Threw a grenade at work

[Rusted Rose]

Is your diet optimal?

At the risk of asking advice ... what is an optimal diet? 

Sadly, I happened to catch this thread... I Am Not a Cat, but I will comment, because I don't agree with the mainstream conception of what is optimal.

I usually eat during a 6 to 10 hour window during the day, usually not much sugar, high protein, 

This is all good IMO.

thinking about reducing meat more.

Whatever for? We are not deer or other ruminants or prey animals and don't belong on their level. We eat them because they process things that we can't.

This is where I disagree with the now-conventional "wisdom." The BS reasons for reducing our already falling levels of this are, well, BS. Won't get into those here.

Protein is good; IMO we need a minimum level of it. Meat is not the problem, it's the raising and handling of it that can be. Saturated fat is also not the demon it has been cracked up to be. Meat has protective effects, though given the current feeding and handling of food animals, chicken and pork are more compromised by their soy diets, which are not natural to either.

put on some more muscle

Which cutting good-quality, bioavailable protein (plus other good things like stearic acid for example) is not good for, is it? OK, I don't know the levels you're starting from, but what good reason would there be to cut down?

I'm just an ordinary citizen who has paid close attention to this area of understanding for I dunno, almost 10 years? And have found that I really disagree with a lot of mainstream beliefs around "health." I am really tired of the demonization of meat. Very disagree, much annoy. :)

[Metalcat]

Is your diet optimal?

At the risk of asking advice ... what is an optimal diet? 

Sadly, I happened to catch this thread... I Am Not a Cat, but I will comment, because I don't agree with the mainstream conception of what is optimal.

I usually eat during a 6 to 10 hour window during the day, usually not much sugar, high protein, 

This is all good IMO.

thinking about reducing meat more.

Whatever for? We are not deer or other ruminants or prey animals and don't belong on their level. We eat them because they process things that we can't.

This is where I disagree with the now-conventional "wisdom." The BS reasons for reducing our already falling levels of this are, well, BS. Won't get into those here.

Protein is good; IMO we need a minimum level of it. Meat is not the problem, it's the raising and handling of it that can be. Saturated fat is also not the demon it has been cracked up to be. Meat has protective effects, though given the current feeding and handling of food animals, chicken and pork are more compromised by their soy diets, which are not natural to either.

put on some more muscle

Which cutting good-quality, bioavailable protein (plus other good things like stearic acid for example) is not good for, is it? OK, I don't know the levels you're starting from, but what good reason would there be to cut down?

I'm just an ordinary citizen who has paid close attention to this area of understanding for I dunno, almost 10 years? And have found that I really disagree with a lot of mainstream beliefs around "health." I am really tired of the demonization of meat. Very disagree, much annoy. :)

Then it's probably good that my diet advice is not pop science bullshit.

What's optimal for each person is different.
For a funny example, I don't do well with eating meat. My father and his siblings also don't do well with meat. There's nothing wrong with meat nutritionally, but for me, a diet with regular meat consumption is suboptimal. I do fine with eggs though, so I eat a lot of eggs.

I also don't do well with sugar, fruit, raw broccoli, several brands of yogurt, alcohol, raw onions and garlic, peanuts and peanut butter, dealcohlized beer, tofu, and a lot of processed foods.

I pay attention to my body, and I've done multiple elimination diets that did nothing for the symptoms the doctors were trying to manage, but absolutely showed me what foods I don't digest well.

My sister has an autoimmune disease and her optimal diet cannot include any dairy whatsoever or her skin goes red and her eyes dry to the point she can't look at a screen.

DH feels poorly if he eats anything too fatty, or if a meal is too heavy in simple starches.

 It everyone needs to go so far as to do a full on elimination diet. Just keen observation of the effects of different foods and different eating patterns is usually enough for most people to get a solid sense of a more optimal diet for their body.

Basically, if you eat something and generally don't feel great afterwards, maybe you shouldn't eat that thing.

[Rusted Rose]

keen observation of the effects of different foods and different eating patterns is usually enough for most people to get a solid sense of a more optimal diet for their body.

Completely agree that paying attention to what one's body says is crucial.

Also that pop science is a problem, since most people have little scientific literacy these days.

That said, we are all at different places when considering what to eat going forward. If our systems are already skewed a certain way, say, with celiac disease or high blood pressure for example, we'd need to work with that to accommodate or mitigate.

Since OP didn't mention any particular conditions or issues with certain foods, it sounded like the thoughts were more influenced by, well, the current zeitgeist, which is...no longer underpinned by good science, to describe it in one way.

[Metalcat]

keen observation of the effects of different foods and different eating patterns is usually enough for most people to get a solid sense of a more optimal diet for their body.

Completely agree that paying attention to what one's body says is crucial.

Also that pop science is a problem, since most people have little scientific literacy these days.

That said, we are all at different places when considering what to eat going forward. If our systems are already skewed a certain way, say, with celiac disease or high blood pressure for example, we'd need to work with that to accommodate or mitigate.

Since OP didn't mention any particular conditions or issues with certain foods, it sounded like the thoughts were more influenced by, well, the current zeitgeist, which is...no longer underpinned by good science, to describe it in one way.

I actually chuckled out loud at your use of the phrases "these days" and "no longer underpinned by science"

In my fairly extensive knowledge of the history of nutrition science, I am unaware of any previous era where the "common" or "pop culture" wisdom about nutrition was actually sound.

It's actually better today than its ever been. Not that it isn't still fucking gibberish, but it's way more fact checked than it used to be thanks to the internet. A quick google can easily give you access to multiple scientists ripping apart the basis of any pop culture nutrition trend.

Food beliefs and fads in the past 100 years were insane.

[former player]

Food beliefs and fads in the past 100 years were insane.

It's basically the last 60 years when the food manufacturers have induced us to move from buying ingredients to buying processed foods when the damage has been done - and the fad beliefs and diets have multiplied to deal with the results.

[optimusprime]

It's basically the last 60 years when the food manufacturers have induced us to move from buying ingredients to buying processed foods when the damage has been done - and the fad beliefs and diets have multiplied to deal with the results.

You may be right.  I think it's hilarious that humans have been around for so long and still can't agree on the basics of what humans should eat.  The world's various religions agree on more stuff.  At least they pretty much all think killing, lying, and stealing are bad for us.  But on food, geesh, don't touch butter.  That could start a holy war!

I'm a simple man.  For dinner I had rice, beans, and kale mixed in a bowl.  Totally plain and it took me like 30 seconds to prepare (I had made the rice earlier for some homemade sushi).  On fads, I will say I have found a few of them helpful.  Intermittent fasting is terrific.  I'm not hardcore at all.  But I find that if I skip breakfast I can usually make it to lunch before I start to feel hungry.  It feels good and it means I can eat pretty much as much as I want during the eating window and still not gain weight.  If I did have the time to add muscle I'd probably have to break IF or do something clever.   The fasting is interesting--I want to try a longer fast and see what happens.  This idea of putting the body through physical stress just in general is attractive to me--we all get so comfortable in modern life it seems healthy to break things up.  The sleeper must awaken.   

I do think hitting protein more keeps me alert--so eggs, protein shakes, tofu, beans, nuts and nut butters, fish and yes meat are all in.  I have not yet tried a pie-based diet.  I did try just eating chocolate all day for a few weeks straight about 20 years ago--I do not recommend that.

[Rusted Rose]

keen observation of the effects of different foods and different eating patterns is usually enough for most people to get a solid sense of a more optimal diet for their body.

Completely agree that paying attention to what one's body says is crucial.

Also that pop science is a problem, since most people have little scientific literacy these days.

That said, we are all at different places when considering what to eat going forward. If our systems are already skewed a certain way, say, with celiac disease or high blood pressure for example, we'd need to work with that to accommodate or mitigate.

Since OP didn't mention any particular conditions or issues with certain foods, it sounded like the thoughts were more influenced by, well, the current zeitgeist, which is...no longer underpinned by good science, to describe it in one way.

I actually chuckled out loud at your use of the phrases "these days" and "no longer underpinned by science"

In my fairly extensive knowledge of the history of nutrition science, I am unaware of any previous era where the "common" or "pop culture" wisdom about nutrition was actually sound.

It's actually better today than its ever been. Not that it isn't still fucking gibberish, but it's way more fact checked than it used to be thanks to the internet. A quick google can easily give you access to multiple scientists ripping apart the basis of any pop culture nutrition trend.

Food beliefs and fads in the past 100 years were insane.

At the risk of taking this off into the ether of OT...a couple of points:

I said "no longer underpinned by good science."

Some things that are sounder than others have been labeled with "fad" to shout them down. Those who don't want to be challenged know that smearing anything, rather than disproving it with good science, is more effective for that. We are in the realm now of politics taking over an area where it shouldn't have gone.

Although we do have better science being done, I can't agree that a clear understanding of nutrition is easy for the general public to get to with a mere internet search. It isn't so much that "humans have been around for so long and still can't agree on the basics of what humans should eat" (-Optimus Prime) but that we've been derailed by the obfuscations of food manufacturers (- former player) and their associates.

You can call me a nutrition conspiracy theorist if you like, LOL.

[Morning Glory]

We can't study human nutrition in the same way we can for animals, so we will never know.

[Rusted Rose]

We can't study human nutrition in the same way we can for animals, so we will never know.

May I gently point out that this is a false dilemma? It's not an either/or thing just because of your first point. We can know a lot. Best way is to study history, but to do it well.

One example of not doing it well would be to say "well, there is no ONE 'paleo diet' so everything associated with the 'paleo' word is wrong!!" As far as I know, nobody in the paleo community insists that there ever was ONE true way to eat to rule them all. It is clear that people have subsisted on many different things based on their environments. So shouting down anything that a community says by shooting down a straw argument is not dealing well with the situation. Just an example of the ridiculousness out there.

(I'm not saying that you're doing this. I am saying that your A does not mean that your B follows.)

BTW, unfortunately there is a ton of badly done animal nutrition science. There is a specific thing, for example, that I have noticed that a lot of researchers apparently completely elide in their studies. Not good science at all. Doing bad science is a really great way to never know!

Sorry OP if I'm messing with your thread too much. I can bow out if you'd rather.

[Metalcat]

keen observation of the effects of different foods and different eating patterns is usually enough for most people to get a solid sense of a more optimal diet for their body.

Completely agree that paying attention to what one's body says is crucial.

Also that pop science is a problem, since most people have little scientific literacy these days.

That said, we are all at different places when considering what to eat going forward. If our systems are already skewed a certain way, say, with celiac disease or high blood pressure for example, we'd need to work with that to accommodate or mitigate.

Since OP didn't mention any particular conditions or issues with certain foods, it sounded like the thoughts were more influenced by, well, the current zeitgeist, which is...no longer underpinned by good science, to describe it in one way.

I actually chuckled out loud at your use of the phrases "these days" and "no longer underpinned by science"

In my fairly extensive knowledge of the history of nutrition science, I am unaware of any previous era where the "common" or "pop culture" wisdom about nutrition was actually sound.

It's actually better today than its ever been. Not that it isn't still fucking gibberish, but it's way more fact checked than it used to be thanks to the internet. A quick google can easily give you access to multiple scientists ripping apart the basis of any pop culture nutrition trend.

Food beliefs and fads in the past 100 years were insane.

At the risk of taking this off into the ether of OT...a couple of points:

I said "no longer underpinned by good science."

Some things that are sounder than others have been labeled with "fad" to shout them down. Those who don't want to be challenged know that smearing anything, rather than disproving it with good science, is more effective for that. We are in the realm now of politics taking over an area where it shouldn't have gone.

Although we do have better science being done, I can't agree that a clear understanding of nutrition is easy for the general public to get to with a mere internet search. It isn't so much that "humans have been around for so long and still can't agree on the basics of what humans should eat" (-Optimus Prime) but that we've been derailed by the obfuscations of food manufacturers (- former player) and their associates.

You can call me a nutrition conspiracy theorist if you like, LOL.

I never said that. I said it wasn't better in the past. It's still a cluster fuck now, but it wasn't better in the past.

[optimusprime]

Sorry OP if I'm messing with your thread too much. I can bow out if you'd rather.

Please mess away... I might learn something!  I just think it's funny that vegans will tell me it's terrible to eat an egg or fish and then paleo folks will tell me I should just tear into a leg of lamb caveman style every day.  One guy will tell me wheat is the staff of life and some other person will tell me wheat is poison.  There's even folks out there saying beans are poison because of something called lectins.  I seem to remember the Hare Krishnas won't eat garlic.  It's damn confusing and a little hilarious.  I'll always have strawberry rhubarb pie though.

At least for me, I've arrived at the following decisions through trial and error with my own body:

1.  If I snack a lot I will gain weight
2.  If I fast a lot I will lose weight
3.  If I drink too much alcohol my head will hurt
4.  If I drink too much caffeine I will run myself down over time
5.  Sugar is kind of gross in quantity and should be minimized
6.  A healthy amount of protein is pretty good for keeping me energized
7.  Relatively cheap foods like rice and beans and veggies taste and feel at least as good as fancy expensive foods.  Nine times out of ten, I would rather cook simple food on a fire in the woods with the family than go to some fancy restaurant

That's all I got here on diet and it's just my personal experience. 

[DeniseNJ]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

[Metalcat]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

There's a lot of nonsense out there.

What's "good" or "bad" depends on your body and your goals.

Yes, plants are good and you need protein. Beyond that, it's mostly meaningless noise and personal biology.

Question though, why don't you cook?

[dougules]

Even nutrition aside, some foods have a much bigger impact in their production.  Beef takes a lot more land and energy to produce than beans.  Eating fish contributes to overfishing.  Etc.

[DeniseNJ]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

There's a lot of nonsense out there.

What's "good" or "bad" depends on your body and your goals.

Yes, plants are good and you need protein. Beyond that, it's mostly meaningless noise and personal biology.

Question though, why don't you cook?

Well, [insert lame excuse here]. A long time ago I was a vegetarian for about 12 yrs (age 17 to 29), and not a good one--mostly big bowls of pasta, fake meats, and junk food.  So I can boil water, microwave stuff, and bake anything yummy.

Then my husband had a very limited diet from acid reflux, my son was diagnosed with severe anaphylactic food allergies and I was pregnant with my second child.  And I worked full time and commuted 3 hrs a day.  So I said, "If I had time for all this food planning, I'd clean my house!" and I had everybody eat whatever they'd keep down and stopped being a vegetarian. But I never actually learned to cook any meat or chicken. And I was swamped, so processed foods took over.  Then when my second child also had peanut/nut/soy allergies and then was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, we only ate stuff with labels that had exact carb counts and ingredients (processed foods). Now many years later, my kids and dh are both lazy and picky, while I'm just lazy.

It doesn't pay to actually cook anything bc nobody will eat the same stuff and everyone is super picky.  I will eat anything put in front of me, but I'd rather eat 8 lbs of salad than cook a piece of chicken, which is faster, easier, and doesn't require clean up, since no one will eat the chicken anyway (both kids say they are allergic to it and dh says he still gets heartburn). No one will eat fish, since dh and son won't eat anything out of the ocean, and daughter will only eat fried calamari.  I won't fry anything bc it's too messy and I have enough cleaning to do. 

I guess that's why I don't cook: no one will eat it, and it's too messy.

[optimusprime]

It doesn't pay to actually cook anything bc nobody will eat the same stuff and everyone is super picky. 

You have a lot of legit challenges here.  We have a similar sitch in that everyone is picky.  If I did "retire" I'd have to figure out how to cook for everybody.  Now that's an optimization problem that would daunt even the most towering corporate titan!

[Metalcat]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

There's a lot of nonsense out there.

What's "good" or "bad" depends on your body and your goals.

Yes, plants are good and you need protein. Beyond that, it's mostly meaningless noise and personal biology.

Question though, why don't you cook?

Well, [insert lame excuse here]. A long time ago I was a vegetarian for about 12 yrs (age 17 to 29), and not a good one--mostly big bowls of pasta, fake meats, and junk food.  So I can boil water, microwave stuff, and bake anything yummy.

Then my husband had a very limited diet from acid reflux, my son was diagnosed with severe anaphylactic food allergies and I was pregnant with my second child.  And I worked full time and commuted 3 hrs a day.  So I said, "If I had time for all this food planning, I'd clean my house!" and I had everybody eat whatever they'd keep down and stopped being a vegetarian. But I never actually learned to cook any meat or chicken. And I was swamped, so processed foods took over.  Then when my second child also had peanut/nut/soy allergies and then was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes, we only ate stuff with labels that had exact carb counts and ingredients (processed foods). Now many years later, my kids and dh are both lazy and picky, while I'm just lazy.

It doesn't pay to actually cook anything bc nobody will eat the same stuff and everyone is super picky.  I will eat anything put in front of me, but I'd rather eat 8 lbs of salad than cook a piece of chicken, which is faster, easier, and doesn't require clean up, since no one will eat the chicken anyway (both kids say they are allergic to it and dh says he still gets heartburn). No one will eat fish, since dh and son won't eat anything out of the ocean, and daughter will only eat fried calamari.  I won't fry anything bc it's too messy and I have enough cleaning to do. 

I guess that's why I don't cook: no one will eat it, and it's too messy.

It sounds like your food issues have less to do with nutrition being complicated and more to do with your life being complicated.

FWIW, I pay to have my meals made for me when I'm overburdened.

[DeniseNJ]

It sounds like your food issues have less to do with nutrition being complicated and more to do with your life being complicated.

FWIW, I pay to have my meals made for me when I'm overburdened.

Correct.  This is why I don't cook.

But as far as what to eat, I try to eat unprocessed foods, and end up with mostly fruits and veg, bc meat requires cooking and I have enough to do. This is working fine for now since I'm trying to lose weight. But in general I would eat fruits and veg and lots of carbs (bread, pasta, bags of pre-cooked brown rice). I did buy a piece of salmon at Aldi and cooked it in the oven on aluminum foil (no mess). It lasted me 3 days and no one else would taste it.  I was pretty sick of it after 3 days.

[Metalcat]

It sounds like your food issues have less to do with nutrition being complicated and more to do with your life being complicated.

FWIW, I pay to have my meals made for me when I'm overburdened.

Correct.  This is why I don't cook.

But as far as what to eat, I try to eat unprocessed foods, and end up with mostly fruits and veg, bc meat requires cooking and I have enough to do. This is working fine for now since I'm trying to lose weight. But in general I would eat fruits and veg and lots of carbs (bread, pasta, bags of pre-cooked brown rice). I did buy a piece of salmon at Aldi and cooked it in the oven on aluminum foil (no mess). It lasted me 3 days and no one else would taste it.  I was pretty sick of it after 3 days.

That doesn't sound sustainable to me. Your life sounds unmanageable.

[DeniseNJ]

It sounds like your food issues have less to do with nutrition being complicated and more to do with your life being complicated.

FWIW, I pay to have my meals made for me when I'm overburdened.

Correct.  This is why I don't cook.

But as far as what to eat, I try to eat unprocessed foods, and end up with mostly fruits and veg, bc meat requires cooking and I have enough to do. This is working fine for now since I'm trying to lose weight. But in general I would eat fruits and veg and lots of carbs (bread, pasta, bags of pre-cooked brown rice). I did buy a piece of salmon at Aldi and cooked it in the oven on aluminum foil (no mess). It lasted me 3 days and no one else would taste it.  I was pretty sick of it after 3 days.

That doesn't sound sustainable to me. Your life sounds unmanageable.

I would agree with that.

[Metalcat]

It sounds like your food issues have less to do with nutrition being complicated and more to do with your life being complicated.

FWIW, I pay to have my meals made for me when I'm overburdened.

Correct.  This is why I don't cook.

But as far as what to eat, I try to eat unprocessed foods, and end up with mostly fruits and veg, bc meat requires cooking and I have enough to do. This is working fine for now since I'm trying to lose weight. But in general I would eat fruits and veg and lots of carbs (bread, pasta, bags of pre-cooked brown rice). I did buy a piece of salmon at Aldi and cooked it in the oven on aluminum foil (no mess). It lasted me 3 days and no one else would taste it.  I was pretty sick of it after 3 days.

That doesn't sound sustainable to me. Your life sounds unmanageable.

I would agree with that.

This is kind of the point I was making for op.

I gave my list of minimum metrics of thriving. Nutrition was one of the.  My point is not that everyone should do whatever it takes to have good nutrition, my point was that being unable to maintain good nutrition is a sign that your overall ability to thrive is compromised.

Which is what it sounds like your life is right now.

The minimum metrics of health and well being are good sleep, waking up rested and feeling mentally good, eating well, getting enough exercise, and sustaining healthy relationships with loved ones. If any of those key indicators is not being met, then the conditions of your life are compromising your well being.

[Rusted Rose]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

The convo has gotten onto another tack by now, but...I used to think Pollan was right, but after more investigation and experience, I have to say I myself don't count him as an expert anymore.

Also, the life expectancy thing is not what it seems. Earlier populations didn't necessarily have short lives due to the nonsupport of what they ate. Largely, the main contribution there was lack of acute medical care, infant mortality, and deaths in childbirth, I believe. But those go into the stats.

As logical as it seems, assuming that diet was the reason for shorter lives is jumping to conclusions, just as is the ridiculous "what's your diet secret!!" question that is always asked of those who live past 100. Naturally there has to be a magic food, right? LOL.

Not to mention that animal products do not cause heart disease in the way we all think we "know." That subject is also complex. It's slowly getting more consideration, but convention is a 1,000-pound gorilla.

This stuff is complex, and I know most people don't have the interest or patience to chase down what is really behind it all. Malcat's word "nonsense" is apt for a lot of what people think they know about all this. Unsubstantiated beliefs can build on each other to give us an incorrect picture that we then try to extrapolate ideal behaviors from (i.e., garbage in, garbage out).

BTW, just a fun side note: our post-agricultural ancestors actually shrank physically, and so did our brains. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html is not a study; I just went to pull a sciency reference to a mention of this phenomenon.

[optimusprime]

Even nutrition aside, some foods have a much bigger impact in their production.  Beef takes a lot more land and energy to produce than beans.  Eating fish contributes to overfishing.  Etc.

Somehow getting into environmentalism is something I would consider, but not sure where/how.  I agree that this food thing gets into the environmental thing very quickly.  An animal produced using terrible industrial processes is very different from an animal hunted or bred in a sustainable way.  The way we make food just generally as a species right now seems unsustainable. 

[DeniseNJ]

As logical as it seems, assuming that diet was the reason for shorter lives is jumping to conclusions, just as is the ridiculous "what's your diet secret!!" question that is always asked of those who live past 100.

I didn't mean that diet was the cause of a shorter life. More that negative effects of a certain diet wouldn't be seen in a population that didn't live that long. Rates of cancer and heart disease increase dramatically as ppl age so in a population where lots of ppl make 85, for whatever reason, the cumulative effects of a lifetime of certain types of foods can be more obvious. Disease causing diets don't matter if most ppl don't see 65 anyway. But when many ppl start to see 85, a life time of food choices can start to add up.

I am so sorry to the OP for going so far off the rails.

[DeniseNJ]

The minimum metrics of health and well being are good sleep, waking up rested and feeling mentally good, eating well, getting enough exercise, and sustaining healthy relationships with loved ones. If any of those key indicators is not being met, then the conditions of your life are compromising your well being.

I agree. I came to the conclusion yrs ago the you need 5 things to basic happiness:
diet (good healthy food),
sleep,
exercise (activity),
tribe (close relationships), and
meds (appropriate medical care or medication as necessary). 

You mentioned 4 of my 5!  If you are missing any of these 5, your contentment is sure to be limited.

The trouble lies in the chasm between knowing and doing.

[optimusprime]

I came to the conclusion yrs ago the you need 5 things to basic happiness:
diet (good healthy food),
sleep,
exercise (activity),
tribe (close relationships), and
meds (appropriate medical care or medication as necessary). 

I think I could use more exercise.  But mainly I'm not sure about my work tribe or my work purpose right now.

[Metalcat]

I came to the conclusion yrs ago the you need 5 things to basic happiness:
diet (good healthy food),
sleep,
exercise (activity),
tribe (close relationships), and
meds (appropriate medical care or medication as necessary). 

I think I could use more exercise.  But mainly I'm not sure about my work tribe or my work purpose right now.

Who says you need a work tribe and purpose?

I love work, but I won't do it unless all of my other needs are met first. That's kind of the point of FI.

[Radagast]

Not sure if we should start another thread on nutrition, but I'd love some comments.  My problem is that it seems to me that what is good for you short term is not the same stuff that's good for you long-term, mostly bc, I think, humans weren't really meant to live that long. So paleo sounds great, if you expect to live to age 50, like our pre-agricultural ancestors did. But if you'd like to get to 85 without heart disease, then you might want to reduce animal products, and up your fruits and veg. But you can't live on fruits and veg without a bunch of nuts and seeds (grains) to make up the protein and fat.  It's really a jumble.

I guess most "experts" would say, "Eat real food, not too much, mostly plants," like that Pollen book, In Defense of Food. Right now I'm eating pretty much just fruit and veg, bc I'm trying to lose weight and I don't cook.

The convo has gotten onto another tack by now, but...I used to think Pollan was right, but after more investigation and experience, I have to say I myself don't count him as an expert anymore.

Also, the life expectancy thing is not what it seems. Earlier populations didn't necessarily have short lives due to the nonsupport of what they ate. Largely, the main contribution there was lack of acute medical care, infant mortality, and deaths in childbirth, I believe. But those go into the stats.

As logical as it seems, assuming that diet was the reason for shorter lives is jumping to conclusions, just as is the ridiculous "what's your diet secret!!" question that is always asked of those who live past 100. Naturally there has to be a magic food, right? LOL.

Not to mention that animal products do not cause heart disease in the way we all think we "know." That subject is also complex. It's slowly getting more consideration, but convention is a 1,000-pound gorilla.

This stuff is complex, and I know most people don't have the interest or patience to chase down what is really behind it all. Malcat's word "nonsense" is apt for a lot of what people think they know about all this. Unsubstantiated beliefs can build on each other to give us an incorrect picture that we then try to extrapolate ideal behaviors from (i.e., garbage in, garbage out).

BTW, just a fun side note: our post-agricultural ancestors actually shrank physically, and so did our brains. https://phys.org/news/2011-06-farming-blame-size-brains.html is not a study; I just went to pull a sciency reference to a mention of this phenomenon.

It is my strong opinion that the biggest value of meat is showing the plebes how much money you have. Else, you'd eat dairy (eggs, milk, cheese) which covers all the same bases. Granted meat tastes good, but the appreciation of that drops rapidly after a few days a week. Trust me, your lazy ancestors preferred things slower and dumber than themselves.

[GuitarStv]

Eggs aren't dairy - no milk in 'em.


I can happily give up meat for extended stretches . . . giving up dairy products is significantly more difficult.

[Morning Glory]

I just remembered that grenade also means pomegranate. Now I want a pomegranate every time I see this thread title, and it's out of season.

[yachi]

Also, the life expectancy thing is not what it seems. Earlier populations didn't necessarily have short lives due to the nonsupport of what they ate. Largely, the main contribution there was lack of acute medical care, infant mortality, and deaths in childbirth, I believe. But those go into the stats.

The often quote "life expectancy" age is usually life expectancy at birth.  As such, it's massively influenced by reductions in infant mortality rates.  One of my pet peeves is people using this figure for stupid things like:

Justifying increases to the Social Security age. "People are living longer so we need to start paying later"- You really need to look at life expectancy at 18, or life expectancy at 60 to justify something like that.  Life expectancy at birth is irrelevant because children who died young don't enter the workforce.

[dougules]

The minimum metrics of health and well being are good sleep, waking up rested and feeling mentally good, eating well, getting enough exercise, and sustaining healthy relationships with loved ones. If any of those key indicators is not being met, then the conditions of your life are compromising your well being.

I agree. I came to the conclusion yrs ago the you need 5 things to basic happiness:
diet (good healthy food),
sleep,
exercise (activity),
tribe (close relationships), and
meds (appropriate medical care or medication as necessary). 

You mentioned 4 of my 5!  If you are missing any of these 5, your contentment is sure to be limited.

The trouble lies in the chasm between knowing and doing.

A lot of times it's not so much a chasm as much as a wall of misprioritization.   There's only so much of you.   

[optimusprime]

I just remembered that grenade also means pomegranate. Now I want a pomegranate every time I see this thread title, and it's out of season.

Nice connection.  "threw a pomegranate at work" will undoubtedly be my next challenge to ask the mustachians about... and you'll have to imagine I am asking my question with an outrageous french accent.

[Morning Glory]

I just remembered that grenade also means pomegranate. Now I want a pomegranate every time I see this thread title, and it's out of season.

Nice connection.  "threw a pomegranate at work" will undoubtedly be my next challenge to ask the mustachians about... and you'll have to imagine I am asking my question with an outrageous french accent.

Now I'm picturing a grocery store manager losing their shit and beginning to hurl citrus fruits after the twentieth customer complaint of the day :)

Of course if you were a zookeeper, throwing pomegranates might be acceptable behavior.

[Eowyn_MI]

Even nutrition aside, some foods have a much bigger impact in their production.  Beef takes a lot more land and energy to produce than beans.  Eating fish contributes to overfishing.  Etc.

Somehow getting into environmentalism is something I would consider, but not sure where/how.  I agree that this food thing gets into the environmental thing very quickly.  An animal produced using terrible industrial processes is very different from an animal hunted or bred in a sustainable way.  The way we make food just generally as a species right now seems unsustainable.

I agree that conventional agriculture and raising animals in confined feeding operations is totally unsustainable. 

But you have 8 million dollars!  You can easily afford to buy free range/pastured/grass fed meat, eggs and dairy from small farms where they operate in a sustainable fashion and the animals are treated well.  In my opinion, this is a great way to spend money.

It's a ton of work to operate a farm.  I wouldn't want to do all that work to feed other people.  I would do the work on a homestead for my own consumption though.  I tried volunteering for a week (through WWOOF) on a vegetable farm when I was younger and decided that engineering school was easier than farming!

Growing food for you and your family is a great way to spend time.  My mom retired and immediately bought some acreage to start a small vegetable farm.  She has chickens for eggs too!  It keeps her very busy and she seems happy with it.  The food is excellent, of course :)

[Expatriate]

OP, did you resign already?

[optimusprime]

OP, did you resign already?

Not yet.  This is a process and I am in deep.  But really digging all the great feedback in this thread.  At a minimum I've started a conversation at work and shaken things up.  I will update the thread when there is a update on that.  I've also been taking this opportunity to really reflect on what comes next and what I want to be doing on a day to day basis.  It's been an emotional few weeks but probably worth it.  Not good to suppress.