
Simple Rules for Healthy Eating (2015) - Tomte
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/21/upshot/simple-rules-for-healthy-eating.html
======
claar
After following his rules for a year now and losing 50 pounds with literally
no exercise, I'm (further) convinced that healthy eating and corporate
interests are completely opposed.

It seems everything that makes food more profitable also makes it less
healthy. Perhaps the science is thin on things like caloric sources (quality
vs quantity), preservatives, complexity of sugars, the effects of high
processing of food, etc., but my anecdotal evidence and growing intuition
aligns with the author's opinions.

For me personally, removing added sugars and processed foods and moving to a
more "real foods" meal plan (meat, veggies, fruit) has been transformative.

~~~
trentmb
> I'm (further) convinced that healthy eating and corporate interests are
> completely opposed.

I dunno- the longer you live, the longer I can sell shit to you.

~~~
nickbauman
But long term returns almost always have a lower priority to short term
returns in a company's balance sheets.

~~~
sheepleherd
sigh... lemme tell ya what they taught us in finance theory class: rich
investors are not stupider than average investors; in fact, if investing "for
the long term" is the right thing to do, rich investors actually have the
resources, wherewithal and the time to do it.

The problem is, as hard as it is to predict the future, it is harder to
predict farther into the future; and, once you set up a pot of "long term"
honey, people have a chance to reorganize their affairs to siphon off said
honey and if your idea is to not pay attention to their short term results,
you set yourself up for a big long term surprise. Publicly traded companies
are mostly companies that have products, markets, customers, service, etc.
Generally, when they are losing money compared to other companies, it does not
scream "we're pouring money into R&D, great things are around the corner!"

This boils down to, statistically speaking, short term results are actually
the best indicator of long term results. You'd be foolish (statistically) to
overemphasize long term hypotheticals in the face of short term losses.

TL;DR that financial markets are too tilted in favor of "short term" results
is largely a myth. if it were not a myth, wealth would shift from the majority
people who supposedly pay attention to short term results and toward people
who ignore short term results leading to the end of the myth.

edit (couple above and): I'm not saying that long term projects and ideas and
thinking don't ever pay off; I'm saying that saying that they are
_undervalued_ and therefore represent an opportunity is a stretch and requires
proof that you most likely will not find if you look because others have
looked.

~~~
tashi
Did they teach you that a group of completely rational short-term thinkers can
get stuck at a local maximum that's way below the optimum for people who are
thinking ahead? Or that irrational behavior can emerge from groups of smart,
rational individuals in competition?

Theory aside, here's a thing that doesn't fit into any short-term models I
know: Bell Labs. Take a monopoly business with a ton of spare cash, and throw
that cash into a well. Build a city full of comfortable middle-class
researchers and their families with no need to produce anything of immediate
value, and keep it going for decades. Watch them invent a million amazing
things that change the world, and then, once they get splintered into a bunch
of smaller, short-term focused groups, watch them fade into insignificance.

~~~
sheepleherd
I'm not sure if you are disagreeing with me or agreeing and adding on.

If you are suggesting that rational behavior is emerging every time, or even
much of the time, somebody says "Wall Street is too focused on the short
term", I shake my head in sadness at the money you are planning to lose.

------
keiferski
I grew up in the U.S. but in the past year, I've been able to spend a
significant amount of time abroad, primarily in Europe and Japan.

The single biggest thing I've noticed: there are virtually no overweight
people. And yet, no one is on some kind of obscure no-meat/no-carbs/no-fruit
diet. People just live, eat the local food (which often has a ton of butter,
salt, fat, etc.) and somehow still look 100% better than Americans.

My conclusion: obesity is caused by some combination of excessive portion
sizes + over-processed food. It's not that complicated.

~~~
toomuchtodo
> My conclusion: obesity is caused by some combination of excessive portion
> sizes + over-processed food.

Don't forget lack of exercise from a car-centric transportation culture.

~~~
justinlardinois
Unfortunately very true. So much of America is designed with the assumption
that everyone has a car and there's no attempt to make anything pedestrian-
accessible.

I live in San Jose and I honestly miss walking. I mean sure, I _can_ walk, but
I can't use it to go anywhere other than the 7/11 near my apartment without
taking an hour or more out of my day. That's not to say I don't like living
here (I do) but I guess that's just something you deal with when you trade a
comparatively small college town (Santa Cruz) for a huge, spread-out city.

~~~
justinhj
I used to live in London (England) and walk and tube everywhere. My first trip
to the US was LA. I parked at a cafe and bought a coffee. We saw a store
across the street so crossed it. Even though traffic was light and it was easy
to do so without causing it to slow down the cars honked us for doing so.
Jaywalking. I'd never really thought of Jaywalking outside of movies.

So we go in the store and afterwards make an effort to walk a couple of blocks
down to the crossing so we don't get arrested or run down. When we get back to
the car there's a tow truck trying to take it away because we were shopping
across the street and no longer customers of this strip.

It was pretty amazing to us. We spent the rest of the trip driving everywhere,
no matter how small the journey.

~~~
justinlardinois
> When we get back to the car there's a tow truck trying to take it away
> because we were shopping across the street and no longer customers of this
> strip.

Does this not happen in other countries? It's not exactly common in the US,
but you will see it dense areas sometimes where a) parking is limited and
costs money and b) businesses provide parking free of charge to their own
customers.

~~~
namenotrequired
I'm European and have never heard of such a thing. It sounds bizarre to me.

~~~
justinlardinois
When you think about it from a business's perspective it makes sense. If a
bunch of people who aren't your customers fill up your lot, and there isn't
nearby parking or it costs money, potential customers will arrive and might
leave without patronizing your business because they can't find a place to
park.

Obviously it's annoying when it's enforced as overzealously as the above
example.

------
wapapaloobop
Not _overheating_ food is another healthy eating rule. (Though try making
french fries, bacon, pot roast, etc, w/o doing this. Not possible!)

Seriously, though, to address why people find it hard to follow such rules one
has to look _beyond_ nutrition and medicine. People don't just eat to fuel
their bodies, they eat to fuel their _minds_ i.e. for comfort and pleasure.

This is why (I think) that small amounts of caffeine and alcohol are good: for
a given level of mental stimulation they reduce the amount of food needed.
Reducing side effects from any one source reduces overall damage to the body.

How does one reduce one's overall level of self-stimulation? For want of a
better word this is a _spiritual_ problem. Having an objectively valuable
purpose or problem to occupy the mind with is crucial, but perhaps there will
remain 'ups' and 'downs'. Look to traditional religious teachings or the AA
for advice. Which advice, again, is going to be mingled with falsehoods and
irrationalities. _Intermittent fasting_ is becoming fashionable and may be
part of the solution; it certainly bring personal issues into vivid focus.

~~~
Dolores12
Anything involved heating up vegetable oils to high temperature is extremely
dangerous, because oil releases carcinogens [0]. Preparing healthy food using
heated oils sounds like nonsense to me.

[0]
[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11981884/Cooking...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/11981884/Cooking-
with-vegetable-oils-releases-toxic-cancer-causing-chemicals-say-experts.html)

~~~
xviia
The worst oils for cooking are the "healthiest" ones for adding to salads. For
example, olive oil and avocado oil "burn" really easily and at a low
temperature. On the other hand, butter and lard can survive the high heat
better.

This is because poly- and mono-unsaturated fats had double bonds that oxidize
rapidly. A free radical colliding with one of those double bonds will set off
a chain reaction, resulting in rancidity.

In comparison, saturated fats have single bonds that do not oxidize as rapidly
after a free radical challenge.

~~~
firethief
It's more complicated. Olive oil is high in antioxidants. A recent study found
that no realistic cooking process would significantly oxidize the pufas in
evoo because the antioxidants are pretty good at what they do.

~~~
xviia
This isn't wrong, assuming that you can get the real stuff. Extra virgin olive
oil (EVOO) has a higher smoke point and will survive cooking. Unfortunately,
if you purchase olive oil in the US, there's a good chance that it's been
processed, _even_ if the label claims it's EVOO! A study by UC Davis found
that 2/3 of oils labeled EVOO did NOT meet the standards.

The processing step that the fake oils use will degrade the antioxidant
capacity that you'd get from real, cold-pressed oil.

So, in summary:

PUFA's go rancid easily in absence of antioxidants.

Pure EVOO, though PUFA, has antioxidants that protect it.

If you buy "EVOO" in the US, it has possibly undergone processing (despite the
label!), which means that it will have lower antioxidative capacity

Wiki article:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil#Adulteration](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olive_oil#Adulteration)

------
hacker_9
What a poor article, it doesn't go into any specifics or give reasons for
_why_ you should eat this or avoid that. The whole article really boils down
to 'don't eat bad food, eat good food.'

On another note, I've recently given up sugar as an experiment after reading
all the bad things about it (surprised it didn't even come up in the
article!), and have had quite dramatic results. The first 3 weeks were a shock
to the system and I had major withdrawal symptoms; cravings, sweating,
migraines, insomnia even shaking. Then in the 4th week I was back to normal
again and seeing lots of benefits. The biggest surprise for me was sleep; I
used to need ~10 hours a night, but now wake up refreshed after 7! My skin on
my face is also less red, acne on my back has cleared up 50%, excma on my arms
nearly fully gone, and of course my waistline has reduced.

This was just from eliminating all the obvious processed sugars, ie.
chocolate, cakes, desserts, honey, biscuits etc. Also only drinking water and
eating oatmeal for breakfast. These days I don't have any cravings for them;
the knowledge of all the long term problems they caused completely kills it
for me.

~~~
ZeroFries
Dark chocolate is still good, if you like it. Also the occasional fruit is
supposedly good for your metabolism, because the fructose will restore any
depleted glycogen in your liver from losing weight.

~~~
hacker_9
This is true, I didn't go into any more detail as the post was getting a bit
long, but I do find fruit and nuts to be a good substitute for snack food.
I've never been a fan of dark chocolate, although I do find that after eating
a lot of sugary foods your taste buds get dulled to other things, so I maybe I
will try it again.

------
gdubs
I recently changed my diet because I felt my energy levels were all over the
place. I cut out processed carbs, and generally things with a high glycemic
index. It took about three weeks to really get past sugary foods, but then my
tastes started to change. I'm pescetarian (mostly vegetarian, occasional I'll
eat fish), so protein is a challenge – I rely pretty heavily on eggs and
yogurt. I also cut down on the amount of dairy I was consuming in general,
switching to a macchiato for my afternoon coffee rather than a latte. Other
than that, lots of vegetables in lots of variety.

Data point of one, but after a month I really started to feel a difference. I
felt a lot better almost immediately, but some of that was likely placebo. I
crash a lot less in the afternoons, and have higher energy in general.
Physically the difference was more dramatic – lost a spare tire I was starting
to cary around my mid section. Partially this was due to exercise – more
energy led to commuting by bike a _lot_ more than I was.

One thing I'd add to the article was the importance of changing your
environment. When I first started it was difficult because most of the snacks
at home were carbohydrate based – by changing the environment and stocking a
lot more protein-based foods at home that were easy to prepare, it was a lot
easier to make the transition.

~~~
mark_l_watson
I used to also be on a pescetarian diet and I thought it was the healthiest
diet I have ever been on. Now, my family avoids beef because of the
environmental problems of beef production, but we eat too much chicken and
fish.

If I were rich, I would have a cook and eat macrobiotic or vegan, but to make
tasty macrobiotic and vegan food yourself is a lot of effort.

~~~
WalterSear
> tasty macrobiotic and vegan food yourself is a lot of effort.

IMNSHO, it might seem that way from the outside, but it's really very little
effort to prepare and eat vegan meals.

The only actual problems are all social :(

EDIT: for example, people downvoting me for being vegan.

~~~
throwaway6436
They're down voting you because you're being obnoxious.

------
Aelinsaar
Those are really good rules. I appreciate that the title is "Healthy eating"
and not "Losing weight" or "Dieting too. Personally, once I started avoiding
things like Doritos, I was able to taste subtler flavors and appreciate them.
It's hard to appreciate even a really nice piece of fresh bread if you just
had a load of salt, sugar, fat, and flavor enhancers. They take the amplitude
beyond what normal food can achieve, but the overall taste is "meh".

~~~
goldenkey
Mostly due to this guy:
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDA_receptor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/NMDA_receptor)

I personally have said fuck it. I takes drugs for pain with a liberal
moderation and drink protein shakes to balance out my vice of eating pure
sugar snacks. Glycemically I know its terrible but on the calorie scale and
macro nutrients I am well nourished. Eh..I have some sense of guilt about
potential glycemic shock from the spikes but I think my body can handle it.
Trick is to know before its too late...

------
Feuilles_Mortes
This guy is really great. He has a YouTube channel called Healthcare Triage,
which I enjoy.

On it, he talks about commonly asked health questions (is coffee good for
you?), and backs up everything he says with data and research (he tries to use
meta-analyses when he can).

------
bringking
I prefer the even simpler Michael Pollan guide - “Eat food. Not too much.
Mostly plants.”

~~~
r00fus
Pollan's quote could even be a good bumper sticker.

------
petegrif
I like the tone of this article. I do, however, believe that there is rather
more science backing up low carb eating than the piece would have you believe.

~~~
toomuchtodo
So true!

[https://www.reddit.com/r/keto](https://www.reddit.com/r/keto)

~180K members of that subreddit. I guarantee you, if you cut your carbs to
below 20g/day, you will lose at least 3lbs a week (no exercise required).

~~~
jaggederest
3 pounds a week is pretty unsustainable.

[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15615615)

Edit: Since I got curious and followed a bunch of other studies, here's a cool
calculator based on some of that research and the (admittedly flawed) NHANES
data

[https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/](https://www.supertracker.usda.gov/bwp/)

~~~
toomuchtodo
It _is_ sustainable when you're carrying excess fat. Your body will eventually
reach an equilibrium. Each body is different, YMMV, etc.

------
tdicola
These rules can be boiled down to an even easier set, don't eat sugars and
don't eat grains. Make your body adapt to burning fat for energy and you'll
feel better (no mid-day crash after a carb-heavy lunch) and lose weight. There
is a lot of growing evidence that cancer feeds on sugar and low/no-sugar diets
can even help prevent it from occuring.

~~~
ceratopisan
Completely avoiding sugars and grains? That's not easier; you trade a less
complicated rule for severe diet restrictions. Applying that rule about less
processed foods will help with sugars and carbs too.

i.e. an apple and hard candy both have sugar, but the apple is a good idea. A
cupcake and a loaf of whole-wheat bread both have carbs, but the bread
(especially if it contains only yeast, flour, water, salt) will be way better
for you.

~~~
tdicola
It's not a severe diet restriction--you can't completely get rid of carbs but
you can easily get down to 20-50g per day. Stick with eating proteins (meat,
sausage, chicken, etc.) and most green vegetables. Some nuts and berries are
ok too but be very careful about fruits (especially juices which are a massive
glycemic spike without any fiber to balance it). After a few weeks you won't
miss bread and grains at all. In fact on the rare occasions I have it I think
pasta and grains are incredibly bland (try zucchini noodles with a spiralizer,
it makes an awesome meal with some sausage and a bit of diced tomatoes and
spices).

------
burnstek
This is a great article. We seem to love the act of complicating healthy
eating habits.

Vegetables are good. Processed foods (including sugar) are bad. Mix in some
fish and chicken from time to time. Don't pour salt all over it. There you
have it. A healthy diet.

The bottom line is that eating healthy is not hard, nor is it prohibitively
expensive. It's all about priority. If you would rather have the flat screen
TV than a budget for Whole Foods, then that's your prerogative.

------
methodover
The science supporting this is super thin, isn't it?

Pretty sure it's still as simple as "eat enough calories. Eat enough vitamins
and minerals to not get sick from a deficiency. Have enough fiber to keep the
digestive system humming. Drink enough water."

~~~
firethief
Not even that is simple. Recent evidence suggests that "enough calories" may
be _far_ less than previously believed.

------
nihonde
At this point, can anyone take The New York Times seriously about health
advice? Someone should compile their history of publishing thinly-sourced, pop
science conclusions that are openly contradictory.

------
sickbeard
In other words eat like a diabetic who is recovering from a heart attack.

