6 ms·

> Beef is pretty much as natural as it can come It being natural doesn't have any bearing on how healthy it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

> Beef is pretty much as natural as it can come It being natural doesn't have any bearing on how healthy it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Andrex 7y ago
Thank you. For some reason people tend to think the natural world and the human body are 100% optimized to each other, when the truth is it's still very much an evolutionary work in progress...
chubot 7y ago
Natural doesn't necessarily mean anything, but time-tested does. It's too long to explain here, but people who have read both Michael Pollan and Taleb probably understand what I mean. Nutrition isn't a science on solid ground, and food isn't a linear combination of its nutrients. It's true that "natural" beef might be raised in ways that aren't time-tested (in fact it's very likely given modern farming). But something like Impossible Burger is also guaranteed not to be time-tested. That isn't to say I wouldn't try it, but it's definitely an important difference.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > Natural doesn't necessarily mean anything, but time-tested does. Being “time-tested” helps, but it’s not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind. Consider that lead was “time-tested” for thousands of years.
  - chubot 7y ago
    I don't really know the history of lead, but I suspect it illustrates the point. There are no traditional foods with lead in them, because people who ate lead would have died, ensuring that the custom didn't survive. However lead paint was a relatively new thing. People didn't have painted walls for thousands of years. It was used for awhile (not sure how long), and then the test of time figured out that it was poisonous. Is there some history you know of where the test of time didn't work? It's almost tautological to be honest. (And tautological does not mean "untrue" :) ) Lead might have been "bad" by modern standards in the past, but there were also hundreds of other things that were worse for mortality, so maybe lead use in certain applications just got noticed in the last century or so.
- X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
  - chubot 7y ago
    A link isn't an argument... but briefly, an appeal to tradition can be right or wrong. In this case it's closer to right, because human biochemistry hasn't changed nearly as much as the Western diet has. Diets were completely changed in the last 70 years -- how much evolution do you think happened in that time?
imtringued 7y ago
No but it means one less potential conflict of interest. If a company is processing food for you then they get to make sub-optimal decisions that increase their bottom line at the expense of your health.

Andrex 7y ago

Thank you. For some reason people tend to think the natural world and the human body are 100% optimized to each other, when the truth is it's still very much an evolutionary work in progress...

chubot 7y ago

Natural doesn't necessarily mean anything, but time-tested does. It's too long to explain here, but people who have read both Michael Pollan and Taleb probably understand what I mean. Nutrition isn't a science on solid ground, and food isn't a linear combination of its nutrients. It's true that "natural" beef might be raised in ways that aren't time-tested (in fact it's very likely given modern farming). But something like Impossible Burger is also guaranteed not to be time-tested. That isn't to say I wouldn't try it, but it's definitely an important difference.

saagarjha 7y ago
> Natural doesn't necessarily mean anything, but time-tested does. Being “time-tested” helps, but it’s not necessarily the only thing to keep in mind. Consider that lead was “time-tested” for thousands of years.
- chubot 7y ago
  I don't really know the history of lead, but I suspect it illustrates the point. There are no traditional foods with lead in them, because people who ate lead would have died, ensuring that the custom didn't survive. However lead paint was a relatively new thing. People didn't have painted walls for thousands of years. It was used for awhile (not sure how long), and then the test of time figured out that it was poisonous. Is there some history you know of where the test of time didn't work? It's almost tautological to be honest. (And tautological does not mean "untrue" :) ) Lead might have been "bad" by modern standards in the past, but there were also hundreds of other things that were worse for mortality, so maybe lead use in certain applications just got noticed in the last century or so.
X6S1x6Okd1st 7y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_tradition
- chubot 7y ago
  A link isn't an argument... but briefly, an appeal to tradition can be right or wrong. In this case it's closer to right, because human biochemistry hasn't changed nearly as much as the Western diet has. Diets were completely changed in the last 70 years -- how much evolution do you think happened in that time?

imtringued 7y ago

No but it means one less potential conflict of interest. If a company is processing food for you then they get to make sub-optimal decisions that increase their bottom line at the expense of your health.