Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants. (2007) - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13487886 - Jan 2017 (179 comments)
The essential nutrients that your body needs are carbohydrates, protein, lipids, vitamins, minerals, fiber, and water. The first three are macronutrients, providing most of your body's energy in the form of calories.
Traditional diets incorporate all of these nutrients naturally, as human beings formed traditional diets by sourcing needed nutrients from the surrounding environment. Before industrialization, humanity subsisted on these diets, and if you look far back enough you will find these foodways in your ancestral culture.
Industrialization provides us the luxury of choice in our diets, but it also leaves many displaced and confused as to choosing a diet. You will find that traditional dishes naturally incorporate all of our necessary nutrients. A good rule of thumb when building healthy meals is this:
Carb + protein + vitamins/minerals
Such as:
Rice + beans + tomato + onions
Potatoes + steak + green beans + milk
And so on.
The carbohydrates and proteins will provide the bulk of your calories and the feeling of "fullness" while the sources of vitamins and minerals will complete your diet.
A good metaphor is to think of the human body like a car that needs gasoline and oil primarily as well as some additional fluids to run optimally. A balanced diet will help you feel better physically and psychologically.
Whether you choose to source protein from plants or animals is entirely up to your discretion in this industrialized age, while it was previously a result of an agricultural or pastoral means of subsistence.
The article has an extensive discussion as to why this way of phrasing the problem is not only meaningless but actively harmful.
That's not to say your diet is necessarily bad; frankly by adhering to his "eat food, not too much" you're 2/3 of the way to what Pollan recommends. You're only missing "mostly plants", but you're doing better from his rubric than a diet consisting of mostly processed food products.
Sometimes when I go shopping, I catch myself checking fat and sugar first, then looking for added omega-3. The more I read, the more complicated eating seems to become. I keep staring at nutrition labels, and end up feeling more confused about what I should actually eat.
When fried in vegetable oil, I tend to eat 4-5. When fried in lard, 2 is starting to feel a bit much.
The animal fat option seems to be what my body prefers. There's clearly some kind of endogenous GLP-1 inhibition action going on. It sticks with me a lot longer too. I feel myself getting sucked into my work for hours on end instead of bouncing in and out of the kitchen every 30 minutes looking for a snack.
I think "mostly plants" can be interpreted as malicious advice given the realities of human biology.
tobinfekkes•8mo ago
"Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants."
Succinct, doesn't alienate anyone, or make a lot of rules, or shame you for doing the wrong thing. Don't complicate food.
I own a fresh organic produce delivery outfit in the Seattle region, and we basically run our operations off what he explains in more words. The more steps involved between the soil and your mouth, the less "food" it is. It might not kill you, but it also won't help you.
criddell•8mo ago
tobinfekkes•8mo ago
You should not drink Coke because it has WAY too much sugar and WAY too little of anything beneficial. If you tried to consume the amount of sugar in Coke by eating apples, you would be too full long before you get to Coke-level sugar intake. That's because of all the other stuff in an apple; it's not concentrated sugar.
Your body is a wonderful thing. Respect it and listen to it, it will keep you healthy. That's literally its job, and it only knows how to repair and heal you. It will keep the things it needs, and discard the rest. You can't "over-consume" if you eat real foods. Your body won't let you; you'll get full and stop. You can only over-eat engineered foods, which over-saturate sugar|fat|carbs|salt|etc, which then necessitates a "diet".
criddell•8mo ago
The word "diet" is not always about restriction. Surely you've heard people use the term "standard American diet" which doesn't have anything to do with restriction.
I assume you are talking about a raw diet (not necessarily calorie restricted diet) because of your comment about minimizing steps between soil and mouth.
thwarted•8mo ago
There's an episode of Mad Men where they are coming up with pitches for weight loss products and losing weight is referred to as "reducing", a term from before the word "diet" was used as you've described.
zahlman•8mo ago
Have you tested this?
drjasonharrison•8mo ago
Taking plants from the soil, or fruits from the tree/vine, and trimming, washing, cutting, and cooking are typically considered steps that are unavoidable for some plants.
The difference between a baked potato, potato chips, and Pringles is what we're talking about. The oil used for potato chips (and Pringles) originated from plants, but it has undergone several steps from plant to container of oil.
vladvasiliu•8mo ago
I don't know about Pringles / Lays &c, but I've never seen two potatoes of the same size and shape in a bag, so there must be some way they manage to get all their chips to look the same.
badc0ffee•8mo ago
Lays and nearly every other brand are just thinner versions of potato chips you could make yourself at home (cut thin, fry in oil, dress in salt). Nothing "blown to smithereens" there.
AStonesThrow•8mo ago
https://www.pringles.com/en-us/products/pringles-the-origina...
Lay's Classic contain only potatoes, currently with a grab-bag of oils:
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/Product?formula=LBS...
The most "basic" mass-produced snack food award goes to: Fritos!
https://www.pepsicoproductfacts.com/Home/product?formula=LBS...
(US formulations only. Your gas station may vary.)
milesward•8mo ago
tobinfekkes•8mo ago
https://boxofgood.com
schmidtleonard•8mo ago
I'm not even against the idea that processed food is often bad and should always be treated with skepticism, but naturalism as a foundational principle is just way too exploitable. I called "companies are going to start marketing sugar as a natural alternative to low-calorie sweeteners" a decade before I saw it in grocery stores and I would like to pre-register my prediction that tobacco products will soon come back as "natural alternatives to vapes" in the not too distant future.
testing22321•8mo ago
No, it’s incredibly simple and makes sense. Coke are Doritos are not food, they are a science experiment designed for the express purpose of getting you hooked. They have virtually no health benefits and a ton of negatives. Nobody should ever put them into their body, or certainly as little as possible.
Our “food” has changed more in 50 years than the preceding 500. Take away all the science experiments and eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much” and a massive number of health epidemics go away.
dr_dshiv•8mo ago
s_m_t•8mo ago
dr_dshiv•8mo ago
Agreed!
neuralRiot•8mo ago
This is a myth, healthy whole foods are way cheaper than any ready-made “meal” and that is not even taking in account the future savings in healthcare!
dr_dshiv•8mo ago
worik•8mo ago
I eat well.
I spend a lot of time cooking
neuralRiot•8mo ago
dowager_dan99•8mo ago
You can't throw out shit like this and then tack on "ymmv" as a disclaimer.
dr_dshiv•8mo ago
No, it would interfere with his Vibecoding
> Are Dutch people statistically taller than Germans?
Yes. 183 vs 179cm
> Do they eat more junk food?
Arguably. Few would argue that the food quality is better in the Netherlands than Germany.
> Does your milk have more hormones?
Well, there are hormones in milk, and the Dutch drink a lot of it. 25% more than Germans.
> Are Dutch taller today than previous generations?
Yes. But a centimeter shorter than those born in the 1980s, when it was still legal to pump cows up with hormones.
>You can't throw out shit like this and then tack on "ymmv" as a disclaimer.
I can’t exactly advocate for his diet — nor disclaim it. It’s confusing for me!
Govt statistics linked here, O3: https://chatgpt.com/share/6838c51d-c4a4-8007-97e7-431006f495...
paulpauper•8mo ago
neuralRiot•8mo ago
Submitting children to the standard american diet (or mostly western diet as sadly it is not relegated just to the USA anymore) should be considered child abuse, by feeding them high calorie, high cholesterol, high protein, high sugar meals you’re condemning them to a certain disease-ridden future.
dr_dshiv•8mo ago
badc0ffee•8mo ago
> Take away all the science experiments and eat what your great grandma did “mostly greens, not too much”
I don't know about your great grandma, but mine was mostly eating bread and potatoes, not mostly greens. Certainly generations before her were as well.
s_m_t•8mo ago
drekipus•8mo ago
Might it be the beans that are what you're able to live off?
What are Doritos adding to the equation here?
badc0ffee•8mo ago
Living off beans alone sounds hellish.
Spivak•8mo ago
dmonitor•8mo ago
jajko•8mo ago
One side they lived till higher 80s, another both till 95. Active till very late, basically maybe 1-2 years before death.
The thing is, they all lived frugally (and under hardships of communist rule, thats why garden). No junkfood as we know today. Tons of slow physical work on that garden. No vices like frequent alcohol consimption or cigarettes.
One of their sons (aka my uncle) smoked half a pack a day. Dead at 54 from heart attack, had a cancer before but got cca cured. Another daughter got over time overweight, little physical activity, and as I learned only recently became over time an alcoholic. Dead from an heart attack at 62.
Some folks I know have much worse lifestyles (ie smoke more than uncle, plus are more overweight, plus are alcoholics) yet keep living much longer.
Not sure what I want to say with all this, maybe that eating veggies is not enough. Its whats the rest of the plate and how much of it, how active you are, how stressed, how much exposure to bad chemicals. And genes, one thing completely out of control, but as mentioned above they alone wont save you.
stronglikedan•8mo ago
Actually, they aren't. They're what's left of corn tortillas after the industrial frying process stripped anything that could be considered nutrients (hyperbole, of course), with a little salt added for flavor. Now you just have a calorie dense but non-nutritious glorified salt lick.
It's hardly food, and if you don't think so, try living on nothing but Doritos for a week and see how that works out for you. Potatoes may not be much more than starch and fiber, but I could live off those for any length of time because they are food.
badc0ffee•8mo ago
Try living off fried corn tortillas with salt for a week for the same effect.
How, specifically, are they different?
stronglikedan•8mo ago
badc0ffee•8mo ago
It's a relatively simple product, as packaged snacks go.
testing22321•8mo ago
More than 47 ingredients , many of which did not exist 100 years ago and I can’t pronounce. I would not call that just fried corn tortillas with salt.
https://shipmesnacks.com/products/doritos-nacho-cheese-reduc...
dowager_dan99•8mo ago
Swizec•8mo ago
My great grandma is from eastern-ish europe and grew up on a farm. Her diet mainly consisted of potatoes, bread, corn, milk, sausage, lard, butter, fermented cabbage or turnip, various preserved fruits (jams and compotes), and copious amounts of extra salty preserved meats. Fresh food was a luxury reserved for the summer (fruits, veggies) or slaughter weeks (fresh meat). No refrigeration, remember?
If I ate like her I'd die of a heart attack before I turned 40. And I'd be pretty obese, too. Many of those farmers got pretty chunky in their 30's despite working on the farm all day.
Oh and I almost forgot: liters of wine per day per person. Liters!
owenversteeg•8mo ago
No you wouldn’t. Obesity rates back then were near zero. For the general population, not just for farm laborers. Heart disease killed far fewer people per capita per year. If you remove the infectious diseases that we have practically cured, mortality per capita per year in 1900 and 2020 is pretty similar.
Mind you, those infectious diseases were 90% eliminated by sanitation and understanding and 10% modern medicine; tuberculosis deaths were down by 90% from the 1860s to 1947, which is when streptomycin, the first antibiotic effective against TB, was used.
For some time I ate similar diets to the one you describe - a poor farmer’s diet high in potatoes and bread, with some vegetables, meats and dairy - and I know people who eat that diet today. None of them are fat. It’s because potatoes and bread aren’t very calorie-dense. It is difficult to eat a caloric surplus every day when the majority of the food in front of you is greyish brown, vaguely mushy and of a sufficiently insufficient density that you must take your time to eat it. Modern processed foods, even the fairly simple ones, take the labor out of eating and make the regular things around us infinitely snackable. Modern foods have just the right amount of sweetness and salt and crunch with the right color and appealing packaging and advertising and so on. A standard potato in a standard kitchen will never have that. There’s a reason why obesity rates precisely track consumption of processed foods.
Swizec•8mo ago
Define back then. My great grandma lived from 1910’s to 1990’s. I believe she got indoor plumbing and electricity sometime in the 1950’s or 60’s.
Because everyone grew their own food, supermarkets were mostly for sugar, salt, and such. Vegetable oils and margarine started becoming popular in the 70’s as a healthy alternative to lard.
From what I remember visiting those farms as a kid, the farm guys all had big bellies. Maybe from the alcohol? They weren’t american fat, true, more like power lifter fat.
PS: sausages are extremely calorie dense. A good blutwurst will pack about 1000 calories in 1 portion.
Swizec•8mo ago
owenversteeg•8mo ago
>Don’t eat anything your great-great-grandmother wouldn’t recognize as food. (Sorry, but at this point Moms are as confused as the rest of us, which is why we have to go back a couple of generations, to a time before the advent of modern food products.)
Generation length varies significantly across human history, geographical location, population groups etc. but the average across the last quarter million years is twenty seven years [5].
The average American is 39 (Pollan was 52 when he wrote this) so let's say roughly speaking we're looking at 39+(4*27) =147 so 2007-147=1860. In the 1860s life expectancy at birth was about 36 and life expectancy at age 15 was about 60. So we're talking roughly the mid-late 1800s to early 1900s. In other words, before the modern use (and quantity) of vegetable oils, food processed on a large scale, most preservatives, modern food advertising, packaging, foods designed for texture, et cetera. These things only started in the early 1900s, but it took time for production to increase, around WW2 - and by the 1960s the average Eastern European was consuming about 6kg of mass-produced vegetable oil a year. Not enough to make everyone obese, but enough to show up as a blip on a chart. Does it? Yes. The heaviest segments of society were already increasing in weight at this time [0].
In the 1960s, texture science and research on the appearance of food started to take off [3] - and yes, even in the USSR this was something people paid attention to. Packaging was now intentionally designed to stimulate appetites. Stabilizers, colorants and flavorings were in use, even in many poorer countries. By the 1970s, soda was in full swing. There were local sodas (Baikal in the USSR, Kofola in Czechoslovakia) but even Pepsi entered the Soviet market in 1971, and it was immediately popular, despite its high price. Now you can see obesity becoming a problem societally; in 1975 it was considered an issue and measured nearly worldwide for the first time [4].
Defending my claim that "obesity rates back then were near zero" is a bit tricky because it was so rare it wasn't considered a societal problem in the early 1900s. But we do have some data points. For example, the heaviest 1% of 18-26yo men in Denmark had a BMI of 28 in 1939 [0], and this did not cross 30 (obese) until 1951. The heaviest 5% of 18-26yo men had a BMI of under 25 in 1939; today, the Danish national average is 25.3.
As for heart issues, in 1900 there were 137.4 deaths of heart disease per 100k, vs 192.9 deaths per 100k in 2010. That is despite the fact that 92 million US adults are on statins, which often have serious side effects.
Personal anecdotes unfortunately don't hold up to the data, which is crystal clear: in the year 1900, when we ate a pre-modern diet, rates of obesity were near-zero and deaths from heart disease were significantly fewer.
But, like you said, what if someone ate that farmers' diet today? Turns out the Amish have significantly lower rates of obesity than their neighbors. Must be the physical exercise, not the diet, no? Well... the US military is quite physically active compared to your average person, and yet 70% are overweight or obese.
[0] https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg6237
[1] see e.x. Romania, Yugoslavia https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/vegetable-oil-production?...
[2] https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1113569
[3] https://doi.org/10.1080/20549547.2017.1355720
[4] https://ourworldindata.org/obesity
[5] https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abm7047
hollerith•8mo ago
aggie•8mo ago
neuralRiot•8mo ago
badc0ffee•8mo ago
neuralRiot•8mo ago
saghm•8mo ago
neuralRiot•8mo ago
As a side observation and not particularly referring to your reply, I see that people tend to put food or nutrition if you want, almost in the same scope of politics and religion, many people I know who I consider very open-minded will get very on the defensive whenever I tell them that the best thing to do is to reduce the intake of proteins of animal origin and increase plant consumption. That goes to show that years of propaganda have worked very well.
saghm•8mo ago
I'd argue that the main part of the confusion here is that people don't seem to agree on what "food" means, and I'll personally admit that I don't have any confidence in my ability to define it in a clear way that would satisfy most people here. I don't have any particular strong feelings against what you're saying about animal proteins and plant consumption (despite knowing that I fall far short of what anyone on either side of that argument would consider a healthy diet), but that's because it's at least clear to me what you're arguing. The issue to me is that saying something edible is "food" or "not food" implies a binary that's really hard for me to wrap my head around, and it really doesn't seem like anyone is willing to define that in a way that I can understand; as soon as I try to ask questions to understand, it feels to me like the people using this stricter definition of "food" are the ones who get defensive. I want to keep an open mind, since I'm well aware of my lack of knowledge when it comes to nutrition, but it's hard not to feel confused when someone argues that there's a strict boundary where processing something makes it no longer food, but no one seems to be willing to elaborate on what it is. From my perspective, it seems like some people might have a more nuanced understanding of what they consider food, but because it's inconsistent with the previous idea I had of what "food" is, I don't have any way of understanding what their understanding is. If there are people treating nutrition the same way as politics and religion, it's the ones who make bold claims without further explanation and reject any disagreement as the result of illogical forces.
testing22321•8mo ago
It’s actually trivially simple to define what is food, and what you should be eating. Every vegetable and fruit on the planet. Grains, rice, nuts. Chicken , meat, seafood, etc Put simply: it grows.
This is what all mammals have been eating for hundreds of thousands of years. We know it works. They have one ingredient. They have existed for at least as long as humans.
Then it is trivially simple to define what is not good, and no mammal should ever consume. (But realistically we will just minimize as much as possible). Coke. Fairy floss. MSG. HFCS. These things were grown in a lab. They have very minimal nutrition value, and often a host of negatives. They have only been concocted in the last century, and a massive number of severe health problems have come along with them. These things have many ingredients. They did not exist 100 years ago.
Then there is an enormous grey zone in the middle that people will argue about till the end of time.
It’s not worth your time. Just eat what is clearly food and pretend the rest doesn’t exist. The fact twizzlers and KFC exist have no impact on my life, and I am much healthier for it.
saghm•8mo ago
testing22321•8mo ago
Similarly, We have now invented new lab concoctions that companies want to call “food” because it helps them make money, but it is a very, very different thing than what “food” meant 200 years ago.
Go to an uncontacted tribe and give them fizzy black liquid. No way in hell they’ll drink it, because that ain’t food, and it wasn’t for a few hundred thousand years.
worik•8mo ago
saghm•8mo ago
testing22321•8mo ago
Only buy things with one ingredient. There, now you’re not eating the science experiment.
rcxdude•8mo ago
testing22321•8mo ago
spondylosaurus•8mo ago
danw1979•8mo ago
But yeah, I agree with your point that “naturalism” isn’t often optimal.
I’ve read the book he wrote after this article and it’s really quite good. The principal that if your great grandparents wouldn’t recognise it as “food”, then avoid, is a pretty good rule of thumb.
Spivak•8mo ago
But refined sugar, you'll be drowning in real documented health problems.
hndamien•8mo ago
worik•8mo ago
The key is "in moderation"
Many people seem to get their entire liquid intake out of aluminum cans.
That is too much sugar.
aidenn0•8mo ago
oldpersonintx2•8mo ago
GLP-1 has freed Americans from the burden of thinking about what they eat. The drug dictates their appetite now, and any old junk will fill the shrunken void.
chermi•8mo ago
spondylosaurus•8mo ago
paulpauper•8mo ago
paulpauper•8mo ago
croisillon•8mo ago
criddell•8mo ago
croisillon•8mo ago
mock-possum•8mo ago
IAmBroom•8mo ago
Omnivores are carnivorous.
dilap•8mo ago
Who's going to spread the good word to the Maasai?