5 ms·

Eat what people ate a hundred years ago There is no magic but,most of what we eat in the west is shit

b3nji 4y ago
This, all day long. Find a local Farmer, buy meat, vegetables, and dairy from them. Not only will you have great quality products straight from the source, but the farmer will get good profit too. Also, the food is so much better for you than the processed shit that you find in most supermarkets nowadays. Local food, and local people is so much better for all the things.
- cies 4y ago
  Dairy? There's literally no evidence dairy in a modern diet is healthy, and much evidence of it being unhealthy.
  - orangepurple 4y ago
    Regular pasteurized milk is problematic due to the presence of nucleic acids that are biologically active in humans. Fermented food products like yogurt are fine. UHT milk is OK. Milk is not just food but most likely a genetic transfection system activating mTORC1 signaling for postnatal growth https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23883112/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23883112/
    - cies 4y ago
      Yes it contains (natural) growth hormones. And we (milk binging nations) wonder how we got so fat?!
      - orangepurple 4y ago
        No, you do not quite understand: it is much more serious than "growth hormones" like rBST. Milk drinkers are inserting bovine RNA into their cells (unless it is heavily fermented or UHT) > Milk is rich in miRNAs that appear to play important roles in the postnatal development of all mammals. https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0101-2 https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10... > There is compelling evidence that human and bovine milk exosomes play a crucial role for adequate metabolic and immunological programming of the newborn infant at the beginning of extrauterine life. Milk exosomes assist in executing an anabolic, growth-promoting and immunological program confined to the postnatal period in all mammals. However, epidemiological and translational evidence presented in this review indicates that continuous exposure of humans to exosomes of pasteurized milk may confer a substantial risk for the development of chronic diseases of civilization including obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, common cancers (prostate, breast, liver, B-cells) as well as Parkinson's disease. Exosomes of pasteurized milk may represent new pathogens that should not reach the human food chain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6317263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6317263/
        cies 4y ago
        How did dairy ever become a health food is beyond me. (lobby + tradition probably) The whole "calcium" argument is also totally debunked.
        orangepurple 4y ago
        Cows convert grass to something drinkable and caloric so it's good for surviving on the steppe with your cows.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    Half of Americans aren't obese because of dairy. The leading cause of death isn't cardiovascular disease because of dairy. Everything is unhealthy if you look hard enough, before looking at dairy I'd look at sodas, sugar/carbs in everything, &c.
    - throwaway290 4y ago
      Was there ever a study?
      - lm28469 4y ago
        Yes, we're all part of it right now. Feel free to check pretty much any study about obesity or western diet. Or just go for a walk down the street or in an hospital
        throwaway290 4y ago
        The question is how many of them don't consume dairy I guess. Probably most do.
    - cies 4y ago
      How do you know? Dairy (especially high processed and in large quantities) is certainly a contributing factor.
  - hack_edu 4y ago
    No one thinks that peanuts and vegetable oil combine into some magic superfood, yet Plumpy'nut is concretely beneficial to keeping people fed and healthy. Now, consider this same rationale into to a kind of poverty close to home. There is plenty of evidence that milk in school lunches is often the only reliable daily source of calcium and protein for millions of impoverished children worldwide. Contextualized one way, milk is a meal replacement or nutrition supplement, and one that is more practical than most other options. A serving of whole milk requires zero on-site prep time, is relatively portable once packaged, and perhaps more importantly, it is often the most palatable option for picky eaters. Public health is complicated.
    - cies 4y ago
      > for millions of impoverished children worldwide. Did you read I wrote "modern diet". Those are not the typical HN reading crowd. Also: you could give them leafy greens can lentils to achieve the same.
    - cies 4y ago
      Those impoverished kids you talk about are often lactose intolerant. Sure the benefits of the dairy nutrition may outweigh the problems of the intolerance.
      - hack_edu 4y ago
        > Those impoverished kids you talk about are often lactose intolerant. Exactly. Same goes for other common allergies options like legumes, seafood, and gluten. That's why you provide options.
SSLy 4y ago
Considering generational trauma left in my family by mass famine, no thank you.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Why do people get so dumb every time we talk about nutrition ?
  - hack_edu 4y ago
    Its impossible to have a sane conversation about nutrition, especially in a historical context, when addressing folks' anecdotal cultural notions of what foods make their body feel good. Whatever point you're trying to make is meaningless without offering science or anthropological-historical context to back it up.
    - lm28469 4y ago
      In the US (and many other places actually): - 70% obesite/overweight rate - 20% of kids are obese before hitting 18 - The 2 leading causes of deaths are lifestyle related, with diet being a big part of both Every single study and scientist you will find will tell you our diet is dog shit, they'll tell you we eat too much sugar, too many carbs, too much salt, too much processed food People discussing if artificial sweeteners are better or worse than sugar are like drug addicts discussing if heroin is less worse than fentanyl Just cut that shit out of your life, there are no drawbacks and an infinite amount of benefits. They're not necessary, they're not needed, you're just addicted to them. We see the results, we have the stats, the science tells us why, we know. I don't get how anyone can argue the opposite, we eat shit, the vast majority of things sold in supermarket is shit, most people eat shit and they visibly suffer from it
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - symlinkk 4y ago
        People eat sugar around the globe though it’s not just an American thing.
Earw0rm 4y ago
Eat the best of what people ate a hundred years ago. Plenty of people at that time were either: Starving or near starvation. Eating a profoundly limited diet for much of the year, relying heavily on salting, drying, pickling - freezers didn't exist for most people, food imports were brutally expensive and too slow anyway for short-life fresh produce. Eating food contaminated with all sorts of garbage (sawdust in bread..) as food safety inspection and enforcement was only starting to become a thing. Eating offal. So much offal. Roasting a whole chicken was a few times a year treat for my mother's family, middle income, UK, 1940s/50s. "A chicken in every pot" was a US campaign slogan circa 1930 - before factory farming, lean meat was unaffordable for many. People on upper middle class incomes in well-connected parts of the world had it pretty good by the 1920s, but the average citizen, not so much.
- djtango 4y ago
  Are you suggesting eating offal is a negative?
  - Earw0rm 4y ago
    Depends which. Chicken or duck hearts, most types of liver, sure, once in a while. Oxtail soup. Tripe, cow tongues, kidneys, trotters, chicken feet, lungs, brains? Know they're big in some cultures, but no thanks.
    - GordonS 4y ago
      Lungs are delightful in haggis, and I'm rather partial to kidneys in a steak pie. I've had brains in Asia plenty times, and they are actually quite tasty - but I stopped eating them when I learned of prions. I've tried chicken feet once... and to my great shame, I almost vomited all over the table! Using my teeth to scrape gelatinous skin off a chicken toe provides a visceral reaction :( I guess we all have our food red lines!
      - goda90 4y ago
        I had what I'm pretty sure was under or over cooked cow? stomach cut in strips and served with a pretty unexciting sauce. It was so chewy. Made me queezy. I also refused the one time I was given the choice of blood sausage or just lettuce.
moremetadata 4y ago
[dead]
makeitdouble 4y ago
> what people ate a hundred years ago So depending on where you are, not much [0] Or a lot of what we would now shy away from, if you had the means [1]. And probably wine at lunch, a lot of alcohol and tobacco otherwise, and some other funny gummy stuff to chew if you fancied that. My point is, we're probably looking at the past with way too rosy glasses, regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/famine/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/famine/ [1] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/f6/25/67f6253ac36145bf9d0b392af2d11c5c--chocolate-syrup-hershey-chocolate.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/f6/25/67f6253ac36145bf9d0b392af...
- BigCryo 4y ago
  Some scientists or shall we say experts on ancient diets estimate that prehistoric man ate as much as 100 to 200 g of fiber a day... Which could make sense because the vegetables we eat these days have been so domesticated that their starch content is far higher than it was in the past.. people ate a lot of different plant items from undomesticated plants, these plant parts were not high starts they were like low starts but they had some starch and some protein and some fat... But the fiber part of it was much greater because it was hard to separate the fiber from the starch.. so it's quite possible that these prehistoric people say 20,000 years ago 30,000 years ago whatever ate well over 100 g of fiber a day.. The fiber requirement today is supposed to be 23 g of fiber, maybe 24.. the average American eats maybe 20 grams of fiber a day..
  - SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
    But we need to know if those hundreds of grams of fiber have value or not. The prehistoric man on average also ate many less pineapples than us - does that mean pineapples are bad?
    - lm28469 4y ago
      I'd recommend upping you fiber intake, the results are almost instantaneous. 99% chance you don't eat enough of them
acuozzo 4y ago
> Eat what people ate a hundred years ago Why not go back nearly two thousand years then? Let's eat like Roman aristocrats!
stev-0 4y ago
This isn’t advice. People get a lot older nowadays. I recon food(safety and available) makes a big contribution to that. Moderns food is pretty good. Just keep your diet varied and sane.

This, all day long. Find a local Farmer, buy meat, vegetables, and dairy from them. Not only will you have great quality products straight from the source, but the farmer will get good profit too. Also, the food is so much better for you than the processed shit that you find in most supermarkets nowadays. Local food, and local people is so much better for all the things.

cies 4y ago
Dairy? There's literally no evidence dairy in a modern diet is healthy, and much evidence of it being unhealthy.
- orangepurple 4y ago
  Regular pasteurized milk is problematic due to the presence of nucleic acids that are biologically active in humans. Fermented food products like yogurt are fine. UHT milk is OK. Milk is not just food but most likely a genetic transfection system activating mTORC1 signaling for postnatal growth https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23883112/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23883112/
  - cies 4y ago
    Yes it contains (natural) growth hormones. And we (milk binging nations) wonder how we got so fat?!
    - orangepurple 4y ago
      No, you do not quite understand: it is much more serious than "growth hormones" like rBST. Milk drinkers are inserting bovine RNA into their cells (unless it is heavily fermented or UHT) > Milk is rich in miRNAs that appear to play important roles in the postnatal development of all mammals. https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12986-016-0101-2 https://nutritionandmetabolism.biomedcentral.com/articles/10... > There is compelling evidence that human and bovine milk exosomes play a crucial role for adequate metabolic and immunological programming of the newborn infant at the beginning of extrauterine life. Milk exosomes assist in executing an anabolic, growth-promoting and immunological program confined to the postnatal period in all mammals. However, epidemiological and translational evidence presented in this review indicates that continuous exposure of humans to exosomes of pasteurized milk may confer a substantial risk for the development of chronic diseases of civilization including obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus, osteoporosis, common cancers (prostate, breast, liver, B-cells) as well as Parkinson's disease. Exosomes of pasteurized milk may represent new pathogens that should not reach the human food chain. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6317263/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6317263/
      - cies 4y ago
        How did dairy ever become a health food is beyond me. (lobby + tradition probably) The whole "calcium" argument is also totally debunked.
        orangepurple 4y ago
        Cows convert grass to something drinkable and caloric so it's good for surviving on the steppe with your cows.
- lm28469 4y ago
  Half of Americans aren't obese because of dairy. The leading cause of death isn't cardiovascular disease because of dairy. Everything is unhealthy if you look hard enough, before looking at dairy I'd look at sodas, sugar/carbs in everything, &c.
  - throwaway290 4y ago
    Was there ever a study?
    - lm28469 4y ago
      Yes, we're all part of it right now. Feel free to check pretty much any study about obesity or western diet. Or just go for a walk down the street or in an hospital
      - throwaway290 4y ago
        The question is how many of them don't consume dairy I guess. Probably most do.
  - cies 4y ago
    How do you know? Dairy (especially high processed and in large quantities) is certainly a contributing factor.
- hack_edu 4y ago
  No one thinks that peanuts and vegetable oil combine into some magic superfood, yet Plumpy'nut is concretely beneficial to keeping people fed and healthy. Now, consider this same rationale into to a kind of poverty close to home. There is plenty of evidence that milk in school lunches is often the only reliable daily source of calcium and protein for millions of impoverished children worldwide. Contextualized one way, milk is a meal replacement or nutrition supplement, and one that is more practical than most other options. A serving of whole milk requires zero on-site prep time, is relatively portable once packaged, and perhaps more importantly, it is often the most palatable option for picky eaters. Public health is complicated.
  - cies 4y ago
    > for millions of impoverished children worldwide. Did you read I wrote "modern diet". Those are not the typical HN reading crowd. Also: you could give them leafy greens can lentils to achieve the same.
  - cies 4y ago
    Those impoverished kids you talk about are often lactose intolerant. Sure the benefits of the dairy nutrition may outweigh the problems of the intolerance.
    - hack_edu 4y ago
      > Those impoverished kids you talk about are often lactose intolerant. Exactly. Same goes for other common allergies options like legumes, seafood, and gluten. That's why you provide options.

SSLy 4y ago

Considering generational trauma left in my family by mass famine, no thank you.

lm28469 4y ago
Why do people get so dumb every time we talk about nutrition ?
- hack_edu 4y ago
  Its impossible to have a sane conversation about nutrition, especially in a historical context, when addressing folks' anecdotal cultural notions of what foods make their body feel good. Whatever point you're trying to make is meaningless without offering science or anthropological-historical context to back it up.
  - lm28469 4y ago
    In the US (and many other places actually): - 70% obesite/overweight rate - 20% of kids are obese before hitting 18 - The 2 leading causes of deaths are lifestyle related, with diet being a big part of both Every single study and scientist you will find will tell you our diet is dog shit, they'll tell you we eat too much sugar, too many carbs, too much salt, too much processed food People discussing if artificial sweeteners are better or worse than sugar are like drug addicts discussing if heroin is less worse than fentanyl Just cut that shit out of your life, there are no drawbacks and an infinite amount of benefits. They're not necessary, they're not needed, you're just addicted to them. We see the results, we have the stats, the science tells us why, we know. I don't get how anyone can argue the opposite, we eat shit, the vast majority of things sold in supermarket is shit, most people eat shit and they visibly suffer from it
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - symlinkk 4y ago
      People eat sugar around the globe though it’s not just an American thing.

Earw0rm 4y ago

Eat the best of what people ate a hundred years ago. Plenty of people at that time were either: Starving or near starvation. Eating a profoundly limited diet for much of the year, relying heavily on salting, drying, pickling - freezers didn't exist for most people, food imports were brutally expensive and too slow anyway for short-life fresh produce. Eating food contaminated with all sorts of garbage (sawdust in bread..) as food safety inspection and enforcement was only starting to become a thing. Eating offal. So much offal. Roasting a whole chicken was a few times a year treat for my mother's family, middle income, UK, 1940s/50s. "A chicken in every pot" was a US campaign slogan circa 1930 - before factory farming, lean meat was unaffordable for many. People on upper middle class incomes in well-connected parts of the world had it pretty good by the 1920s, but the average citizen, not so much.

djtango 4y ago
Are you suggesting eating offal is a negative?
- Earw0rm 4y ago
  Depends which. Chicken or duck hearts, most types of liver, sure, once in a while. Oxtail soup. Tripe, cow tongues, kidneys, trotters, chicken feet, lungs, brains? Know they're big in some cultures, but no thanks.
  - GordonS 4y ago
    Lungs are delightful in haggis, and I'm rather partial to kidneys in a steak pie. I've had brains in Asia plenty times, and they are actually quite tasty - but I stopped eating them when I learned of prions. I've tried chicken feet once... and to my great shame, I almost vomited all over the table! Using my teeth to scrape gelatinous skin off a chicken toe provides a visceral reaction :( I guess we all have our food red lines!
    - goda90 4y ago
      I had what I'm pretty sure was under or over cooked cow? stomach cut in strips and served with a pretty unexciting sauce. It was so chewy. Made me queezy. I also refused the one time I was given the choice of blood sausage or just lettuce.

moremetadata 4y ago

[dead]

makeitdouble 4y ago

> what people ate a hundred years ago So depending on where you are, not much [0] Or a lot of what we would now shy away from, if you had the means [1]. And probably wine at lunch, a lot of alcohol and tobacco otherwise, and some other funny gummy stuff to chew if you fancied that. My point is, we're probably looking at the past with way too rosy glasses, regular people ate a lot of junk as well. If they could afford to. [0] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/famine/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/films/famine/ [1] https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/f6/25/67f6253ac36145bf9d0b392af2d11c5c--chocolate-syrup-hershey-chocolate.jpg https://i.pinimg.com/736x/67/f6/25/67f6253ac36145bf9d0b392af...

BigCryo 4y ago
Some scientists or shall we say experts on ancient diets estimate that prehistoric man ate as much as 100 to 200 g of fiber a day... Which could make sense because the vegetables we eat these days have been so domesticated that their starch content is far higher than it was in the past.. people ate a lot of different plant items from undomesticated plants, these plant parts were not high starts they were like low starts but they had some starch and some protein and some fat... But the fiber part of it was much greater because it was hard to separate the fiber from the starch.. so it's quite possible that these prehistoric people say 20,000 years ago 30,000 years ago whatever ate well over 100 g of fiber a day.. The fiber requirement today is supposed to be 23 g of fiber, maybe 24.. the average American eats maybe 20 grams of fiber a day..
- SketchySeaBeast 4y ago
  But we need to know if those hundreds of grams of fiber have value or not. The prehistoric man on average also ate many less pineapples than us - does that mean pineapples are bad?
  - lm28469 4y ago
    I'd recommend upping you fiber intake, the results are almost instantaneous. 99% chance you don't eat enough of them

acuozzo 4y ago

> Eat what people ate a hundred years ago Why not go back nearly two thousand years then? Let's eat like Roman aristocrats!

stev-0 4y ago

This isn’t advice. People get a lot older nowadays. I recon food(safety and available) makes a big contribution to that. Moderns food is pretty good. Just keep your diet varied and sane.