Hacker News Reader

Comment by ravenstine | Hacker News Reader

As someone who was eating insects long before cricket protein bars became in vogue, I don't see entomophagy becoming anything more than a fad in the west, especially America.

The taste of insects simply does not compare to meat and poultry. Granted, this has a lot to do with cultural expectations, but that's exactly why I don't think that people are going to gradually shift to consuming a very different flavor.

Also, as someone who used to be heavily into protein, I don't buy the notion that people need more protein than what they are currently getting. A human body really doesn't need that much protein, and even body builders don't need as much protein as they often consume. If someone is telling you that you need to consume protein, it's probably because they're trying to sell you something. Even more so if they are calling it a "super-food".

Maybe things will actually change. I dunno. The insects that I thought were the most tasty(moth caterpillars) are the ones that people are least likely to want to eat. People might be fine with dried crickets and meal worms, but I challenge them to eat something more substantial.

Every "bug person" I used to follow on social media warns us of a looming food crisis and that insects will save the world. I thought it no coincidence that most of them either give paid lectures, sell books, or are associated with a "bug startup".

View on HN

"Also, as someone who used to be heavily into protein, I don't buy the notion that people need more protein than what they are currently getting. A human body really doesn't need that much protein, and even body builders don't need as much protein as they often consume. If someone is telling you that you need to consume protein, it's probably because they're trying to sell you something. Even more so if they are calling it a "super-food"."

Totally agree. Most people need more exercise, not more protein. Maybe once they exercise 6x a week for 2 hours we should think about getting more protein.

Wait, are there people out there that consume absurd amounts of protein for "health" reasons without doing any exercise?

Do they seriously think they have a protein deficiency?

Yes! I have seen this a lot in the US. Some overweight guy/gal will proclaim "I need some protein right now" (no idea on what this determination is based on) or ask me (vegetarian) "where do you get your protein?".

I've seen cereal boxes that say "good source of protein", and I feel like the sports bars section has a new brand of protein cookie or brownie every time I walk by it. Like yeah, you'll get diabeetus, but you'll have your protein!

*diabetes

woosh

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/diabeetus

Is it me or are Americans are more protein-minded than Europeans? Americans talking about health and food will often bring up protein in the first sentence, whereas a European (at least here in the Netherlands) more often will talk about fats, antioxidants, fibers. Protein is almost an afterthought. This is pure anecdotal evidence of course.

I think it's a new fad, tons of this "protein food" is popping up everywhere, even at gas stations.

Often marketed in the same way as energy drinks are marketed "You do hard work, you need the proteins."

And because nearly everybody thinks of themselves as "doing hard work", even in an office, people buy the stuff like an "all-in-one meal" solution.

As somebody who works in medical nutrition I'm kinda sour about this, for years I've been telling people at work that this will be a big thing soon and we'd be in exactly the right place, with exactly the kind of experience, to get in early on this.

Like most of my ideas it was deemed too far-fetched and so we did nothing, now the stuff is popping up everywhere, sold by companies with no real background in nutrition, kinda similar to Soylent.

Part of the problem is indeed that people don't understand that if you work in an office you should almost certainly think of yourself as sedentary even if you spend a huge chunk of your spare time on physical activities, as most people seem to exclude those 8hours + commute when they picture who they are in terms of activity.

So people plug in their numbers in online calculators and mark themselves as "active" and get numbers out that often make no sense for their actual activity levels.

I always found Soylent funny, as my mom had been consuming a similar local product for the past 20 years. Only superficial difference to Soylent was that this product was intentionally low on calories, but otherwise a full meal replacement.

Being an entrepreneur is hard, though. It's a huge gamble, so it's hard to pull people in.

Well protein is more filling and you may actually consume less total calories that way. Just guessing.

Too much protein just makes you fat. There is nothing good about it.

Too much of any food makes you fat, it’s right there in the label “too much” after all. The issue is to what degree you can use protein and fiber to suppress appetite, not whether it’s possible to overeat protein (it definitely is).

If you combine it with insoluble and soluble fiber it's very filling. Guess what the macros are for beans and legumes?

That's true, but it's also a balancing act since after a certain point the body converts protein into glucose.

I remember how, after years of eating high-carb low-fat foods, I discovered how satiating protein-rich meal could be. Well, that and one high in fat. No longer did I feel the constant craving, but at the same time it became easy to go "woohoo!" and eat way more protein than was necessary. I'm sure years from now doctors will ask me what the hell I was doing when they find my kidneys have been wrecked.

Just look at alot of paleo diets....they try to replace the carb calories with fat/protein.

The reality is most people should be eating large amounts of vegetables (not starchy ones like corn), meat once a day, some fruit, some milk products.

If people _really_ wanted to be healthy they'd be eating things like riced broccoli with a vegetarian curry with low fat content for lunch/dinner. (i.e. Vindaloo with beans)

For breakfast, have some yogurt, meat, carbs.

Paleo is a little overzealous IMO, as I don't think there's really a problem with some dairy, some rice, and fruit here and there. All of the foods you mentioned are better than a typical high carb, high sugar diet. I think the main value of any diet, whether it's paleo, Atkins, South Beach, etc., is that they are low sugar. It's really sugar, in my experience, that is a major contributor to keeping people overweight and hooked on unhealthy food.

However, I would encourage you to do some research and test your assumption that people shouldn't eat much fat(which seems to be what you're implying).

I wasn't discouraging milk products, sorry.

I'm not really a pure "Paleo" type. I get all my fat from whole milk, the one-a-day meat dish, cheese, yogurt, and oil/butter I use to cook stuff with. One curry + vegetable dish, for instance, is like 25% of your expected fat consumption.

I eat less fat and sugar than a normal American but I still have a couple ounces of fat with every meal. I probably eat about 80% of the recommended about of fat. To me, the thing most fail to notice is how much fat they add to their cooking.

The advantage of protein is that you can build tissue, and also turn it into glucose/fat. You can't build protein out of carbs or fat though. In case of doubt, more protein is the safe option. But I agree more often than not there's no actual doubt.

Well, if you're unable to produce all the protein needed for all ongoing tissue building, you have a deficiency. Anything more than that will just be metabolized. And, well, you're very unlikely to be under that limit.

The companies who are advertising the protein content are probably doing very little if anything to "bump up" their protein content. It's probably all about marketing what is currently selling things. Kind of like how vegetable oils used to (and maybe they still do) advertise that they're "cholesterol free".

They're doing some. You can taste the difference very clearly in most cases, and people expect high protein bars etc. to taste like saw dust. I've yet to taste a single "high protein" product that does not taste awful. And I've tried a lot, to find the ones I consider sufficiently inoffensive to supplement my diet with.

The thing is they don't need to do much. Adding some whey or casein is cheap and easy enough, and they don't need to add much to supplement the protein content that's already there.

0.31-0.36 grams per lbs as recommended by Valter Longo if you are below the age of 65. that’s probably indeed less that many intake

https://valterlongo.com/daily-longevity-diet/

Even most people who exercise a lot don't need it. I used to lift heavy weights 5x a week. "Heavy" in this context was 190kg squats, 140kg bench etc., which put me withing striking distance of competitive powerlifting levels for my weight class (for drug tested meets anyway).

I used protein supplements on and off, and there was really no noticeable difference in performance. For most who lift a lot it is mostly because once you get to that level, your increases have levelled off so much that if it increases your performance 1%, that's significant.

Meanwhile, when I first started, I doubled my lifts in the first month or two, and now, after a year off from lifting I'm adding ~5% a week at the moment (those increases will slow down quickly)

So if you really want to reach your very peak, you're willing to put up with a lot of things for 1% here, 0.5% there. While if you just want to stay healthy, you just need to be over a fairly trivially achievable minimum.

That said, my one reason for still paying attention to my protein intake, is that if you set a rough calorie goal, and make sure to eat a lot of protein, my experience at least is that it's a lot easier to keep my carb intake down (put another way: try eating 500kcal of lean chicken breast vs. 500kcal of chocolate and see which one keeps you from eating more the longest) - making sure my first meal of the day is protein rich makes it a lot easier for me to stick to diets and that's a much more important effect for me than whatever tiny effect I get on my lifts.

Speaking as a vegan, veg protein powder is very convenient compared to always having to include alt-meats and protein rich foods (like soy, tvp or vital wheat gluten) in my meals. For breakfast I get 30g to start my day with, it's nice. Iirc, my daily recommended intake is somewhere around 50g, which can occasionally be a challenge to meet daily.

> The taste of insects simply does not compare to meat and poultry.

Poultry, especially the meat of chicken and turkeys is close to tasteless. I would argue the opposite, the average consumer doesn't really care for the taste of the meat itself as long as the marinade is delicious.

You mean "factory farmed poultry" ...wild bird meat is amazing, and free-range chicken (and their eggs) has a nice flavor too. When they eat a lot of insects and other foods they find in nature it makes a huge difference.

> wild bird meat > free-range chicken

Words don't suffice do describe the difference. Anyone with enough time and space should get a few chickens. They're amazing at converting insects and weeds into food, and they're quite funny as pets too.

Which makes me wonder, what would industrialized farming and eating of insects do to the taste?

They would taste like chicken.

Depends what you mean by taste, but chicken is a blank canvas to be painted with flavors. What it does provide is an excellent texture that I doubt can be replaced with insect protein.

Dark meat roasted chicken is hardly tasteless

I have to disagree, chicken tastes really great when cooked with spices and seasoning, I lived in Mexico City for 3 years, tried maybe 4-5 different insect dishes at fancy spots as well as ones in the market. Insects at best taste like maybe crispy paper, with spices and seasoning, they didnt get much better- I think people ate insects when they were starving.

Nothing beats homemade chicken stock. There is no packaged food that can replicate the taste of homemade chicken stock.

White meat is tasteless; the society as a whole got super into it because it's lower-fat and "healthier".

Optimum adaptation for weight lifters is 1.3 - 1.8g for each kg of bodyweight. So, a 180lb person that weightlifts should eat ~144g protein. But, you can do better

>Elevated protein consumption, as high as 1.8-2.0 g · kg(-1) · day(-1) depending on the caloric deficit, may be advantageous in preventing lean mass losses during periods of energy restriction to promote fat loss.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22150425

The ".8g per pound of bodyweight" rule is pretty solid.

It makes a difference, but the difference is small enough that unless you're a serious lifter (or on a really drastic diet) you won't get anywhere near noticing it.

It matters for a serious lifter because the year over year improvements once you're past your "newbie gains" are so low that every tiny little advantage you can get matters if you care about maximising your lifts.

But we're talking about maybe the top 5% of gym goers, and a much smaller proportion of people in general.

Also, it seems to be questionable how efficient crickets actually are when it comes to Protein according to some studies:

> Although it has been suggested that crickets reared for human or livestock consumption may result in a more sustainable supply of protein, this study finds that such conclusions will depend, in large part, on what the crickets are fed and which systems of livestock production they are compared to. When fed grain-based diets at a scale of economic relevance, populations of crickets in this study showed little improvement in PCE compared to broiler chickens fed similar diets. When fed processed, organic side-streams of relatively high quality, cricket populations achieved a harvestable size. Yet, whether crickets could be raised economically on substrates of similar quality and level of processing requires further analysis. The unprocessed and lower-quality organic side-streams tested in this study could not support adequate growth and survival of cricket populations. Therefore, the potential for crickets to supplement the global supply of dietary protein appears to be more limited than has been recently suggested.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....

This study was just on grain-based diets, which aren't the first thing that comes to mind when I think of cricket harvesting.

For efficiency, you need a cold-blooded animal that eats plants.

Many fish qualify, but they take up space and foul the water.

How about iguanas?

I agree with your assessments about entomophagy. However, I think it no coincidence that most of the “tech people“ on this blog either give paid lectures, sell books, or are associated with a “tech startup”.

> most of the “tech people“ on this blog either give paid lectures, sell books, or are associated with a “tech startup”

That's false, you're vastly under-estimating the size of HN. There are tens of thousands of users and millions of HN readers. Dang noted three years ago that there were 300k daily uniques and ~3m monthly uniques.

A small fraction of those give paid lectures, author/sell books, or are associated with a start-up. Most is an extreme exaggeration. It's closer to 1%-5% than 51%.

Your precision is noted. I was indulging in a bit of satire.

I'm not sure if there are numbers but it seems a lot of people I know have very carb rich diets. It would probably be good for them to switch some of that out for protein.

...and fat.

I switched out my morning half-and-half in my coffee w/ one tbsp of organic unsalted butter and one tbsp of coconut oil.

It has helped me lose body fat and curbed my appetite.

You put butter in coffee?

Yes.

Initially, I thought it would be gross, but it actually tastes good, and I tend to drink less because the caffeine seems more powerful.

You can't prove that your change in coffee additives was what caused a loss of body fat or reduction in appetite. It could have been caused by other factors and there was no experimental control.

This is not really a good idea, especially if they are getting enough protein in their diets already (about 0.8g per kg of bodyweight) which most people have no problem getting. Eating too much protein-rich food increases the risk of excessive uric acid build-up and can lead to all sorts of fun problems like gout and kidney stress.

Despite what fad diets say, carbs are not bad for you. You will gain weight if you eat too many carbs, but that is the same for too much fat or too much protein.

Unless you already have kidney problems, most people will find it exceedingly difficult to eat enough protein for it to be a problem.

I have heard that insects taste like roasted almonds or other nuts. If this is true, why would Americans even feel the need to start eating them? I still freak out every time I see a big moth in my house. I can't touch them. I can only touch small bugs ~ fruit fly.

Insects can give some different texture to a dish. Just don't do an "only insect with some seasonning" dish: make something like veggies or pasta and add some insects for the crunchy feel. Think Paella, not barbecued steak.

You know, traditional paellas already have snails as an ingredient, which aren't insects but I think still have the cultural unfamiliarity to Western palates.

Take them out of their shell and tell people they're a type of clam and they'll never know the difference.

As a Frenchman I had to taste snails. Dreadful. There is no taste, just some earthy blob drowning in butter and garlic.

I tried three times in three different restaurants and I was disappointed every time.

>As someone who was eating insects long before cricket protein bars became in vogue, I don't see entomophagy becoming anything more than a fad in the west, especially America.

Entirely agree. I've been reading those articles for the "rise of bug farming" for the last 30+ years.

It's like those "holographic disks" -- something that's always coming in the next 10 years.

I don't doubt some such business exist. I doubt they'll become anything substantial, both here and even over there where they traditionally eat some insects anyway.

The food industry already intentionally feeds us insects, though most people don't know it. The red dye in many food products, for example, often originates from industrially squished insects.

https://www.wired.com/2015/09/cochineal-bug-feature/

>The taste of insects simply does not compare to meat and poultry. Granted, this has a lot to do with cultural expectations, but that's exactly why I don't think that people are going to gradually shift to consuming a very different flavor.

Not even the taste, if you process it into something like a bar or a protein powder the texture is not terribly palatable.

I would actually be OK with something like a sausage that's 40% pig, 60% crickets, if it's possible. I also wouldn't mind if half of my McDonalds burger was made of crickets. A reduction in demand for meat might also have the positive effect of enabling the production of higher-quality meat from better-cared-for livestock.

That's pretty brilliant.

Why bother with 40% pig? Why not replace it with 40% plant based fibers?

Probably so it still tastes good.

Then you probably don't want crickets which aren't known for their tasty flavor or sausage like texture.

If you're willing to dilute pork you can also use a much more flavorful and fatty cut than you would otherwise.

For the past few months Sonic had offered their "Signature Slinger" burger whose patty was a 60% beef and 40% mushroom blend. My wife and I adored it, but sadly they pulled it from the menu just recently.

> I don't think that people are going to gradually shift to consuming a very different flavor.

How do they taste?

Musty, and the bigger ones taste like what they eat. Grasshoppers have a strong chlorophyll flavor, and not in a good way.

Personally if I need protein, I’d rather eat beans and lentils if I’m avoiding meat and fish. Bugs are never going to be cheaper or more efficient than lentils!

Most of them are relatively tasteless and people season them with lots of chili, salt and pepper, its the texture and gooey insides that turns people off.

I've had cicadas, scorpions and silk worms along with the normal crickets etc.

its the texture and gooey insides that turns people off

and the intestines full of insect shit, bluntly.

That's a common perception, although usually insects are supposed to be "purged" for a day or two to clear their intestines. In the case of caterpillars, they can be easily eviscerated(although it's a disgusting process).

Not like a whole lot, usually. :) In my experience, the taste ranges between earthy, nutty, and sometimes "crustaceany". Even when they hit some of the better flavors(according to my cultural background), they're nothing to write home about.

It's really things like grubs and caterpillars that have the protein, the fats, and the flavor. The sphinx moth caterpillar tacos I've made were easily comparable to shrimp tacos, and were some of the best tacos I've ever eaten. (I did this as a sort of personal study as I never hear of people eating them today but apparently they were a staple of some native peoples.)

Good luck getting people to eat wiggly, squirmy things, though.

This "gap" will be easier to bridge than people seem to think.

Think about a classic hamburger. It doesn't resemble a "grazing, hairy thing" at all. An insect based hamburger (so based on ground insect 'meat' instead of cow) wound't resemble a "wiggly, squirmy thing" either.

Ditto chicken and pork. Honestly if our animal-based foods looked more like the animal there would probably be more vegetarians :)

Honestly if our animal-based foods looked more like the animal there would probably be more vegetarians :)

I have a one word rebuttal: ribs. More broadly whole hog bbq, roast pig, whole fish, whole roast birds, etc. Stereotypes aside, a lot of the world’s favorite foods are clearly body parts, or the whole body, and people enjoy gnawing on the bones. Don’t underestimate the degree to which deliciousness overcomes squeamishness.

Bugs tend not to be delicious, although they are nutritious, that’s less of a draw. People struggle to eat fruits and veggies which evolved to look appealing, because a steak tastes better to them. If you want people to eat bugs they need to compete on deliciousness with other available foodstuffs. If a bug burger doesn’t taste as good as a hamburger, or Impossible burger, or veggie burger... it will mot be adopted. The bugs I’ve eaten range from OK, through bland (with good seasonings doing the work) through unappealing. That’s not going to get beyond novelty, or niche adoption. People will eat a grilled portobello mushroom or bean burger before they eat fried crickets, because the burgers taste better.

It's kind of a cultural thing. I was not a big fish eater before I came to Japan. I grew up in Winnipeg, which is far from the sea and even now I don't like river/lake fish. But even when I had fish in Canada (or saw it in the store), it was fillets (or fingers :-) ). In Japan, you are often served a recognisable fish. For small fish, you often eat the whole thing -- head and all! I had the strangest experience a few years ago when I went to the aquarium and they had a big school of shishamo fish. The first thing that came to my mind was, "They look delicious".

I think it's just that cultural programming -- what does food look like? Once you start to associate that thing with good food, it seems delicious no matter what it is.

It's really ironic that Westerners are disgusted by fish heads but Asians will fight over them at communal meals. I spent time in Japan and China and I'm a convert too. The heads are full of delicious fat. Whole fish in spicy Sichuan sauce is my absolute favorite splurge item at Chinese restaurants.

It really depends on the Westerners. If you mean Americans, then you’ll be right in regards to a large number of them. If you mean South and Central Americans, and many Europeans then you’re probably off base. “Westerner” is no more a useful label than “Easterner” in this.

Round patties of ground beef were around long before someone put them inbetween slices of bread, cheese, and vegetables.

They've been a Russian staple for at least a few centuries.

Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I also have my doubts. I'm not so sure Americans could do wiggly squirmy things. It would take me a lot of effort to get comfortable eating live grubs. Then again, 50 years ago I doubt most people would have guessed how popular sushi would become.

I would think insect protein could easily play the role that soy protein does in lots of 'mystery meat' processed foods like hot dogs or hamburgers. That said, I am skeptical it could be produced more cheaply than soy.

IDK, the reason soy works so well there is the texture you're able to produce with it. I feel like one of the largest issues most people have with insects are the texture.

The bigger issue here becomes all the side effects of consuming large quantities of soy and how it affects hormone production. Not saying cricket flour wouldn't have a new set of health problems associated with it, but it could be a reason for people to move into insect protein.

There is no hormonal side effect for humans consuming large quantities of soy.

I’d like to believe this, but there’s too much published research to the contrary.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/soybean-fertility...

If only that article linked to actual studies to backup those claims. The article also discusses rats at length, but doesn't support any of its claims with human studies. The one link I attempted to follow is a dead link. That being said, my confidence in the author's ability to speak intelligently on this subject is pretty damn low.

So here are actual human studies with data.

Clinical studies show no effects of soy protein or isoflavones on reproductive hormones in men: results of a meta-analysis.[1]

Isoflavones made simple - genistein's agonist activity for the beta-type estrogen receptor mediates their health benefits.[2]

Soy food and isoflavone intake in relation to semen quality parameters among men from an infertility clinic. [3]

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19524224 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16513288 [3] https://academic.oup.com/humrep/article/23/11/2584/2913898

There are of course hundreds of millions of people in Asia eating large quantities of soy every day - presumably if that correlated with hormonal disruption it would be hard to ignore. Now, it's possible that other aspects of their diets influence how that impacts them, but there are plenty of people elsewhere in the world eating tofu etc. frequently.

Really you just need 52-58g per day of protein for men if I recall correctly.

Don't throw stones at me here, I'm just the messenger... if you are living an active life style and would like to have some muscle, the golden rule at the gym is that you need at least 1 gram of protein per pound in your body (daily intake). An though I find that there's tons of mis-information out there about what's needed, the 1g per pound is surprisingly consistent throughout most researchers on the subject.

It's been a super long time since I looked at this (decades), but at least when I did a lot of reading on it, this kind of recommendation is based on making sure you have protein availability in the bloodstream when it is being taken up for muscle building. It's not so much the amount as the timing. Again, at least at the time when I was reading about this stuff, there were lots of recommendations for having 5-7 meals a day, or splitting your carb and protein intake (for example eating your protein 1 hour after eating your carbs in order to take advantage of the insulin rush).

There are dangers corresponding too much protein intake -- calcium depletion, for example. It's also pretty hard on your kidneys. A lot of advice in the gym is not necessarily geared towards health as much as it is to maximise muscle development/protection. I will also say that nutrition research is chock full of poor science and worse explanations of that science by well meaning popular books. It was my hobby when I was at university (hence decades ago) to look up the actual papers referenced by popular sports nutrition theorists and never once did I find that it held up (either the papers they were referencing were horrible studies, or they got the conclusions completely wrong). It's been a long time since I've had access to a good library, so I've completely lost touch, but I suspect that little has changed.

I do wonder about some sports teams and whether or not they are puzzling things out. For example, the Sky cycling team is famous for their "marginal gains" approach -- trying to get a tenth of a percentage of improvement from anywhere. But I haven't found them to be particularly forthcoming about nutrition, for example.

https://bayesianbodybuilding.com/the-myth-of-1glb-optimal-pr...

Most people will find it damn hard to eat that much protein without getting a far too high calorie intake for their activity level.

Having lifted for 14 years, with some shorter breaks, with protein intake ranging from less than half of that to meeting that, I feel confident that you need nothing like those amounts. If you're a competitive lifter, you might want to push your intake up towards those levels, but the improvements you can expect are tiny.

The research indeed does show improvements, at higher intake, but the difference is small enough that it really is irrelevant to most people.

Most people will take years of serious lifting with a strict focus on increasing strength/volume (rather than "just" staying healthy) before they lift heavy enough for it to be something to even think about. As someone else said, timing might play in a bit more, but total daily intake does not need to be that high.

Oh yeah, absolutely, I'm just talking minimums for body maintenance and staying "healthy". If you're wanting to get gains, you'll need more but not as much as people think. I've had plenty of talks with nutritionists, dieticians, and training/PT specialists over the years when I played sports competitively. There is an upper curve on grams per pound though when it's just converted into energy; it's also not the best equation because you should really be converting based on lean body mass rather than gross body pass (incl. fat). This is the type of stuff that my coaches preached and taught: https://www.livestrong.com/article/489271-minimum-protein-in...

The whole idea of directly eating insects is stupid. They can be fed to animals we normally eat (e.g. fish). The advantage is that insects can process stuff that we would otherwise throw away, and are very efficient.

I don't think that your conclusion follows from your argument. You could say the same thing about directly eating vegetables -- they can be fed to animals we normally eat (e.g., cattle).

More directly to your point, isn't there significant energy inefficiency from eating higher on the food chain?

It’s less efficient higher up the food chain. I think the point being made is a grasshopper, goats or cows can digest plants a human could never and get sustenance out of. They have different food processing stomachs

I agree with your points - each step of processing feed material leaks some of the efficiencies gained by harvesting at lower levels. Generally the benefits from chaining production come from the lower level consuming the waste products of the higher level, like fertilizing aquatic plants with fish waste.

Where insects could make a big difference is replacing more expensive or less effective inputs into higher-level products, ideally commodities. For example, if we could produce breads using crickets that have higher caloric densities for the same price that would be a huge global win. We're not there yet though.

Every step up on the food chain loses roughly 90% of the energy.

I do not understand how the first sentence was supported by the next two sentences. Hundreds of millions of people eat insects daily, and it seems way more efficient than using them as an intermediary food source.

If it keeps cows alive it should be good enough for humans too.

I wondering how switching to a diet of grass would work out for the average human...

Grasses are some of the most common food staples. Wheat, rye, barley, rice, maize, oats, and others

As we have only one stomach and lack symbiotic bacteria that allow ruminants to digest cellulose the average human would quickly starve.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com