These are good points. The Japanese (and probably many Chinese) cuisines certainly fall into the micronutrient-rich category (with seaweed, fish, etc.), have seemingly been tested for centuries and are awesome. Difficult to have these diets in the Western world though. As for the science factor, I am a bit suspicious of people who have made nutrition their life topic. I get vibes of eating disorders or very controlling food choices. Like the formerly obese or anorexic person who becomes a dietitian because they did not manage to get rid of the cognitive addiction (they chose a profession where they can talk about food all the time). This might explain the tendency for these research areas to go with diet fads, or promote food very poor in nutrients like lettuce while rarely talking dangers like pesticides or issues how you should even come close to the daily recommended values with modern-grown veggies. Also, there are some shoddy science practices in highly promoted studies. They often seem to work with mindless questionnaires („how many grams of potato did you eat last week?“). Then there is a huge correlation vs. causation problem. In some countries only rich and educated people have time and money to cook or even think about their food choices.

JesseMReeves 6y ago

I‘d like to see this statement discussed more. It‘s easy to brush it off as some very US-American PoV, point at food culture, feeling full and vitamins / minerals, and imagine some person who doesn’t watch their health at all. But given above article about declining nutritional values and the availability of more efficient ways to avoid deficits (supplements, soylent variants) it can indeed be questioned why we are wasting so much time, resources and energy globally on what is essentially a pretty bag of water nowadays. Additionally, cooking at home (which I did for years), including produce shopping, cutting, preparing, cleaning the waste is a huge investment of time, money and energy. If it doesn’t even lead to better health because you are essentially transforming bags of water into other forms it should probably not be considered more essential than other time consuming hobbies. After including a soylent variant in my diet I somehow started only buying fruits and vegetables that I’m sure have some nutritional value (i.e. garlic or avocado but no more lettuce or oranges). Otherwise I mostly get them im restaurants, but rather for foodie reasons.