|
Aeroponics, AKA "nerdfarms", were designed for use in space. Soil is slightly inconvenient up there. I'm not sure it has been used much even then - and the goal in that context is research, not feeding people. Still the technology is cool, if not currently practical. I was considering setting up such a system myself, but I wasn't under any delusions of efficiency. If I could get off season quality tomatoes at inflated prices, plus I got to play with some toys, I would call it a win. I ended up not bothering.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 22:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
At the end of the day, Americans mostly eat hyper-processed meat/corn/wheat combinations anyways, of which they usually throw out 40%. Only 10 percent of the population eats the minimum recommended amount of fruits or vegetables. The idea that electricity costs or carbon/kg ratios of urban greenhouses are going to materially affect food affordability is totally absurd.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:00
|
|
|
Kaal posted:At the end of the day, Americans mostly eat hyper-processed meat/corn/wheat combinations anyways, of which they usually throw out 40%. Only 10 percent of the population eats the minimum recommended amount of fruits or vegetables. The idea that electricity costs or carbon/kg ratios of urban greenhouses are going to materially affect food affordability is totally absurd. Two of the big hypothetical selling points of urban farming was that it'd be cheaper and better for the environment. I agree with you in a sense: the idea that urban farming was going to fundamentally disrupt our agricultural model was always absurd. But like solar roads, urban farms were tried anyway despite probably never being able to live up to the hype, and it turned out that they actually aren't cheaper or better for the environment. I disagree with the implied notion that we shouldn't point that out when someone asks about vertical farms
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:25
|
|
|
I'm a bit "meh" on urban farming, but I do find the idea of lab grown/ clean meat to be a neat one. The practical benefits seem way more apparent than urban farming green vegetables. Still gotta reduce our meat consumption though.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:27
|
|
|
Kaal posted:At the end of the day, Americans mostly eat hyper-processed meat/corn/wheat combinations That's several super fake ideas rolled into one, great job.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
fishmech posted:This might blow your mind, but tomatoes are full of macronutrients. They're really not. At about 18 kcal/100g, the average human would have to eat about 11.1 kg of them per day. So no, tomatoes are not "full of macronutrients" in any meaningful sense. Red bell pepper fares a bit better at 4.6 kg/day, but still. fishmech posted:Also grain is full of micronutrients. That sounds like you're saying that we don't need to eat vegetables and other low-macronutrient, high-micronutrient, high-fiber foods to stay healthy. I don't want to strawman you, so what are you actually claiming?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 04:31
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:They're really not. Yes they are. As much as they're full of micronutrients that is. You don't need to eat any particular food to "stay healthy" despite what your outdated 1960s food charts tell you. But you especially have absolutely no need to eat "low macronutrient high micronutrient" food, that is just a lovely diet book slogan. You know how you get all the micronutrients you need and then some? Just eat regular American food. Or regular Japanese food. Or regular Maori food. Humans have done a very good job with the last ten thousand years of agriculture, micronutrient deficiency rarely occurs with people who aren't already on the edge of starving. Most of those things only need to be consumed monthly at most as you don't need very much of them. And yeah there's absolutely no need to eat "high fiber" food, you do equally well eating moderate to small amounts of fiber at a time across all your food. gently caress, if human bodies worked the way people like you think, most of the world would be dead lol.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 05:39
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Yes they are. As much as they're full of micronutrients that is. I just demonstrated that you cannot realistically live on tomatoes alone because you'd have to eat 11 kg of them per day, and your rebuttal is "yes they are"?! fishmech posted:You don't need to eat any particular food to "stay healthy" despite what your outdated 1960s food charts tell you. So you think if you only consume, e.g., bread and butter, you'll stay healthy? fishmech posted:But you especially have absolutely no need to eat "low macronutrient high micronutrient" food, that is just a lovely diet book slogan. No, that's called "vegetables and fruit". fishmech posted:You know how you get all the micronutrients you need and then some? Just eat regular American food. Or regular Japanese food. Or regular Maori food. I'm pretty sure all of those contain a good amount of vegetables. Except if you equate "American food" with burger and fries – then no, that's not enough to get sufficient micronutrients.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:07
|
|
|
People are unhealthy and obese in a LOT of places around the world at astonishing rates, fishmech. The cost and availability of "low-nutrient food", i.e. veggies, and the fact that cheap industrial fast food doesn't include it is one of the big causes. Human bodies are wired to like eating lots of fat and sugar, which are very nutrient-dense. Vertical farming might be a dumb solution, but getting good vegetables to people is necessary to combat obesity and food deserts, as a matter of public health if nothing else.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:12
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:I just demonstrated that you cannot realistically live on tomatoes alone because you'd have to eat 11 kg of them per day, and your rebuttal is "yes they are"?! You didn't show you can't live on tomatoes, just that it would be rather inconvenient to manage. Regardless what is that supposed to prove? You can stay healthy on a very wide variety of diets. Do you even grasp how many breads there are in this world or hell how many butters? We have breads you can most assuredly live on for years especially with access to butters. No you don't need vegetables and fruit in particular. Buddy it's clear you have no idea what a micronutrient is if you think you can't get it in burgers and fries (which contain vegetables, incidentally). Infinite Karma posted:People are unhealthy and obese in a LOT of places around the world at astonishing rates, fishmech. The cost and availability of "low-nutrient food", i.e. veggies, and the fact that cheap industrial fast food doesn't include it is one of the big causes. Obese people have the opposite of lacking nutrients. It is a defining charecteristic of being obese. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Fast food is completely fine for you ya orthorexic neurotic. fishmech fucked around with this message at 07:17 on Oct 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
also learning how to make veggies tasty, learning how to cook is a family thing that's actually hard to pass down when noone knew how to do it in the first place and US public education on it is a joke
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
When it comes down to it, eating three meals a day, plus snacks, and keeping that under a body's maintenance calorie level, is actually a challenge with sedentary lifestyles associated with knowledge work. It's easy to make the minimums, and it's easy to eat enough to get full, but it's hard to have the amount of food that satiates you match the nutrients you biologically need. With protein "main courses" plus veggies, it's difficult, but possible. With just grains, meat, and dairy, it's not really possible. The amount of food that fills people up on a daily basis has too many calories. edit: fishmech posted:Obese people have the opposite of lacking nutrients. It is a defining charecteristic of being obese. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Are you saying obesity doesn't make logical sense, beep boop robot maths? Obesity exists and is common. What's your solution? Tell them to keep eating McDonald's, but only eat a third of the big Mac and half the fries? Infinite Karma fucked around with this message at 07:26 on Oct 19, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:22
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You can stay healthy on a very wide variety of diets. But not on all diets, which is the point. fishmech posted:Do you even grasp how many breads there are in this world or hell how many butters? We have breads you can most assuredly live on for years especially with access to butters. With a bread-and-butter diet, you'll develop scurvy in no time (to give just one example). Having scurvy is unhealthy. fishmech posted:Buddy it's clear you have no idea what a micronutrient is if you think you can't get it in burgers and fries (which contain vegetables, incidentally). Not in sufficient amounts, no. If you try to get sufficient micronutrients from burgers and fries, you'll die from obesity. Dying is particulary unhealthy. fishmech posted:Obese people have the opposite of lacking nutrients. It is a defining charecteristic of being obese. Please stop embarrassing yourself. Obese people might still lack micronutrients, even if they consume more than enough macronutrients. fishmech posted:Fast food is completely fine for you ya orthorexic neurotic. At this point I suspect you're trolling me. In that case: Well done! You got me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:28
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:When it comes down to it, eating three meals a day, plus snacks, and keeping that under a body's maintenance calorie level, is actually a challenge with sedentary lifestyles associated with knowledge work. It's easy to make the minimums, and it's easy to eat enough to get full, but it's hard to have the amount of food that satiates you match the nutrients you biologically need. It's extremely easy to overeat while still eating vegetables. Just look at the entire western world, they're all getting fat. It is not, however, difficult to get the nutrients you need in the west unless you are also so poor as to be on the edge of full starvation. Not only are common diets naturally full of them, we fortify and enrich much of that food just to be doubly sure people meet those needs Yes dear, the only solution for obesity ever is to eat less. Most people don't want to do that and honestly it's as valid a choice as any. But what you miss is that a big Mac and fries really isn't a huge amount of food - most people's problems are they eat two big macs and two large fries. Or they eat the big Mac and fries and also a large breakfast and a large lunch. Etc. CombatInformatiker posted:But not on all diets, which is the point. So you didn't have a point then. No you won't get scurvy. There are varieties of bread with vitamin c enriched in or otherwise present. The world is much bigger than a Wonder Bread aisle Yes they do have it in sufficient amounts. Because the sufficient amounts are, shockingly, small ones. Again, lack of micronutrients is extremely rare in people who are not also on the verge of death by starvation. Pretty much no obese people have it. I am not trolling you, but you seem to think not listening to fad diet books is "trolling" so you were never posting in good faith here. Fast food is fine for you and processed food isn't a real thing. Despite what your last fad diet told you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
If fruit/vegetables has to be a non-trivial portion of your diet, people would be dying left and right. If it has to be at least a trivial amount, the Inuit wouldn't exist.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 15:31
|
|
|
the inuit basically "wouldn't" exist right now (anywhere near population levels) if they werent being shipped grains at this point and they're all morbidly obese and dying from diabetes and heart attacks out of nowhere, total coincidence tho
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 16:18
|
|
|
The Inuit didn't live off of burgers and fries, though. They ate a large variety of very fresh, often raw meats, offal – including liver and brain – and bone marrow. If you're not owning and butchering animals yourself, it is very difficult to impossible to regularly eat this way in the modern Western world. In addition, they ate just about every bit of at least semi-digestible plant matter they could get their hands on, like berries, roots, and seaweed. Their diet was very, very different from pizza, burger, fries and bacon. Besides, just because you won't always die from insufficient micronutrients, does not mean that you're healthy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 17:05
|
|
|
CombatInformatiker posted:The Inuit didn't live off of burgers and fries, though. So it really seems you're just angry people eat food you think is evil, huh. It burns you up inside that people can eat burgers and fries all the time just fine, since it's in fact a pretty handy way to get all the nutrition you actually need. That's kind of why it's the basis of several subcultures' food, like pizza is for a lot of people too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 17:22
|
|
|
Can someone just do the calculation so we can settle this issue. How much Big Macs and fries can an adult male, who doesn't exercise but intents to stay slim, eat? How much nutrients does that diet provide?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 18:32
|
|
|
fishmech posted:So it really seems you're just angry people eat food you think is evil, huh. It burns you up inside that people can eat burgers and fries all the time just fine, since it's in fact a pretty handy way to get all the nutrition you actually need. That's kind of why it's the basis of several subcultures' food, like pizza is for a lot of people too. If people choose to eat burgers and fries and pizza because they like to, and they can balance it correctly to have a diet that makes them happy, nobody is saying that shouldn't be able to. Even if they can't balance it, and they get fat, but still love their Five Guys Burgers and Fries too much to stop, that's fine. If people don't have a choice, because other options are unavailable, or too expensive, then that's a bad thing. "Processed food" isn't a magical label - it's food that you can't make at home because the ingredients and methods aren't available in a home kitchen. In order to make it taste good (because the ingredients are things we aren't used to), common "processed food" has more fat, salt, and sugar than most people add to their homemade food. Overconsumption of those three things happen to be closely tied to obesity. So for the people who want the choice to reduce their fat and sugar intake, because they can't eat burgers and fries all the time (and stay healthy), they need another affordable option to feed themselves. Just saying "eat less burgs" doesn't help if they can't find something else instead.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 18:40
|
|
|
Saukkis posted:How much Big Macs and fries can an adult male, who doesn't exercise but intents to stay slim, eat? How much nutrients does that diet provide? 2 meals a day. It provides plenty of nutrients, nutrients aren't some sort of score system to hit or anything like that. Infinite Karma posted:"Processed food" isn't a magical label - it's food that you can't make at home because the ingredients and methods aren't available in a home kitchen. In order to make it taste good (because the ingredients are things we aren't used to), common "processed food" has more fat, salt, and sugar than most people add to their homemade food. This is 100% fake, and you are unfamiliar with what people will do with home made food. "Processed food" isn't real and your attempted definition of it is frankly even stupider than normal ones that just complain about scary CHEMICALS in the food, slapping more fat and salt in food than it "needs" is how your grandmother cooked food back in the day, it's not processing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 19:20
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:Now you have to be trolling. If you made a Big Mac out of ingredients available at the grocery store (e.g. a head of lettuce, raw hamburger meat, etc) do you think that the nutrition and calorie counts would come out significantly better? Because it sounds like you do but lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2018 19:41
|
|
|
The processed food argument is stupid and I don't want to keep this derail going in the Energy thread.QuarkJets posted:If you made a Big Mac out of ingredients available at the grocery store (e.g. a head of lettuce, raw hamburger meat, etc) do you think that the nutrition and calorie counts would come out significantly better? Because it sounds like you do but lol It turns out that aeroponic vertical farming isn't that magic investment, but it's trying. Attempting to cut back on fuel and fertilizer use is the energy goal, it just doesn't help that we'd be using LEDs that offset all the gains.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:21
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:French fries in particular, are a huge pain in the rear end to make at home Christ, so the real story here is that you're just an incompetent cook, and that's the reason you have such bizarre food opinions. That's also why you think fast food uses magically higher levels of fat and sugar than "home cooked" despite the fact nearly all fast food joints are selling the customer pretty standard early to mid 20th century North American cuisine, specifically picking those common foods that were also cheap to make. Indeed, they're not even big portions all that often, and eating a lot of fast food is really quite expensive. Infinite Karma posted:The whole point of the vegetable derail was that junk food is cheaper than fresh fruits and vegetables, by a significant amount, which contributes to obesity This is also not true. For one thing, eating a bunch of fruit is a great way to get fat. For another thing, junk food isn't a real concept once you stop making it mean just "FOOD I DON'T LIKE" and start trying to hammer out objective measurements which turn out to mean a lot of prestige-aura foods are about equivalent. This is the exact same reason those soda taxes that go around are bullshit, they almost always exempt fruit juices and bs coffee drinks despite those being objectively the same as drinking soda.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 00:53
|
|
|
Infinite Karma posted:The processed food argument is stupid and I don't want to keep this derail going in the Energy thread. Quantify it. Tell us how much less. What is significant to you? And don't just say "well I just wouldn't make french fries", because that's not what your argument was; it was that "processed" foods contain significantly more fat and sugar. If I sat you down with a deep fryer and a grill and gave you the equivalent store-bought ingredients that go into a Big Mac and Fries, roughly how much less fat and sugar would wind up coming out of the other end than a McDonalds fry-cook using McDonalds-provided ingredients? Half? A quarter?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:27
|
|
|
Are people actually unironically trying to claim mcdonalds makes the healthiest food possible? a big mac has 563 calories. a quarter pound burger pattie has 220 calories a bun you buy at a store has 130:  that is 350 calories then 213 calories of toppings. 213 calories is like a slice of cheese, every vegetable you can think of, ketchup and a fried egg. Owlofcreamcheese fucked around with this message at 02:19 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 01:54
|
|
|
Hey you know what's good? Solar panels
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:30
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Are people actually unironically trying to claim mcdonalds makes the healthiest food possible? a big mac has 563 calories. A big mac also has an extra piece of bread on it and thousand island dressing. (don't tell me big mac sauce is something else). The quarter pounder is more similar to what you just described, its 530 calories. According to the calculator thats 100 from cheese, 240 from the beef. 170 from the bun, 20 from everything else. https://www.mcdonalds.com/us/en-us/about-our-food/nutrition-calculator.html If you want a 350 calorie burger at McDonalds they have one - its called a mcdouble and is $2. Add a drink for $1 and you have lunch for $3.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:53
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Are people actually unironically trying to claim mcdonalds makes the healthiest food possible? a big mac has 563 calories. That’s dense nutrition and it’s wonderful that it’s so inexpensive. We’re talking about maximizing the carrying capacity of the planet, not making sure everyone who is born lives to the age of 100. If you’re trying to keep people from starvation you want dense calories to keep them alive and enough vitamins that they’re not dying of beriberi or going blind, you’re not worrying about loving LDL. Seriously, a whole bunch of the planet’s population lives on less than 5USD/day. If they can get their entire daily dietary needs for less than the price of 4.5 ounces of spring greens in Newark that’s an unalloyed good. Phanatic fucked around with this message at 03:02 on Oct 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 02:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Are people actually unironically trying to claim mcdonalds makes the healthiest food possible? a big mac has 563 calories. We've moved on to talking about whether "processed food" is a meaningful label. If you take the ingredients that would go into a big mac and just make one at home you're going to produce something that has approximately the same nutritional value as a big mac that you'd get at mcdonalds. Being "processed" doesn't make it magically different, like there are some products that actually do just have extra sugar for no reason (for instance certain brands of bread) but crunchy-types have extrapolated that concept into meaninglessness.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:49
|
|
|
I want solar powered yeast vats feeding the world who live in caves of steel. I do think food is quite related to energy generation because most food is just a form of converting solar power into a delicious chemical energy storage used to power humans. Advances in farming, GM crops, and food distribution are all really advances in energy efficiency.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:50
|
|
|
Often agricultural advancements are energy efficiency in an even more direct sense, since it takes energy to plant, tend to, and harvest crops
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:55
|
|
|
If you thought the Haber Process led to unprecedented population growth, just wait until we've figured out how to convert energy directly into food.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 03:58
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:We've moved on to talking about whether "processed food" is a meaningful label. If you take the ingredients that would go into a big mac and just make one at home you're going to produce something that has approximately the same nutritional value as a big mac that you'd get at mcdonalds. Being "processed" doesn't make it magically different, like there are some products that actually do just have extra sugar for no reason (for instance certain brands of bread) but crunchy-types have extrapolated that concept into meaninglessness. If you make a burger at home you won't pour a sauce on it that is just soybean oil and corn syrup.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:41
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you make a burger at home you won't pour a sauce on it that is just soybean oil and corn syrup. You might be shocked by this, but dressings and sauces are quite popular in the whole Western world. That's kind of the whole reason McDonald's puts the sauces on there, they'd ditch it if it weren't popular. Or is this a "heh I use real cane sugar and olive oil" thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 04:55
|
|
|
fishmech posted:You might be shocked by this, but dressings and sauces are quite popular in the whole Western world. Ditch "Western" from that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:05
|
|
|
qkkl posted:If you thought the Haber Process led to unprecedented population growth, just wait until we've figured out how to convert energy directly into food. y'mean like growing plants indoors with LEDs? tada we just made it full circle
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:17
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you make a burger at home you won't pour a sauce on it that is just soybean oil and corn syrup. You think Americans don't put mayo and ketchup on burgers?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Or is this a "heh I use real cane sugar and olive oil" thing? How are those not processed foods? They are like some of the original examples of "oh, this plant exists that we can just eat but we figured out that there is a process we can strip out most of the plant part and just eat the pile of sugar/fat that was in it". Like the whole problem with processed food is that if we wanted to eat sugar or fat we had to begrudgingly accept eating a bunch of vitamins and minerals too but we increasingly figured out the cheat code that we can just mash things up and just eat the sugars and fats straight and throw away the other stuff.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 14:20 |
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:If you make a burger at home you won't pour a sauce on it that is just soybean oil and corn syrup. What’s wrong with soybean oil and corn syrup?
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2018 13:37
|
|