Fake Chicken Worth Eating | Hacker News Reader

Fake Chicken Worth Eating

nytimes.com

5 pointsshivkapoor6 comments

Not a single mention here of the health implications of eating manufactured vs real food?

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!

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.

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.

I was under the impression there was? Regarding quality and quantity of protein, impact on hormone levels and allergy risk. I'm pretty sure I even read something on dementia linked to tofu, but I couldn't be sure.

Perhaps you could be the one doing the enlightening?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com