
Vitamins Hide the Low Quality of Our Food - boh
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/opinion/sunday/vitamins-hide-the-low-quality-of-our-food.html?rref=opinion
======
wyager
The article never actually established what made food healthy. Just because
something is "natural" does not make it good (and conversely, something being
"unnatural" does not make it bad).
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

It made brief mention of a few chemicals the author claimed "processing"
disrupted, but didn't really expand on that.

If the food has all the chemicals we need, what does it matter if it's "low
quality" by the author's standard? If the food _doesn 't_ have all the
chemicals we need and this isn't obvious, that's a failure of our nutrient
tracking scheme.

~~~
frozenport
See the comment about broccoli. Today's science doesn't known the chemicals
required in a healthy diet, missing some may lead to health problems like
cancer. Indeed, this is one of the problems with products like Soylent as
long-term risk (for example, cancer) remains poorly understood. You don't want
to be eating the stuff for 10 years and realize you doubled your risk for
cancer.

~~~
zo1
> _" You dont want to be eating the stuff for 10 years and realize you doubled
> your risk for cancer."_

I'm not following... How does that _not_ apply to "natural" foods as well?
Without resorting to an appeal to nature.

~~~
jonnathanson
There is a difference between "appeal to nature" and the idea that there may
be more compounds and nutrients in whole foods, perhaps acting in tandem, in
ways that we haven't yet figured out.

I don't think this article is particularly well written or argued, but at the
same time, I don't see any appeals to animism or mysticism in it. The author
is simply suggesting, albeit not as clearly as he could have, that we have
focused in isolation on only a subset of the nutrients we actually need.
Obviously, the responsible "next step" to that sort of argument would be to
form hypotheses and undertake further study. But that's not really the
function of the article, as far as I'm aware.

Consider the broccoli example mentioned in the article:

 _" A 2011 study on broccoli, for example, found that giving subjects fresh
broccoli florets led them to absorb and metabolize seven times more of the
anticancer compounds known as glucosinolates, present in broccoli and other
cruciferous vegetables, than when glucosinolates were given in straight
capsule form. The researchers hypothesized that this might be because the
whole broccoli contained other compounds that helped people’s bodies put the
anticancer chemicals to use."_

Now, the "appeal to nature" argument here would be that there is something
fundamentally irreducible or non-replicable in broccoli that we just can't
reproduce in a lab, because nature. That's not what the article says. Instead,
it says that researchers hypothesized that there may be more components to
broccoli than we've yet figured out. That's science. Science is always probing
at the edges of what we haven't yet figured out, or revising what we think we
_have_ figured out.

The author does his point no favors by harping about synthetic vitamins. I'll
grant you that. But he's not advancing any magical thinking.

~~~
TTPrograms
You could just as easily hypothesize that there are components in broccoli
that are unhealthy. The science isn't the hypothesis, it's the
experimentation. Without experimental evidence you just have a guess, and in
this case you can prefer the one "from nature" without evidence to suggest one
or the other is correct. This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy. You
really need to compare cancer incidence in different populations to get a full
idea.

> the "appeal to nature" argument here would be that there is something
> fundamentally irreducible or non-replicable in broccoli that we just can't
> reproduce in a lab, because nature

This is a huge strawman.

~~~
dasil003
> _This is exactly the "appeal to nature" fallacy._

The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until
rigorously experimented and proven otherwise. This is the mentality that the
food industry hangs its hat on to continue producing the worst possible
products that still somehow meet FDA and public approval. It's dangerous
because these foods are engineered primarily to appeal to convenience and
taste sensibilities which give people an emotional connection to these
substandard foods so that they will be more willing accept any evidence that
said foods are acceptable.

The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or
gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is
not a bad or fallacious principle. It isn't "because nature", it's because
we've been eating those things a long time with a good deal of success, and
conversely, in the last 70-80 years of explosion of heavily processed
convenience foods we've seen an explosion in diet related health problems.
Waiting for conclusive scientific proof of the mechanisms of all these
problems instead of using Occam's razor and some common sense is a
phenomenally stupid thing to do.

~~~
cbd1984
> The more dangerous "fallacy" is the idea that all food is equivalent until
> rigorously experimented and proven otherwise.

OK, so even if we accept based on no evidence that it isn't, why should we
prefer so-called 'natural' foods. And please tell me how GMOs such as corn
(maize) and apples are natural, BTW.

> This is the mentality that the food industry hangs its hat on to continue
> producing the worst possible products that still somehow meet FDA and public
> approval.

Appeal to 'corporations are evil' is also a rather dangerous fallacy.

> The idea that eating whole foods which have traditionally been cultivated or
> gathered by humans is generally preferable to a manufactured alternative is
> not a bad or fallacious principle.

Without evidence it is. This bald assertion does your side no favors.

> It isn't "because nature", it's because we've been eating those things a
> long time with a good deal of success

Not really. Look at how common deficiency disorders were, back before such
horrible modern artificial nonsense such as refrigeration and food
preservation.

Besides, what my ancestors ate is not the same as what your ancestors ate,
most likely, so which is better? Which diet should we follow? And my ancestors
didn't all come from the same place, so which of my ancestors' diets should I
follow?

~~~
dasil003
Don't put words in my mouth. Where did I say corn and apples are healthy?
Where did I say corporations are evil? Where did I split us into two groups,
my side and your side?

You are arguing a stereotype rather than my actual statements.

------
300bps
I had elevated liver enzymes (i.e. signs of liver damage) for two annual
physicals in a row. My doctor tested me for all the usual culprits including
all types of hepatitis and everything came back negative.

She then asked me if I took a daily multivitamin. I told her I did and she
told me to stop taking it. That was 12 years ago and I have not had elevated
liver enzymes since. According to my doctor, people that get enough vitamins
and minerals through their diet can actually overdose on the sledgehammer of
vitamins in a typical Centrum-style multivitamin. This can then cause liver
damage which shows up in an ALT/AST blood test.

I think it's prudent to only take vitamins for which you know you are
deficient either because of dietary restrictions or through actual testing.
For example, my vitamin d level gets low in the winter time so I take vitamin
d3 for that.

~~~
yid
This sounds like an excellent use case for blood-level monitoring for
personalized medicine (or in this case, vitamins). I'm not sure how viable the
hardware aspect is, but there are sure a lot of things you could do in
software with a real-time stream of that data.

------
Genmutant
"In fact, for products like milk and flour, where fortification and enrichment
have occurred for so long that they’ve become invisible, it would be almost
irresponsible not to add synthetic vitamins."

How come most countries don't do it, then? At least in Germany I have never
seen added stuff in milk or flour.

~~~
walshemj
Do they not add iodine in salt in Germany?

~~~
sliverstorm
Looking around, it sounds like they didn't:

 _The practice of putting iodine into food had been banned in West Germany
since after World War II._

    
    
        http://www.thyroid-info.com/articles/germanyiodine.htm
    

_In Germany it has been estimated to cause a billion dollars in health care
costs per year._

    
    
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine_deficiency#Deficiency
    

But, supposedly are in the middle of iodizing their salt.

~~~
matt4077
That's just wrong. You sometimes see salt without iodine, but it's almost
rare. Has been for as long as I can remember.

------
mrxd
I'm not sure what universe this statement is true:

> we refuse to change our eating habits in the ways that would actually
> protect us, which would require refocusing our diets on minimally processed
> foods that are naturally nutrient-rich

It doesn't seem to be the one I live in, where all the trends of the last
decade or longer have been towards various "natural" food diets. Even Walmart
sells organic food. "All natural" is an extremely common marketing slogan and
has been for decades. I know many "health conscious" people, and none of them
are obsessed with vitamins.

The facts about vitamins vs minimally processed foods may be true, but the
article seems to seriously mischaracterize American food culture.

~~~
matt4077
This confusion might be due to different meanings of the word 'natural'. You
can get a certified organic frozen pizza, but it wouldn't be 'natural' in the
sense the article uses. The best definition is probably 'everything that
doesn't have an ingredients label'.

------
teekert
But what does a typical American eat then? In my country (Netherlands) we eat
fresh vegetables every day, we cook every day using many different ingredients
and usually Rice, Potato of Pasta as the basis. Is it so typically American to
eat highly processed foods? Don't you have a vegetable department in the
stores? Here it would also be quite expensive to buy prepackage stuff as one
gets peppers, cucumbers, zucchini etc for under 40 cents a piece, a bag of
washed fresh spinach is about 1 euro, potatos costs less than 50 cents/kilo.
Veggies are even cheaper now that we are not allowed to sell to Russia.

I have worked with Italian colleagues, they are even more puristic. Is this
really a cultural thing or are vegetables just so expensive in the US? Are you
not taking the time to cook? (about 30 min hands-on a day for preparing warm
meals is considered normal here.)

~~~
pXMzR2A
> we eat fresh vegetables every day

that shit's very very expensive here.

~~~
stcredzero
No it's not! Green Beans. Cauliflower. Broccoli. Brussels sprouts. None of
that's "expensive." I've been feeding myself exclusively on ordinary grocery
store veggies, steak, and fish. It's not expensive or time consuming at all,
and it's quite delicious when you catch on to how to do it, which you will
very quickly, if you cook all your own meals.

------
ianlevesque
"require refocusing our diets on minimally processed foods that are naturally
nutrient-rich"

Great, I'd like to start today. What do I eat? Where do I get it? I already
try to do this, but with all this conflicting information out there how am I
supposed to know what to do exactly.

Too many articles bemoan the state of nutrition, in the United States in
particular, but provide no actionable guidance to the reader.

~~~
free2rhyme214
Actionable guidance:

1\. Eat high alkaline foods that are organic, non gmo and make sure your diet
is 80% alkaline, 20% acidic foods.

2\. Fast regularly to clean out toxins

3\. Make sure you drink water that isn't completely fluoridated.

4\. Get daily exercise for a minimum of 1 hour per day

5\. Limit processed and animal based foods

6\. Don't consume any dairy products

"If man made it, don't eat it." (Jack LaLanne)

"You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of reality."
(Ayn Rand)

Sources: the pH Miracle by Robert & Shelly Young, Jack LaLanne, Paul Bragg,
Ayn Rand (for kicks)

~~~
fabian2k
The pH of the human body is tightly regulated, your diet can't really
influence it all that much. Any dietary recommendation based on food pH is
almost certainly pseudoscience.

It's amazing how much pseudoscience you managed to cram into this short list.
Fasting to eliminate "toxins" and avoiding fluoridated water are based on
pseudoscience or conspiracy theories as well.

~~~
free2rhyme214
Have you studied blood work and the effect of pH on the human body? How do you
know?

Have you read any work by Paul Bragg before?

Do you know the dangers of fluoride and where it comes from?

You're probably the same person who thinks New World Order, the CFR,
Builderberg Group, Central Bankers, Aliens and the rest of it is all made up
tin hat nonsense.

Keep watching tv and let me know how your body is 20 years from now dude.

------
stcredzero
I'm surprised that roasting isn't more popular in the programming community.
Supposedly, we like having devices do the work for us, and we're known for
getting jazzed about emergence. Why don't more of us apply this to cooking?
(As an aside, my inclination is to cite a decline in education and a
distancing of knowledge from the real world, as in:
[http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-brazil-education](http://v.cx/2010/04/feynman-
brazil-education))

Instead of doing a lot of fussing over our cooking, most of the time, for
everyday meals, we should be sticking things into the oven with olive oil,
salt, and pepper, then letting the magic of roasting magically create
wonderful flavors for us. (Garlic? If you feel like changing it up, go for it!
I've solved the "garlic peeling problem" so it's a good way to change things
up. It's a mistake to be too consistent with flavoring, so garlic every time
isn't necessary, needed, or wise, IMO.) Also keep in mind, that unless you are
one of them, you aren't cooking to impress your "foodie" friends. You have a
different set of priorities. So a helpful thing to do, in your own mind (NOT
out loud) tell all your "foodie" friends to "smeg-off!" Go ahead and do things
"wrong." So long as you're okay with it. It's _your_ relationship with food,
not theirs!

Steak, cauliflower, fish, asparagus...so many wonderful things to have as
everyday meals, and if you approach the task with efficiency in mind, the
overall wait is usually 30 to 45 minutes, but active preparation/labor time is
very slight. Do very minimal prep, stick something in the oven, go and play a
game or write some code, then take really yummy complexly flavored food out of
the oven.

Truth be told, some of us who aren't very focused on food thoughtlessly
imitate people we shouldn't imitate when we cook. One example: How often do
you get out a cutting board and use a full sized chef's knife? I haven't used
a full sized chef's knife in over a year and get out a cutting board most
often when I just need a place to set ingredients. Let's face it, we aren't
chefs! We aren't pulling amazing feats of multitasking rapid culinary
excellence. We don't need such a highly specialized and versatile tool to
rapidly accomplish a dozen different operations and exercise well honed skills
as we zip around in a restaurant kitchen. Basically, it's the inversion of the
"teaching" segment in Ratatouille: You _are_ your mother! Cut your broccoli in
the air over your bowl or pot. Use a _really_ sharp knife. (Look up the
Victorinox Fibrox knife
[http://amzn.com/B0000CFDD5](http://amzn.com/B0000CFDD5) then look at this
video by America's Test Kitchen. That $24 knife has the same grain size and
performs as well as the top-rated $300 knife in the video, and it's cheap
enough for you to simply donate and buy a new one every year.)

I now cook all my own food, I roast and steam everything, and the effect is
that I eat better than I ever have while doing just a fraction of the work I
used to do. "Change your relationship to food" with Soylent? Nah. (Tried it.)
An oven, judicious use of aluminum foil, a baking pan, a pot with a steamer
insert, and olive oil. Use your brain and observe what you do and adjust it to
your priorities. (I call it "hyper-lazy cuisine for programmers.")

~~~
ch
Use olive oil for dressing. For adding flavor in a broil look to lard, tallow,
schmaltz, or whatever juice is poured off the meat in the main course
(assuming a non vegetarian diet here). Might look to coconut oil in the case
of vegetarian or vegan, though it's no sub for lard.

~~~
stcredzero
_> For adding flavor in a broil look to lard, tallow, schmaltz, or whatever
juice is poured off the meat in the main course_

That often makes a wonderful sauce for vegetables, for no more effort than
just pouring it into a bowl or over the vegetables.

------
cbd1984
If the food has what we need how is it necessarily low quality?

This just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy.

~~~
dalke
Quoting from the article:

> The problem with this approach to nutrition is not that there’s anything
> inherently wrong with synthetic vitamins — it’s the shortsighted nutritional
> philosophy that our obsession with vitamins encourages. ...

> Indeed, natural foods contain potentially protective substances such as
> phytochemicals and polyunsaturated fat that also are affected by processing,
> but that are not usually replaced. If these turn out to be as important as
> many researchers suspect, then our exclusive focus on vitamins could mean
> we’re protecting ourselves against the wrong dangers. ...

> .. extra vitamins do not protect us from the long-term “diseases of
> civilization” that are currently ravaging our country, including obesity,
> heart disease and Type 2 diabetes — many of which are strongly associated
> with diet.

This is not a naturalistic fallacy. As my example, which I think is more
direct than phytochemicals, consider that alcoholism can lead to B1
deficiency. In the 1970s people proposed vitamin fortified alcohols, which
would prevent the institutionalization of 1,200 alcoholics yearly (in the
1970s) due to Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome. (See
[http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2706&dat=19780812&id=J...](http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2706&dat=19780812&id=JtxJAAAAIBAJ&sjid=xx0NAAAAIBAJ&pg=1531,5747063)
for a newspaper article from the time. The PubMed reference is
[http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/96343](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/96343)
.)

This wasn't done because, as I recall, the labeling of "vitamin fortified"
would likely influence some people to consume more alcohol, on the idea that
it was healthier because it contains vitamins. Unfortunately I can find no
reference to this decision, and I'm not sure my memory is correct, since
[http://www.newsweek.com/are-vitamin-enhanced-alcohols-
heathi...](http://www.newsweek.com/are-vitamin-enhanced-alcohols-heathier-
choice-75801) says "Stampede Light Plus beer, fortified with B vitamins, is
soon planning a relaunch. The beer first got its start with Jessica Simpson,
who touted it in ads urging beer guzzlers to "Be Smart, Drink Smart.""

Beer is low quality nutrition. Adding vitamins to beer does not make it high
quality nutrition.

------
cbd1984
If the food has what we need how is it necessarily low quality?

This just sounds like the naturalistic fallacy.

~~~
Brakenshire
The problem is we don't know what we need.

~~~
cbd1984
This is simply wrong.

