6 ms·

Regenerative ag with animals and produce on one farm seems to me to be the healthiest and most sustainable path forward. Mono anything is terrible for consumpt

Regenerative ag with animals and produce on one farm seems to me to be the healthiest and most sustainable path forward. Mono anything is terrible for consumption and production externalities. Wheat and other grains that require fortification with vitamins and minerals just to not kill the consumer are terrible and shouldn't be eaten by anyone. Also saturated and animal fats are good for you. Chemically expressed vegetable trans-fats are not. https://thebigfatsurprise.com/ https://thebigfatsurprise.com/ https://drcate.com/deep-nutrition-why-your-genes-need-traditional-food/ https://drcate.com/deep-nutrition-why-your-genes-need-tradit...

i_am_proteus 5y ago
Wheat does not require "fortification with vitamins and minerals just to not kill the consumer." Wheat is a viable staple, up until recently a luxury staple, that forms the basis for a healthy diet when eaten alongside a modest amount of vegetables. For those with gluten intolerances, and also for those without, rice accomplishes the same.
- browningstreet 5y ago
  Given the percentage of wheat that makes up the diets of certain demographics in the US, and the lack of vegetables that go along with it, micronutrient deficient diets are predominant and fortification has been seen as a public health necessity. For those who eat healthy, calorie appropriate, nutrient dense diets... fortification isn't necessary, but that doesn't seem to be the public health version of the world many people operate in.
  - i_am_proteus 5y ago
    This does not mean that wheat "should not be eaten."
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      Wheat should be seen as in the same category as sugar and alcohol--not a part of a healthy diet. It does not provide a needed nutrient. Carbohydrates in this form are terrible for blood sugar and don't provide any nutrients on their own.
      - i_am_proteus 5y ago
        You appear to be conflating "wheat" with "carbohydrates." Wheat contains many necessary nutrients, including, importantly, protein. This article about staple crops provides additional details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food
        reedjosh 5y ago
        In its truly whole form it provides: Total Fat2.24g3% Saturated Fat0.386g2% Trans Fat- Polyunsaturated Fat0.935g Monounsaturated Fat0.278g Cholesterol0mg0% Sodium6mg0% Total Carbohydrate87.08g32% Dietary Fiber14.6g52% Sugars0.49g Protein16.44g Calcium41mg3% Iron4.66mg26% Potassium486mg10% Which isn't actually that bad, but when you consider the glycemic index is near sugar, and if you ate a diet in the proportions of carbs/fat/protein that this food has, you would have the recommended us low fat diet that has only increased obesity over the last fifty years. https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/flour-whole-wheat https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/flour-w... https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce... On top of this most people consume wheat as bread--a highly refined version that is likely to have less fiber, protein, fat, and micronutrients. The protein in wheat is not complete either. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1671292708600668 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S16712... Now consider an egg: Calories 74 % Daily Values* Total Fat4.97g6% Saturated Fat1.55g8% Trans Fat- Polyunsaturated Fat0.682g Monounsaturated Fat1.905g Cholesterol212mg71% Sodium70mg3% Total Carbohydrate0.38g0% Dietary Fiber0g0% Sugars0.38g Protein6.29g Calcium26mg2% Iron0.92mg5% Potassium67mg1% Vitamin A70mcg8% All that in 74 calories, and a complete protein.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 5y ago
> Regenerative ag with animals and produce on one farm seems to me to be the healthiest and most sustainable path forward. What's the evidence for that being healthier? Moreover, what's the health improvement relative to the cost? SV engineers might be willing to pay 3x more for something that's 5% healthier, but not a single parent household making minimum wage. >Also saturated and animal fats are good for you. Chemically expressed vegetable trans-fats are not. This seems to be contradicted by the available scientific evidence. >The effect of saturated fat on heart disease has been extensively studied.[23] There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the epidemic of cardiovascular disease.[8] The relationships are accepted as causal.[24][25] >Many health authorities such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[26] the British Dietetic Association,[27] American Heart Association,[8] the World Heart Federation,[28] the British National Health Service,[29] among others,[30][31] advise that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organization in May 2015 recommends switching from saturated to unsaturated fats.[32] >There is moderate-quality evidence that reducing the proportion of saturated fat in the diet, and replacing it with unsaturated fats or carbohydrates over a period of at least two years, leads to a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease.[23]
- nradov 5y ago
  If you actually read the referenced studies from an evidence-based medicine standpoint they're pretty weak. They're mostly just observational with unreliable subject reported data. They haven't fully controlled for all confounding factors such as the healthy subject effect. And effect sizes are small. I'm not claiming that saturated fats are necessarily healthy. Just that it's premature to label them as unhealthy. They're probably like almost every other food: fine in moderation but problematic when eaten to excess.
  - gruez 5y ago
    >If you actually read the referenced studies from an evidence-based medicine standpoint they're pretty weak. They're mostly just observational with unreliable subject reported data. They haven't fully controlled for all confounding factors such as the healthy subject effect. And effect sizes are small. The first citation (23) links to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/, which analyzed 15 randomized controlled trials. The effect size is 17% reduction in "combined cardiovascular events". Considering that "heart disease" is the top cause of death in the US (https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2015-a.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...), that seems like a big effect size.

i_am_proteus 5y ago

Wheat does not require "fortification with vitamins and minerals just to not kill the consumer." Wheat is a viable staple, up until recently a luxury staple, that forms the basis for a healthy diet when eaten alongside a modest amount of vegetables. For those with gluten intolerances, and also for those without, rice accomplishes the same.

browningstreet 5y ago
Given the percentage of wheat that makes up the diets of certain demographics in the US, and the lack of vegetables that go along with it, micronutrient deficient diets are predominant and fortification has been seen as a public health necessity. For those who eat healthy, calorie appropriate, nutrient dense diets... fortification isn't necessary, but that doesn't seem to be the public health version of the world many people operate in.
- i_am_proteus 5y ago
  This does not mean that wheat "should not be eaten."
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    Wheat should be seen as in the same category as sugar and alcohol--not a part of a healthy diet. It does not provide a needed nutrient. Carbohydrates in this form are terrible for blood sugar and don't provide any nutrients on their own.
    - i_am_proteus 5y ago
      You appear to be conflating "wheat" with "carbohydrates." Wheat contains many necessary nutrients, including, importantly, protein. This article about staple crops provides additional details: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staple_food
      - reedjosh 5y ago
        In its truly whole form it provides: Total Fat2.24g3% Saturated Fat0.386g2% Trans Fat- Polyunsaturated Fat0.935g Monounsaturated Fat0.278g Cholesterol0mg0% Sodium6mg0% Total Carbohydrate87.08g32% Dietary Fiber14.6g52% Sugars0.49g Protein16.44g Calcium41mg3% Iron4.66mg26% Potassium486mg10% Which isn't actually that bad, but when you consider the glycemic index is near sugar, and if you ate a diet in the proportions of carbs/fat/protein that this food has, you would have the recommended us low fat diet that has only increased obesity over the last fifty years. https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/flour-whole-wheat https://www.fatsecret.com/calories-nutrition/generic/flour-w... https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glycemic-index-and-glycemic-load-for-100-foods https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/glyce... On top of this most people consume wheat as bread--a highly refined version that is likely to have less fiber, protein, fat, and micronutrients. The protein in wheat is not complete either. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1671292708600668 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S16712... Now consider an egg: Calories 74 % Daily Values* Total Fat4.97g6% Saturated Fat1.55g8% Trans Fat- Polyunsaturated Fat0.682g Monounsaturated Fat1.905g Cholesterol212mg71% Sodium70mg3% Total Carbohydrate0.38g0% Dietary Fiber0g0% Sugars0.38g Protein6.29g Calcium26mg2% Iron0.92mg5% Potassium67mg1% Vitamin A70mcg8% All that in 74 calories, and a complete protein.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

gruez 5y ago

> Regenerative ag with animals and produce on one farm seems to me to be the healthiest and most sustainable path forward. What's the evidence for that being healthier? Moreover, what's the health improvement relative to the cost? SV engineers might be willing to pay 3x more for something that's 5% healthier, but not a single parent household making minimum wage. >Also saturated and animal fats are good for you. Chemically expressed vegetable trans-fats are not. This seems to be contradicted by the available scientific evidence. >The effect of saturated fat on heart disease has been extensively studied.[23] There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the epidemic of cardiovascular disease.[8] The relationships are accepted as causal.[24][25] >Many health authorities such as the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics,[26] the British Dietetic Association,[27] American Heart Association,[8] the World Heart Federation,[28] the British National Health Service,[29] among others,[30][31] advise that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The World Health Organization in May 2015 recommends switching from saturated to unsaturated fats.[32] >There is moderate-quality evidence that reducing the proportion of saturated fat in the diet, and replacing it with unsaturated fats or carbohydrates over a period of at least two years, leads to a reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease.[23]

nradov 5y ago
If you actually read the referenced studies from an evidence-based medicine standpoint they're pretty weak. They're mostly just observational with unreliable subject reported data. They haven't fully controlled for all confounding factors such as the healthy subject effect. And effect sizes are small. I'm not claiming that saturated fats are necessarily healthy. Just that it's premature to label them as unhealthy. They're probably like almost every other food: fine in moderation but problematic when eaten to excess.
- gruez 5y ago
  >If you actually read the referenced studies from an evidence-based medicine standpoint they're pretty weak. They're mostly just observational with unreliable subject reported data. They haven't fully controlled for all confounding factors such as the healthy subject effect. And effect sizes are small. The first citation (23) links to https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32827219/, which analyzed 15 randomized controlled trials. The effect size is 17% reduction in "combined cardiovascular events". Considering that "heart disease" is the top cause of death in the US (https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2015-a.pdf https://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_dea...), that seems like a big effect size.