It's worth noting for anyone that advocates this sort of diet that it is a luxury. Many people mention that you can make good food on such a diet, but it is doubtless time-consuming. What of those who work by the hour? And the ingredients are expensive. Many of the fancy foods on here come from Whole Foods, not HEB. Even if they become affordable, the time aspect is still important; most don't want to spend 2 hours cooking regularly.
Honest question for those who follow such a diet: how do you not feel hungry? If I don't have meat, I tend to stay hungry. I regularly eat lots of meat for this reason, and am still very slim (no health issues), so it's not like it's hurting me. I tried not eating meat for a month or so, and I perform measurably worse (comparing my output on days when I ate meat vs not). Maybe it just doesn't work for everyone?
Meat is very calorie dense due to the fat content -- if you don't eat it, you need to substitute a plant food that is also relatively calorie dense (like beans, lentils, or potatoes) but also, probably just eat more of it. I found that I needed to eat more when I became a vegan, and even more now that I'm trying to put on muscle mass.
Also, beans are a good substitute because they tend to dampen blood sugar swings, due to the way they feed our gut flora. And a sudden drop in blood sugar is a big reason for feeling hungry. This property of beans is known as the "second meal effect".
Note that just because you are slim and not having health issues, does not mean that meat is not gradually harming your health. There is rather overwhelming evidence that the cholesterol and saturated fat in meat is harmful to our circulatory health, and also that meat protein intake is linked to cancer growth by triggering the body to create IGF-1 (Insulin-like Growth Gactor 1).
Many people feel like (or are told) that they are craving protein, when in reality what they are craving is just more calories. Consider that most of us have had a lifetime to figure out what works for us with a meat-based diet, and were taught by our parents -- switching to a different diet isn't trivial. There are lots of good resources out there, but unfortunately, also lots of misinformation.
> you need to substitute a plant food that is also relatively calorie dense (like beans, lentils, or potatoes)
I tried this; not much help. I was used to a diet of essentially no carbs (and had found it beneficial for me), and actually switched because I had a friend who would not shut up about not eating meat and wouldn't stop until I did. I can indeed eat more, but occasionally I would get full and still not feel "full".
> meat is harmful to our circulatory health
I'm not so sure about this one. I've read about the adverse effects of IGF-1 with respect to cancer, but that seems to be more because it is a growth hormone. Is it any wonder a growth hormone can cause caner to grow? IGF-1, by keeping new cells forming, could help mitigate things like lower bone density and lower muscle tone with age.
I've tried replacing protein-calories with carb-calories. I gained a good amount of weight doing so, and didn't feel nearly as good. I'm much happier and healthier back on my old diet. Lots of meat (mostly white)/eggs/fish, a good amount of veggies, some fruit, lots of nuts, lots of dairy. Almost no sugar/soda/fried stuff/other such junk.
Maybe different people do best on different diets, and we should recognize that what's good for one is not always good for another. What irritates me is when people get sanctimonious about it and say that I'm evil if I don't eat their diet, even when my quality of life, health, and productivity is significantly better doing it my way.
> I tried this; not much help. I was used to a diet of essentially no carbs (and had found it beneficial for me), and actually switched because I had a friend who would not shut up about not eating meat and wouldn't stop until I did. I can indeed eat more, but occasionally I would get full and still not feel "full".
The question I ask when people bring this up is always: what type of carbs? Generally you know you're eating junk carbs when the ratio of carbohydrates to fiber is greater than 5 to 1 [0]. Processed carbs will help you pack on the weight fast, especially since most processed carbs are all coming from non-whole grains.
A lot of my friends/colleagues like to claim they're on a low/no carb diet. When posed with the question of how they get fiber or critical vitamins/nutrients they're failing to understand that all plants have carbs. A cup of kale has 6 grams in fact. The better approach should be to look at what type of carbs you're consuming vs eating less of all of them. The SAD consumer is often getting very little dietary fiber, unfortunately and even more so now with a lot of the misinformation about how carbs are blanket bad.
When I say carbs, I mostly mean grains, potatoes. I know most everything contains at least some, but it's a bit of a colloquialism and hard to avoid. Some occasional beans, oats, etc. I tried eating more of these as part of a diet, and beans were somewhat of a help, but I still didn't feel the same.
> A cup of kale has 6 grams
I hate kale. Everyone pushes it as a superfood, but the texture is disgusting. Also, a recent report showed it had tons of pesticides. I can't help wondering if people eat it out of the same mentality that makes us think medicine should taste bad.
> dietary fiber
I think I put this above, but I ate beans, nuts, some oats, and fruits and veggies. I just had a lot of meat as well (as in, half to three-fifths of my plate). I wasn't on the typical Western-pattern diet by any means.
I honestly believe a plant-based diet just doens't work for everyone. And I will continue eating what works best for me, though I'm always open to trying something that could be better (the entire reason I tried plant-based in the first place).
And we're back to the time issue. Also, I'm not sure I should have to do that much to food (destroy the internal structure, cook it, and cover it up) just to make it palatable.
Hmm, ok. First off, let me say that I won't judge you at all for eating meat. I'm not an ethical vegan -- my reasons are about 90% for health, and 10% for environmental concerns. It's weird, but it's only after becoming vegan that I've started to care a bit more about animal welfare -- prior to that it was like "I'm not totally comfortable with the fact that animals have to die to provide me with meat, but it's very tasty, and I'm good at compartmentalizing". It would be very hypocritical of me to criticize anyone else for this reason.
I should also note, that I follow a whole-food, plant based diet, which is both stricter than a typical vegan diet in some ways, and less strict in others. I don't obsess so much if I have a bit of honey, or if my food has touched some meat, or anything like that. But I try pretty hard to stick to "whole foods", which rules out "vegan junk food", and in fact most processed foods, which have added oil, salt, and sugar, and have fiber and valuable phytonutrients stripped out. The fact that I don't eat anything with processed oil means that it's really quite hard for me to eat so much that I gain fat. I believe the term "nutritarian" is another way to describe this diet. (But of course, I cheat once in a while).
I sort of agree with you about people doing best on different diets, but in a more limited sense than you mean, I think. For sure, nuts and avocados have a lot of research showing their health benefits -- but I don't eat them, because every time I do I feel like crap for the next day or so (which is SUPER annoying, because I fucking love avocado). Whole wheat is healthy, unless you have Crohn's disease.
I think that some people who feel better without carbs might feel better because they eliminated a particular chemical that comes along with certain types of carbs, without realizing what the exact culprit was. Someone who suffers from a dairy intolerance and drinks milk every day, might actually feel better after switching to an all-beef diet, even though they cut out tons of healthy foods!
But overall, I think that the general shape of the healthiest human diet is virtually all plant foods, with most calories from carbohydrates rather than animal protein and fats. In exceptional cases like childhood epilepsy, ketogenic diets can be valuable, but there is a long list of undesirable side effects -- it's just that it's better than the alternative. And the Standard American Diet is so bad that pretty much any deviation from it is an improvement.
I don't want to try to convince you that you should stop eating meat because I want to prove that I'm right, or something... It's more that I wish that everyone can be happy and healthy, and I based on what I've learned in the past few years of geeking out on nutrition research, I suspect that though you feel better on a high-animal-protein diet, it might be causing you (and most other people) long-term harm. And that there might be a diet that works for you both in terms of long-term health and also just plain feeling good.
But I understand that it's really hard to try to eat something that you expect to make you feel unwell. I 100% understand if you are happy enough with this diet not to want to make any more changes.
I guess, just, maybe if down the line you find that you're suffering from high blood pressure, or heart disease, or pre-diabetes, or just start feeling unwell, you might remember our conversation and consider giving a plant-based diet another try. Maybe at first just by swapping in some beans in the place of meat, fish, or eggs (they're not terribly high-carb), and gradually trying out other foods.
By the way, if you don't eat a particular food and then suddenly start eating it, it can take a while for your gut bacteria to adjust. Different types of foods require completely different bacteria to digest them, and the lack of the right type of bacteria can cause the food to just ferment in your intestines, which feels pretty bad and leads to smelly farts. It's best to make dietary changes slowly.
Also, it's possible to eat a low-carb vegan diet, with most of the calories coming from plant-based oils. It takes some planning though.
And the fact that you eat vegetables, fruit, nuts, and avoid trans fats and other junk food is a step up from the standard american diet, for sure.
Oh, and finally: IGF-1 is a growth hormone, you're correct. The reason it leads to cancer is that when you get more of it than your body naturally produces, by eating meat, it stimulates the production of new blood vessels. Tumors need a lot more nutrients than normal tissue to support their growth rate, and IGF-1 gives them that -- without it, they have a much harder time.
We are actually getting little cancers all the time, but our body is quite good at killing them, if avoid foods that help the cancer and eat lots of foods that with anti-cancer chemicals (cruciferous vegetables, for example). If our immune system couldn't fight most of the little cancers, we'd be in some pretty serious trouble.
Anyway, I wish you the best of health and happiness! Thank you for your honest and thoughtful discussion.
When you say meats, do you mean all meats? I am genuinely asking. My diet is more based on poultry than red meats. I've always heard red meat is not good for you in long term. So, I wonder if these effects that you mentioned are more pronounced with a certain kind of meat. Seems like you've done a lot of research and I am curious.
> It's worth noting for anyone that advocates this sort of diet that it is a luxury.
Utter nonsense. A commonly perpetuated myth. Foods like lentils have the best cost-nutrition ratios of any food. What do you think the people around the world living on $1 a day are eating?
> doubtless time-consuming. What of those who work by the hour? ...most don't want to spend 2 hours cooking regularly.
I follow a plant based diet, although I eat only a small subset of the foods on the list I think I can answer some of your questions.
> how do you not feel hungry?
Lots of starch. Carbs and eating more volume vs. when I ate meat is what fills me up. It's a bit of an adjustment but you get used to it. After doing this for three years I don't feel a need to eat meat/cheese/eggs etc.
> What of those who work by the hour? most don't want to spend 2 hours cooking regularly.
Being plant based really limits your eating out options and options for convenient processed foods. Granted cooking your own food takes significant time. I work full time and I'm taking masters classes. I make it work because eating healthful meals is important to me. I find efficiencies in batch processing. I cook my whole weeks worth of food in a few hours on the weekend. I'm faster than I was when I started, probably because I have built up muscle memory and also because I select foods that I know I can make quickly.
> Maybe it just doesn't work for everyone?
One of my friends wants to go plant based, but she has a small stomach. So eating more volume is a problem for her. Different people are going to experience plant based diets differently. For me the first month was the hardest to transition because I was so used to the SAD diet before. For me the second month was easier.
Edit: found it: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SAD tells me it's a "standard american diet", which I take to mean big portions of mainly burgers, fries, and sugary drinks.
Beans and grains are generally pretty cheap and available pretty widely. You can make a lot at a time, and stick it in a tupperware container to later combine/season. Eating beans/grains can also be quite filling.
I personally grow tired of eating such things after a while, but I don't think they are expensive/time-consuming and they do satisfy hunger.
> I personally grow tired of eating such things after a while, but I don't think they are expensive/time-consuming and they do satisfy hunger.
"Satisfy hunger" does sound pretty basic though, doesn't it? I don't think the idea was "you can survive for a long time on this", but rather "this is tasty, ethical and nutritious, go try it".
I recently tried to go full vegan for a month and found it surprisingly easy. You can make a lot of variations of beans/lentils and rice (with various other veggies and spicing) that are cheaper than meat-based meals, taste amazing, contain plenty of protein and can keep for days. Doesn't have to take more than 30 minutes to put together such a meal.
Noodles and fried tofu takes no longer to cook than a steak, and is just as good. A big pot of curried lentils can be set up in ten minutes, let simmer for about an hour, and lasts all week. Tacos with refried beans instead of hamburger is a straightforward substitute. The list goes on. (Nor am I sure that any of those are significantly less caloric than the equivalent meat dishes.)
I suspect that most people who think they can’t manage a vegetarianism, by experience or otherwise, are making the mistake of thinking that a “vegetarian diet” consists of just the vegetarian side-dishes familiar from a meat-eating diet. That is not true, and if you try to do it that way, of course it’s not going to work. A proper diet finds foods that fill the role of meat, one way or another.
Certainly, I concur- the tofu is definitely better. :)
Sadly, we live in a world where everyone knows how to skillfully prepare beef, but no one knows how to do the same thing with tofu. I think that accounts for the difference. (Useful experiment: try a piece of raw beef, and then a piece of raw tofu. They’re both equally bad!)
After switching to a plant-based diet for health reasons at first, I started looking for alternatives to meat/dairy and found a wealth of tasty recipes - the vegan community is quite inventive, maybe due to the constraints.
One of my new favorites is homemade seitan, it is easy to prepare in a food processor and can be stored for a long time. Getting the texture right took some try and error, now I prefer this method (sparkling water) for a nice texture: https://www.elephantasticvegan.com/vegan-seitan-steak/#wprm-...
Other vegan "hacks" I found impressive were DIY vegan cultured camenbert (camenbert mould growing on cashew puree), aquafaba mousse au chocolat, asian stir fry with TVP or mock duck, jackfruit...
A lot of reverse engineering traditional recipes and reinventing them, perhaps the most innovative culinary movement at the momemt.
If you eat tons of starch you won't be hungry. I eat whole-wheat pasta, potatoes, rice, beans, peas, lentils, corn till failure at every meal and I am in great health.
Also this is hardly a "luxury" diet -- some of the poorest people on earth eat diets based around starches.
"It's worth noting for anyone that advocates this sort of diet that it is a luxury."
In what way is this diet a luxury? Some of the ingredients are not found in supermarkets and so not easily available. But beans, lentils, mushrooms, fruits are readily available at your local supermarket if you live Europe or the US.
Want to know what is a luxury? The world's consumption of meat, especially in Europe and US. I'm a meat eater, but we are eating more meat now that in any other time in history. We think such cheap and plentiful meat (on a daily basis for so many people) is how it's always been, but it's only thanks to industrial-scale farming we can eat meat so cheaply and with such abundance. And what a bunch of hypocrites we are on the subject (myself included). So many of us won't even consider reducing our meat consumption despite the proven role of animal agriculture in contributing to climate change.
I've been on Huel for a few months and find it keeps me full very well. Rice & pea protein with plenty of fiber. I still love good meat, but if I wanted to make sure I stayed full for hours at a time, it would no longer be my first choice.
> Many of the fancy foods on here come from Whole Foods
.. did we read the same list? Do you think lentils are "fancy"? Spinach? Mushrooms? Them starting with algae is probably a weird move, but regionally they are very available.
> how do you not feel hungry? If I don't have meat, I tend to stay hungry.
You need to think more critically, you probably crave meat because you have it almost every meal. Entire subcontinents and religions avoiding all meat products for millenia probably didn't all just "feel hungry and perform bad".
Just like like it's easy enough for someone to start eating meat, it's just as easy for you to stop.
> Honest question for those who follow such a diet: how do you not feel hungry? If I don't have meat, I tend to stay hungry.
It's a matter of making sure you eat enough. I've noticed when playing around with a mostly, but not entirely, vegetarian diet that there's no magic at all if you're already in the habit of counting calories.
I've known some people for whom it's more of a problem, for a few reasons. For starters, an athletic person who likes a steady three meals a day might have some problems and need to change some habits, but a snacker who is trying to lose weight might thrive with the change.
That's probably part of the issue; I fall more into the athletic 3-meal-a-day category, and I really just don't do well otherwise. I never counted calories, before or after, but gained a good bit of weight in a month when I tried a plant-based diet. I was used to eating very few carbs, and didn't do well having more. I basically tried eating enough to feel "satiated" (I actually got physically full on salad once or twice while still rather hungry and not satiated), and ended up doing much worse in terms of productivity, feeling, and weight on the plant diet.
Maybe not luxury, but I can correlate. Most of these things don't even have translations in my language, and I'm not even sure where to buy them, although I would gladly. It's probably the same situation as with neighbouring countries to mine, in landlocked Europe.
I am also trying to go without meat for a couple of months now and I too feel hungry more often than before. I didn't notice any affect on my performance though. So I wonder if that feeling of hunger is real or is it just some adjustment taking place and one gets used to it eventually. My main motivation though is not health but rather the fact that meat production is a massive contributor to climate change.
> It's worth noting for anyone that advocates this sort of diet that it is a luxury. Many people mention that you can make good food on such a diet, but it is doubtless time-consuming. What of those who work by the hour? And the ingredients are expensive.
I will disagree with this statement from personal experience. The first claim is that this is a "luxury diet", of which it is not. Grains, legumes, and most all leafy greens and vegetables on here fall within the same construct as meat pricing. Yes, you can spend a lot of money, but no it is not a requirement. I have tested not eating red or white meats now for ~16 months and consume fish or crustaceans on average once a week, but sometimes not. Over that time my weekly food cost has gone down on average. Yes, herbs and spices can be expensive however they are not exclusive to a more focused plant or whole food diet. Also, the claim about time-consuming is also false. I used to spend more time in meat than almost any dish I prepare now. From overnight smokes of pulled pork or half day cooks of meats in sous vide with a finish on grill was, by far much more work. Now, I understand those are not always normal cooking practice by everyone but normal meat prep involves proper prep and post prep regardless if you're making hamburgers or not. Maybe you're talking about preprocessed meats with your argument. But if you're arguing a preprocessed burger is easier, then I'm sure you're right. Frozen meat is horrible IMO, however.
> Honest question for those who follow such a diet: how do you not feel hungry? If I don't have meat, I tend to stay hungry. I regularly eat lots of meat for this reason, and am still very slim (no health issues), so it's not like it's hurting me. I tried not eating meat for a month or so, and I perform measurably worse (comparing my output on days when I ate meat vs not). Maybe it just doesn't work for everyone?
Moving to a plant / whole food focused diet doesn't leave you hungry if you're doing it in a complete way. Legumes are a great component and satiate just as well from a density of food standpoint. Our family has made breakfast burritos recently for friends who didn't know it was 100% plant based. This included the use of Just Egg (bean formulation of scrambled eggs) and an Italian Seitan product that is hard to distinguish in flavor and texture from ground breakfast sausage. The prep for this meal is identical to using those traditional ingredients. Nobody was hungry and everyone was impressed and asked for the recipe.
Ultimately it doesn't work if you don't give it a real try. My family and I cook a lot and the hardest part was getting out of the rut of the recipes we've made our own over the years. New ingredients, new recipes, new flavors. Not everything is good, not everything turns out. You learn and pivot. 3 months in I was feeling comfortable with the new direction I took. My family still will consume red and white meat when there's no other good choice. I have decided, for me, the ethical and global implications are a personal choice and continue to avoid it. Even though I don't cast judgement I feel as though more people should give it a fair shake. But it's easy to take the well traveled option. I will say though it's gotten easier only a year later to find options where I couldn't last year. They're not all the most healthy, but cater to more of the flavor pallette than health. There is that gray area of healthy plant based eating and the middle ground of Beyond Meat / Impossible Burger type alternatives. But even those still have a positive impact on things overall.
It does sound like in your attempt to go meat free you were missing something in your meals to round out comparative calorie intake. My recommendation is the cookbook: Vegan For Everyone by America's Test Kitchen. There are a lot of fantastic recipes in there but it is one of the best to get you going. There are many other cookbooks that have helped me find new avenues of cooking as well. I think, for me, that guidance and ideas are the reason I still continue down the path I'm on today.
> I used to spend more time in meat than almost any dish I prepare now. From overnight smokes of pulled pork or half day cooks of meats in sous vide with a finish on grill was, by far much more work.
Most people don't do this, and I certainly don't. Most people don't have the time to do it with meat either. I just roast chickens from costco or some turkey. Fish I don't do as often, because it's slow.
> I don't cast judgement
This sets you apart from many others, and I appreciate it. In an above reply, I detailed a little more how the whole plant-based thing didn't work for me, even with a sincere effort. I think not everybody does best on the same diet, and appreciate someone not trying to exalt the diet that works for them as the only one that is morally right.
> Beyond Meat / Impossible Burger type alternatives
Yuck. These are worse than the veggie option. I've tried the impossible burger once; never again. I think it was the smell that was wrong, but am not quite sure. It's the uncanny valley of meat, and I don't like it.
> Vegan for everyone by America's Test Kitchen
I appreciate the recommendation, but am not sure I would try again. I don't have any moral issues whatsoever with eating meat, and was doing it more because I had been so badgered about people who said it was better for them. I gave it a shot, and it didn't really work for me, but I'm glad to here it does for some.
> Yuck. These are worse than the veggie option. I've tried the impossible burger once; never again. I think it was the smell that was wrong, but am not quite sure. It's the uncanny valley of meat, and I don't like it.
While I don't consume the alternatives all the time I don't find them repulsive either. Both Impossible and Beyond Meat have a compelling product in my personal opinion having eaten meat and been somewhat of a "picky" burger consumer. Then again we all have different pallettes.
I'm curious of what your opinion of the Impossible Whopper at Burger King would be. Back in my younger days I enjoyed a Whopper from time to time and am excited to see how close it comes. Seems to be a rather large investment in fast food these days to validate this path as consumers look for the "healthier" alternatives.
I mean, I don't see a reason why not. I tend to start with an assumption that it's fine until I find something contrary. I'm not sure I'd eat it, and I still think the burger bun, fries, soda/milkshake/chocolate milk, etc. are much worse for you than any burger, but there's rarely a problem with expanding consumer choice and product availability.
After watching the excellent documentary "Eating You Alive", I have mostly switched to a whole-food plant-based diet and feel fantastic, although I do eat the occasional pair of eggs. The big difficulty with the diet is avoiding all the refined oils that permeate our packaged food culture. Luckily, my wife is a professional cook and still cooks at home.
That said, this document already has some of my favs and has added a ton of new ideas. This crazy diet is really difficult just from a "finding foods I can actually eat" sense. As such, I have lost a few pounds but one thing I notice for sure is that my skin is in much better shape now. The beautiful thing about the diet is that I find that my body can handle cheat foods much better and I feel happy to get back on the diet right after.
Of all the things I miss, I miss cheese the most, but coffee with oat milk is just fine. Ultimately, I think the beauty of this diet is that I am forced to eat things like beans, tubers, tofu and whole grains for lack of anything else to eat. And I'm usually so dang hungry that I love them, thanks to my wife's efforts.
Oh, and the diet is actually much less expensive, especially when you buy dry beans.
Thanks for asking the obvious, but I sure don't know and the only people who do have a clue (i.e. those who did the downvoting) probably don't have the guts to explain themselves because it would likely prove their pettiness.
That we live in a world full of cowards is the sad-ass truth.
I scanned the report for Knorr's involvement and nothing seemed fishy to me. There was this paragraph:
This was assessed by Knorr cross-functional teams of marketers, nutritionists, chefs, and product developers spanning across Asia, Africa, North America, South America, Europe and Australia, who answered the assessment questions with yes/no/maybe for every ingredient. The data were collated and assessed to determine which foods should potentially be eliminated based on responses. If more than half of the countries answered ‘no’ to one of the questions, the ingredient was eliminated. The relative nutrient density scores (NRF) were considered when choosing between foods with similar input, ensuring the foods in the final list would be nutritious.
Then later near the bottom:
Knorr and WWF have joined forces with other leaders in nutrition and sustainability to develop Future 50 Foods
In writing this report, Knorr, WWF and Adam Drewnowski are grateful for input and review from experts at Bioversity International, Crops For the Future, EAT Foundation, Edelman, Food and Land Use Coalition (FOLU), Food Reform for Sustainability and Health (FReSH), GAIN, Global Crop Diversity Trust, Gro Intelligence, Oxfam GB, SDG2 Advocacy Hub, Wageningen University and Yolélé Foods. This report ultimately reflects the views of Knorr, WWF and Adam Drewnowski. The creation of this report was led by Dorothy Shaver, Registered Dietitian and Global Knorr Sustainability Lead. It was published in February 2019.
It should be changed as the report was spearheaded by Dorothy Shaver, "Registered Dietitian and Global Knorr Sustainability Lead."
Some will view that cynically, but there is absolutely nothing in the report that seems biased or benefiting Knorr in any way, beyond sincerely trying to herald sustainable food and at most getting a bit of credit for trying to do good. It still is an interesting read.
In case you decide to experiment with some things on the list...saffron milk cap mushrooms turn your urine reddish orange. Harmless, but a potential scare if you aren't aware.
It's the first thing I recommend if someone asks me about vegan fast food (or healthier alternative to other fast foods). Forget all that impossible burger nonsense, a great falafel place is the best!
I've had falafel and don't understand why non-vegetarians/vegans rarely eat it. It's tasty like any other food (and more tasty than some of the stuff we do commonly eat like bread!).
Of the five Guiding Principles on page 52 only about 1.5 of them are primarily concerned with the nutrition content of the food. The rest are mostly focused on their environmental impact.
Not that there's anything wrong with that. And clearly that's aligned with the mission of the WWF. But I think you'd get a much different list if it was just about maximizing the health of the eater. E.g. meat.
When I choose food at the grocery store I'm focused on which are better for me, not Earth. If I were convinced that there is a genuine discrepancy between those goals, I'd likely still choose me. Am I the bad guy?
Aside from fad diets like Atkins, you don't see health professionals recommending meat as the core of a healthy diet. My doctor tells me to eat a plant-based diet at every visit now. If there's a discrepancy here, it's not that you should be eating lots of meat.
nope, he said something just as absurd in another comment. People get realllly triggered and irrational when confronted with the fact their food is harmful to themselves and the planet.
The Earth will fix itself, eventually, no matter what we do to it. It's seen worse. I mean it apparently went from a ball of lava pelted with meteorite-nukes to the only verdant garden we have ever known, and it has already been through at least a few cataclysms.
Even if the planet disappears overnight, the universe at large will still go on as if we never existed.
You choose the scale you want to care about, and some levels require some sacrifice on other levels.
Which is closer to wishful thinking than science. Sure, Earth will go on, because Earth doesn't care. But humans are facing a climate catastrophe if they do not course-correct their impact on the planet, and that is what we mean by "good for the Earth" -- that is, good for the maintaining the planet as a place where we want to live.
Same with "Organic Food" its a label to describe the way the food was grown as low impact on the environment. Some organic foods can have fewer chemicals, or better flavor, but that is a side effect.
I don't think we can assume meat based diet is better than plant based diet anymore.
And without this assumption the "own good vs. common good" argument doesn't hold. Because in reality, "own good" and "common good" align at a lower consumption of meat. (Ignoring taste, obviously. Meat is delicious!)
No, you are not the bad guy but it's good to be concerned. I focus on companies when I shop. If there are two similar choices of big 2.5 gallons of water, I don't choose arrowhead. I think that's what they are trying to get at.
I really don’t want to come off as some sort of condescending euro-snob, but is the state of tap water in the US so bad so that you have to purchase plastic bottles of water?
In some parts of the US, notably coastal California, the taste, smell, and color(!) of the natural water supply can be quite poor. It has more to do with geology than tap water safety and remediating the natural chemistry is cost prohibitive in extreme cases. For example, in the western volcanic regions of the US, pristine water sometimes has an unpleasant sulfur taste -- perfectly safe to use but no one wants to drink that because it tastes awful due to natural water chemistry.
Many parts of the US have excellent tasting tap water, and in those places everyone drinks it. California is one exception, and many parts of it have infamously discolored and poor tasting/smelling water. When I lived in California I drank bottled water, most everywhere else I drank tap water. California water is safe, it just tastes terrible and is sometimes discolored because of where it comes from.
I agree with everything. But the treatment of water in California and its safety is subjective. The amounts of salts in the tap water is very unhealthy in certain regions. Even though this water is deemed safe by local governments, I still wouldn’t drink it.
I think the problem for most people not eating healthier is lack of knowledge in preparation, cooking and storing. Recently I purchased an instant pot and it makes cooking healthy food extremely easy with decreasing prep & cleaning time. I just throw everything into this pot with water, hit a few buttons and wait 30mins to an hour. All goes into containers in the fridge and can be reheated in the microwave. I can make a good week worth of food in a few hours. I'm still trying to perfect different meals since I never used to cook.
> Eating less common varieties of vegetables... drives demand which will increase the variety of types of crops grown, which, in turn, makes the food system more resilient
I get this, but it seems fundamentally at odds with economies of scale which surely the natural market would gravitate towards. Seems like government intervention would be necessary here to overcome the externalities that growing a single variety at extreme quantities creates?
Growing a single variety is likely too risky. While you may be able to minimize the risk with artificial watering, pest control etc, if it strikes, you'll end your company. Most companies don't aim for a series of all-or-nothing-bets even if the odds are in their favor on each one, they hedge their bets.
This might be true, but there are plenty of cases where this is exactly the case (e.g. bananas, rubber). Also, as the article points out, there are "heirloom" crops which would surely mitigate this danger somewhat but would presumably still be perfect for economies of scale - e.g. due to the reduced marginal cost for R&D to build machines etc. appropriate for harvesting?
Bananas are an example of a local single-crop bet, and they are hedged by planting different crops elsewhere. There certainly is a desire to reduce variety, but it's likely to come down to a few dozen plants (out of thousands, and for each one, there have been hundreds of variations and sub-types), not to a single one - too risky, and regional conditions are too different to have a one-size-fits-all-crop.
On the supply side, government intervention is what it takes to internalize externalities. Monocropping is only the most profitable choice when the cost of heavy use of fertilizers and pesticides is low.
Interesting, but could you elaborate? Are you saying governments are subsidising fertilizers and pesticides? And if so, why would that only be to the benefit of monocropping and no in general?
More "not charging for pollution from them" which it is kind of easy to see why trying to do so wouldn't be generally popular.
And those techs benefits everything but monocropping more. Crop rotation also restores soil quality but it is less optimal in yields and a "cycle" of crops means more variables to optimize for like soil, temperature, and financial yields.
So my depression, anxiety and adhd went away when I stopped eating plants. I have one sack of plastic waste per month and I buy locally and I spend about 16€ / week on meat and a few bucks more on cheese and eggs.
Maybe we should eat foods native to our culture and region. Being from Louisiana, I eat plenty of meat (I have no ethical qualms with animals dying so I can eat meat, its apart of life), vegetables that can grow in the region, starches that also grow in the region e.g.,, converted Louisiana white rice, and take in a good portion of dairy. I don't need my food imported from around the world, I eat what is grown and raised here. Couple that with an active lifestyle and I don't see any need to change.
> The Bambara groundnut is considered ‘complete food’ because of the balance of macronutrients accompanied by the amino acid and fatty acid content.
Is a "complete food" a food that supplies most of what we need? I've heard one could almost live on potatoes, with only some vitamin supplements, is that also a 'complete food'?
The tone of the comments in this thread terrify me. We have exchanged one set of preachers trying to tell us how to live with a new set of preachers telling us how to live and it is just as bad or worse. Always a group of people trying to suppress your freedom and advertise their virtue.
What does your comment even mean? "Here's 50 foods that reduce impact and feed more people"
"STOP OPPRESSING ME!"
Really? Like, if you don't think these foods are worth your time, maybe just do your own thing? These foods are already widely eaten by a whole range of people, cultures, and socieconomic statuses.
I will happily do my own thing, until the do goodies decide my hamburger is destroying the environment and adding to national health costs and decide to tax it into oblivion. The article wasn’t bad, I was more offput by the comments. I will edit my post to remove the reference to the article.
Well are you disputing the damage inflicted to the environment by meat consumption, or are you saying you should be allowed to harm the environment with no limitation or consequence whatsoever?
No reason to be terrified. The difference between now and the past times you're alluding to is that if back then people's freedom was being suppressed, nowadays they're volunteering it away. Want to stay free? Inform yourself from a variety of sources and infer the truth from the consistency of facts being reported. This report is but a supplemental source of input for you to dig in.
I agree, it's scary to see so many people be so smugly convince they are better than others and be gleeful about how they can take their choices and way of life (like eating meat) away.
Haha, what are you trying to say, my friend? Are you saying that you are unaware of the current practices in meat mass-production?
Because if you need a reminder, here is one link [1] and here is another. [2]
Can you honestly have any argument against the fact that 99% of the meat and dairy you buy on the market has been in some way altered or modified?
Not to mention that a lot of this product comes out enzyme-less by default, and by adding the factor if cooking it's just that much worse. Your body needs enzymes to process food, and if they're not there, you are literally dropping atomic bombs in your stomach that slow down your entire system. [3]
I'm not trying to be hypocritical either. I grew up on meat and dairy. But somehow the transition away from it came naturally to me, many, many years ago.
I lived near local farms for most of my life, and even the local farmers (in a "remote" part of the world) have started to use additive injections and questionable food choices because there is serious competition.
And I understand your point of view. You think I come off sounding insensitive, but I am more than happy to talk facts and lay down some examples. Because, after all, that's what HN loves the most.
Way to personify the smug elistist diet. Lower and middle class blue collar worker arent walking around talking about their ‘addiction’ to diary and meat.
Having a diet of single origin seaweed and small batch imported beans is a very nice luxary that is not for everyone. I’m glad you’ve found another way to be better than “those people”.
Intersting how global climate change is happily used as a wedge against individuals so readily.
I see what you are saying. But it's simply not true. Seeds, nuts, fruits, vegetables, and grains come in many different varieties. And most are very affordable.
I think the bigger issues is that people don't want to look like birds while nibbling away on a bowl of pineapple rice pudding with chia seeds.
I eat cooked food once or twice a week. Buckwheat and lentils (extremely cheap!) are my preferred choice. I can get a 2lb bag of soy protein with essential amino acids for exercise diet. Ohh, tempeh, tofu, Kimchi? Yeah man... soo elitist.
If you want I can go on. I have many years of experience and live a paycheck lifestyle.
This list recommends many foods that are rare in common western diets. You can eat none of the foods, some of the foods, or exclusively all the foods listed.
This. Western world has a bit skewed view of food anyway, since most distribution is handled by large companies that optimize for their own profit, and this applies to producers as well. We couldn't survive without modern "food chains", but that does not mean the crops used by the modern processes are the only viable ones. Rather, they are the most popular ones for which the processes have been optimized for.
A huge part of it is that they make money on what people want to buy as well.
I’m sure if they put seaweed and cacti in most American grocery stores most people would skip them for what they think will be good for dinner. Therefore having zero profit without the companies margins having anything to do with it.
What’s available has typically played a role but it’s not the only metric.
Where do you live, Maine? Every grocery store around me has seaweed and cacti and I live in the sticks. Only the most demographically challenged parts of the country lack Asian and Mexican options in the supermarkets.
I haven't found that true in the Northeast at all, even to "debatable if it is the north or the south" Maryland. From my perspective it seems like a regional bias like thinking every convenience store has Philadelphia soft pretzels when in reality it makes it to the tristate area as staple standard at best.
Sure you can get tacos, salsa, and egg rolls just about everywhere but any non-mainstream produce like plantains or lychee let alone seaweed or cacti are niche enough to call for specialty supermarkets.
I just said whether or not it’s available isn’t the only metric but whether people want to eat it or not. Which plays far more into revenue than just margins.
The fact some grocery stores have it is besides the point.
Um, if you read my entire posting I made it fairly clear I think it's awesome that we can use market forces to handle food distribution.
Maybe I was too obscure. The point I wanted to express was that the current species that are mainstream for food production are there for many reasons, including the fact, that it's easier to optimize food production business from the point of view of distributors if the number of species used is small.
Hence if there is an odd plant that is used only regionally, it does not mean it could not become a staple - just that it's not currently staple, and not necessarily for any inherent quality of plant itself.
Really? Source? Because the government took over and controls the means of production. So you can see how I am confused by you saying that Venezuela isn’t “really” socialism.
Or you can answer the topic at hand. Where is food distuributon successful where “companies optimizing for profit” is not the case.
The government has intervened to bring food to the poorest people, who have been cut off by corporations which do actually control the food supply. The government never took over the means of production.
If you have one, go to your local asian/world supermarket. They'll usually carry a lot of things on this list that you won't find at your standard large supermarket chain or even at whole foods.
Why not? My local mexican place does interesting things with cacti, very tasty. If you've ever had sushi you've probably had seaweed..which is part of the algae family.
That's a dumb attitude. Cacti produce some amazing fruits that I bet even a simpleton like you would enjoy. I eat about 60% of this list on a weekly basis, so some countries (not America) do actually have access to healthy foods already.
I'm not a simpleton, I'm just not gullible enough to eat arbitrary exotic food reccommended by a big company when everything I need is in stores around me.
Well it depends. For example cacti grow all over the place where I am from, even though cacti is not native from there.
People usually harvest the fruits but this document made me question whether the kind of cactus I've always seen walking around is actually edible (and if not, whether edible cacti could be grown as easily as the non-edible one).
Sincere question: Do you actually believe that eating plants and not eating enough Meat and Dairy is what leads to obesity?
Could you please elaborate on that? Also, I'd love to know what country you are from, if you don't mind me asking :)
Honest question for those who follow such a diet: how do you not feel hungry? If I don't have meat, I tend to stay hungry. I regularly eat lots of meat for this reason, and am still very slim (no health issues), so it's not like it's hurting me. I tried not eating meat for a month or so, and I perform measurably worse (comparing my output on days when I ate meat vs not). Maybe it just doesn't work for everyone?