
Fake Chicken Worth Eating - shivkapoor
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/opinion/sunday/finally-fake-chicken-worth-eating.html?_r=1&ref=opinion
======
boothead
Not a single mention here of the health implications of eating manufactured vs
real food?

~~~
peteretep
This is your opportunity to educate us all then, bub. What are the health
implications of eating manufactured vs real food?

Start with: What constitutes 'manufactured' vs 'real'. Draw a line in the sand
here. Is pasta 'manufactured'? What about cornflakes? Quorn? What is the Quorn
is labelled as 'Organic'? How about a hamburger made with steak mince? What
about if it's steak and tendon mix? What about if bone meal is added? Where's
the line?

Having established this, move on to well established science - peer-reviewed
papers in reputable journals. We want to hear from your research on those
health implications. Is a steak-meat burger more dangerous for you than one
from bone meal due to red-meat carcinogen factors? Or is there something else
at work there? What in the 'manufacture' of food is problematic? Mislabeling?
Mechanical treatment? Additives (which?)?

Thanks in advance!

~~~
boothead
My point is that if the article is asserting that "fake chicken" is worth
eating, some coverage of the heath implications of doing so would be warranted
in my view.

I am merely commenting on the article and as such I don't feel the need to
"educate us all". I most certainly have my opinions about these things, but I
wouldn't start boring the world with them on HN. Besides, I have work to do
for the rest of the week :-). If however I was writing an article for the NY
times, I think I might have mentioned the health angle.

~~~
peteretep
You are implying that there is a health angle to be covered in eating 'meat'
made from tofu and friends, which is far from clear.

~~~
boothead
I have just finished <http://perfecthealthdiet.com/> which is probably the
most comprehensively research backed book (that's also easy to read) on
nutrition I've read. (I include the excellent Good Calories, Bad Calories by
Gary Taubes in that comparison). The PHD book lists soy as a toxin..

Based on everything that I've read, I have formed the opinion (which has
changed somewhat over time) that it's better to eat naturally occurring foods,
that saturated fat isn't harmful and that manufactured foods should be
avoided.

Now I could well be subject to confirmation bias: most things I read on
nutrition nowadays tend to lean towards the paleo point of view. However, I'm
confident enough in the balance of evidence that I'm now switching over the
the type of diet outlined in PHD (not that I was that far away before).

And yes I am implying that there's a health angle in contrasting eating meat
with eating not meat. By definition they're different things so there must be
implications in that... I certainly come down on the meat side, but I'd be
interested to learn of evidence to the contrary too.

