US-Appointed Egg Lobby Paid Food Blogs and Targeted Chef To Crush Vegan Startup 317
An anonymous reader writes: The American Egg Board targeted publications, popular food bloggers, and a celebrity chef as part of an effort to combat a perceived threat from Hampton Creek, an egg-replacement startup backed by some of Silicon Valley's biggest names, according to internal emails. The Gaurdian reports: A detailed review of emails, sent from inside the AEB and obtained by the Guardian, shows that the lobbyist's anti-Hampton Creek campaign sought to:
- Pay food bloggers as much as $2,500 a post to write online recipes and stories about the virtue of eggs that repeated the egg lobby group's "key messages."
- Confront Andrew Zimmern, who had featured Hampton Creek on his popular Travel Channel show Bizarre Foods and praised the company in a blog post characterized by top egg board executives as a "love letter."
- Target publications including Forbes and Buzzfeed that had written broadly positive articles about a Silicon Valley darling.
- Unsuccessfully tried to recruit both the animal rights and autism activist Temple Grandin and the bestselling author and blogger Ree Drummond to publicly support the egg industry.
- Buy Google advertisements to show AEB-sponsored content when people searched for Hampton Creek or its founder Josh Tetrick.
Well, yea... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Egg Board is an advocate for the consumption of eggs. What's the problem?
This article seems more like a slashvertisement for Hampton Creek
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You got $2500 for this post?
Where do I apply?
Fraud Opposed to the Ideals of Nerddom (Score:5, Insightful)
The Egg Board is an advocate for the consumption of eggs. What's the problem?
This article seems more like a slashvertisement for Hampton Creek
The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.
It is perhaps the single most harmful activity to society a person can engage in--it wastes other people's lives. It perpetuates the spread of misinformation.
And it is fundamentally contrary to the ideals of Nerds, Geeks, and those who believe in the potential of science and information to help mankind get out of the mess we've made of our world and our societies.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.
Sorry to have to be the one to break it to you, but apparently you've been living under a rock for at least ten years. This practice, how despicable it may be, is now commonplace. I run a small fan website for a video game, and I've been sent offers to write positive reviews of gaming-related products (for instance some 3D goggles) for compensation without any hint or notice that, for all intents and purposes, this would've been an advertizement.I declined, but I'm betting most people in my situation wouldn
Re: (Score:3)
This practice, how despicable it may be, is now commonplace.
And THAT is why I think 99% of on-line ""reviews"" aren't worth wiping my ass with. Most of on-line reviews these days pretty much are either shills or have some emotional problem which translates into inexplicable hatred towards some inanimate object or establishment.
Re: (Score:2)
So is this actually about honesty in egg journalism?
Re: (Score:2)
And a "taxpayer-funded farm marketing board" is not supposed to be a moralistic outpost of good government, it's supposed to be an incredibly biased industry group. The difference between the RIAA and the AEB is that egg-producers are required to pay their membership fee, and the fee collection is administered by the government; not that anyone who actually knows how the US Government works thinks they'll be nice. They're not supposed to badmouth their opponents (who are, presumably, other farm marketing bo
Re: (Score:2)
And it is now standard advertising practice. :-( Commercials are ineffective. Bloggers are. The FTC has stated that that bloggers must disclose such things because it is a form of advertising.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is a fraud on the public. Advocating a position that is based on who pays you, without regard to reason or truth or the benefit to mankind, without so much as a notice of your bias, causes massive amounts of harm to the public by sustaining inefficient practices.
It is perhaps the single most harmful activity to society a person can engage in--it wastes other people's lives. It perpetuates the spread of misinformation.
Yes, yes, yes. Thanks for your rant -- and I agree with you.
On the other hand, if you RTFA, you'll find out that both sides in this fight are trying to mislead.
Another Guardian article (linked in TFA) details [theguardian.com] how the product information violates standards of mayonnaise definitions without explanation on the label, choosing to call itself "Just Mayo" and featuring a picture of an egg on the label.
Another article [businessinsider.com] linked in TFA interviewed former employees and describes shoddy science and misleading cla
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you decided that you get to define what everyone is for and what everyone should be against. Fucking fascist pig. If the taxpayer-funded egg board had been FOR the vegan side you'd be arguing the opposite viewpoint. Seen this flip-flop too many times, "we have always been friends with Eurasia."
I love how you set up a straw man by deciding what I've said without taking the moment to read it. You're turning me into your Vegan Boogeyman. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, yea... (Score:4, Insightful)
If a person did this...
Did what? Public relations? Advertise?
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of transparency should be disturbing to anybody who believes that it's an important aspect of a free market.
Re:Well, yea... (Score:4, Informative)
Free market means that prices are determined by the forces of supply and demand, as opposed to artificial (non-free, as in liberty) forces that set price ceilings or price floors. Trade secrets are routinely held secret in free markets.
Re:Well, yea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Did what? Public relations? Advertise?
The AEB is a taxpayer funded organization, so yes, running PR, misleading advertising campaigns, and undermining a private company, with my tax dollars is inappropriate.
Re:Well, yea... (Score:4, Informative)
It's not YOUR TAX DOLLARS, it's a mandatory fee from the egg producers. They have to be members of the AEB if they produce eggs above a certain quantity and the AEB provides services in exchange for that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's even worse.
Who makes this mandatory? I can understand making it mandatory to join an oversight board or reporting data to the FDA. But I hope the government isn't requiring companies to join advocacy groups. That's a small step away from mandatory lobbying.
Re: (Score:3)
Who makes this mandatory?
Congress.
Currently the "Commodity Promotion, Research, and Information Act of 1996," I believe. Some programs also have state oversight.
I can understand making it mandatory to join an oversight board or reporting data to the FDA.
That's one of the intentions -- the commodity "checkoff" programs are regulated by the USDA and are partly about ensuring consistency in product policy.
But I hope the government isn't requiring companies to join advocacy groups. That's a small step away from mandatory lobbying.
These "checkoff" programs perhaps made more sense a few decades ago when smaller farms were still common. The idea was that no small farmer had the resources by himself to have an advertising campaign to promote milk or
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
hampton creek is no innocent victim here either.
fda warning the company about misleading claims on product labels: http://www.fda.gov/ICECI/Enfor... [fda.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Technically "tax-payer funded" is correct, but that's an an intellectually dishonest way to describe a US Farm Marketing board.
When you say "taxpayer-funded" people assume you mean their income taxes, sales taxes, or some other tax everyone pays. US Farm marketing boards get their funding from a tax farmers pay on each unit of product they sell. They are supposed to be the equivalent of the RIAA or MPAA for eggs, or beef, or milk, or whatever; not a policy body.
Moreover if you don't buy eggs you pay $0 a ye
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds more like incompetence than malice, or excessive cautiousness...
Vegans won't eat eggs, and will avoid products which contain them.
A lot of products are advertised as "may contain traces of nuts" when they usually dont, the companies are over cautious incase there is a trace of nuts and someone has a severe reaction. They must consider that the risk of a lawsuit outweighs the number of customers who will avoid the product because of the notice on the label.
Re: (Score:2)
It may be incompetence. The product is called "Just Mayo." It has an egg on it. Mayonnaise is a very old recipe. It includes eggs.
If I looked at that box I'd assume they were selling Mayonnaise with real eggs, probably from free-range chickens, and no preservatives. JustMayo is actually vegan.
Textbook case of both false advertising, and shitty marketing.
Re: (Score:3)
... it can't be Mayonnaise unless it meets the criteria for being Mayonnaise. It's been this way for decades, practically a century. Just look at a jar of Miracle Whip. It is NOT called mayonnaise because it doesn't have enough oil to be called mayonnaise, and it has been that way since 1933.
Similarly: Kraft Singles aren't cheese. California Sparkling Wine isn't Champagne. Gardenburger Veggie Burgers aren't hamburgers. Margarine isn't butter.
Maybe they should have gone with "I can't believe it's not May
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Well, yea... (Score:5, Informative)
That sounds more like incompetence than malice, or excessive cautiousness...
Vegans won't eat eggs, and will avoid products which contain them.
A lot of products are advertised as "may contain traces of nuts" when they usually dont, the companies are over cautious incase there is a trace of nuts and someone has a severe reaction.
While that's a nice story, that's NOT what GP was talking about. As detailed in a previous Guardian article [theguardian.com], the company calls its product "Just Mayo" and has a picture of an egg on the label. The FDA has (rightly) accused them of false advertising, because they (1) imply their product is mayonnaise with their name, but doesn't contain necessary ingredients for the normal definition of mayo, (2) include ingredients that are not allowed in products claiming to be mayonnaise, (3) show a picture of an egg and plant on the label, leading to an impression that the product contains eggs and is likely a "natural" version of mayo, and (4) also implies on the label that their product is "heart-healthy" while not meeting the FDA standard for such labeling.
We have food definitions for a reason. It prevents you from going to the store and buying a thing labeled "ground beef" and getting a bunch of ground-up cat mixed with oats and tofu. There are definitions for mayonnaise, too.
I have no problem if this company wants to sell a vegan product similar to mayonnaise -- that's great. Maybe it's tasty or healthier -- great. But they should either choose a name that clearly indicates it is NOT traditional mayonnaise and/or have an explanation on the label indicating explicitly how it differs from traditional mayo.
Instead, this company wants to try to mislead customers into thinking they are buying a "more natural" and "pure" version of actual mayonnaise ("Just Mayo") by using a deceptive label.
This is definitely not "incompetence." It's clearly deliberate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
You read anything about Deflategate? Or Politics? Publicly notable people (like Goodell/Brady in the former case, and everyone running for President) have a lot less right to control what's said about them than some chick who works at this one diner in Arkansas.
Hampton Creek is in business. In business your competitors are supposed to rip your ass to shreds. That is, quite literally, their entire job. Getting their message out, convincing your free PR to stop being your free PR, etc. is par for the c
Re: (Score:2)
It's the guardian.
Dissidents=good.
Vegans are dissidents from the standard.
Um... so what? (Score:5, Insightful)
This all sounds like what many companies would do when faced with an upstart competitor - basically what's known as "playing hardball".
If this Hampton Creek company is backed by some of the "biggest names" in Silicon Valley, isn't it well-positioned financially to respond? This doesn't exactly sound like David vs. Goliath.
As an aside - is there such a thing as "Big Egg"? We buy ours from a local farm.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Egg Board isn't a company - it's a marketing consortium. And such consortiums are specifically prohibited by USDA regulations from engaging in smear campaigns.
Re: (Score:2)
The American Egg Board isn't a company - it's a marketing consortium. And such consortiums are specifically prohibited by USDA regulations from engaging in smear campaigns.
The thing is - I'm having a hard time seeing where they "smeared" anyone. They seem to have tried to get various people to write glowing stories about real eggs.
And they tried to buy Google ads that would pop up when someone searched for Hampton Creek. Again, that may be annoying but it's not unusual behavior.
Re: (Score:3)
But they didn't smear anyone.
The emails are internal. Internally they're allowed to hate you.
The external stuff is all paying people to say nice things about eggs, and they are allowed to do that, even in places wqhere people don;t normally say niced things about eggs (such as google searches for vegan egg substitutes).
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's not MY TAX DOLLARS, it's a mandatory fee from the egg producers that funds the board. It might increase the price of eggs on the shelf to cover that fee, but it isn't coming out of sales taxes, income taxes and so forth.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude,
Learn some shit about how the farm industry works before discrediting your entire movement.
All, as in every single one, American Farm Industry lobbying organizations are funded by a checkoff tax. A farmer moves x units of food y, he sends the government x*checkoff, and they send it to YforAmerica. Your tazx dollars only go to Y to the extent you pay for their products, so you VeganCyclist have never given a dime to the Egg Board.
Which means if you try to get all of industry Y fired (that's what "disrup
Good For Them (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm strongly in favor of eggs. Go eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
"Miss Edie, as long as there are chicken layin' and truck drivin' and my feet walkin', you can be sure that l will bring you the finest of the fine, the largest of the large and the whitest of the white. ln other words, that thin-shelled ovum of the domestic fowl will never be safe as long as there are chicken layin' and l'm alive because l am your eggman and there ain't a better one in town!"
- The Eggman [wikiquote.org]
You say that like it's a bad thing. (Score:5, Insightful)
Those are all perfectly legitimate responses to attacks from food-fear mongers.
It's not just one startup--it's a multi-billion dollar industry built on FUD.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What fear-mongering? Some people can’t eat eggs. Some people don’t want to eat eggs. Hampton Creek is putting out products for those people. They’re not going on Dr. Oz claiming eggs will give you cancer.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If they were just "putting out products for those people" wouldn't they have named it something different than "Just Mayo?" Does "Just Mayo" sound like it has no eggs to you? To me, "Just Mayo" sounds like an organic or simplified version of Mayonnaise. Just Mayo, to me, doesn't mean no eggs.
Re: (Score:2)
a multi-billion dollar industry built on FUD.
This is what Veganism is? Really? So the millions of people who've led vegan lives in, say, India, over the millennia, are victims of some multi-billion dollar corporate scam? Wow! Thanks for letting me know!
this is news? (Score:3)
as long as their are not spreading lies or misleading information about their own product or competition then there is nothing to see here
Additionally... (Score:2)
Makes you wonder about where hatchet pieces like this [businessinsider.com] came from. And who lit a fire under the FDA's ass [bloomberg.com] to crack down on the definition of "mayo?"
Re: (Score:3)
I think the bottom line is that their business relies on deceiving people into buying their new alternative products, Because if people realized their "Just Mayo" product, for example, contained a plant alternative to eggs by having it presented at the time of purchase..... many people would not buy.
IMO; the new alternatives are not proven though. I would be wary about them. I think there is good reason to be wary about them.
That doesn't mean they do not have value ---- esp. to vegans
Re: (Score:2)
I assume you’re drawing an analogy to GMO labeling. The difference is that the whole selling point of Just Mayo is that it’s egg-free. Nobody is being deceived unless they can’t read the label.
I predict they’ll end up changing it to “Just Aioli.” Not as much mass-market recognition, but the people buying this stuff aren’t exactly putting it on baloney and Wonderbread sandwiches anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
In civilized countries you can't call "butter" anything with plant oils in it, "chocolate" something with no or trace amounts of cocoa, or "mayo" something not made with eggs.
The US lacks proper consumer protection laws, and attempts to fix that meet with attacks from peddlers of fake stuff...
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Most mayonnaise in the supermarket doesn't contain eggs, and hasn't for the last 15 years. It's the new normal, so much so that any mayo that does have eggs in it now advertises it as a special feature - eg on the label "Real Egg Mayonnaise"
Re: (Score:2)
They also shouldn't call it Vegan, because that's a lie too. I defy anyone to find a cost effective way of bringing food to earth from Vega.
boo-hoo (Score:2)
Seems to fall under the category of overly-zealous competitive marketing. I didn't see enough to justify verbiage like "crush vegan startup". In fact, I kind of agree with their assessment that it's not "just mayonnaise", that it shouldn't be marketed as such.
I do think that gov't sponsored industry-support groups can be anti-competitive. But I'm not sure they differ materially from other subsidized industries.
This is less a smoking gun than business as usual. Doesn't mean it's not important. Just that this
How is this tech news? (Score:3)
I don't get it
eggs? lobby group? blogs? articles?
Is it blogs? I guess that is remotely techy?!?
Dear egg board, (Score:2)
I have lots of recipes involving eggs, would you pay me two grand per recipe for me to post them on a blog?
Love,
A terminal ovovore.
The Gaurdian reports: (Score:2)
That should read 'The Grauniad reports' [urbandictionary.com], everyone knows that.
Relevance? (Score:2)
It's what lobbyists do all day, they buy elections even, egg on their face is nothing to them.
I also fail to see the 'news for nerds' and 'things that matter' angle, unless it's the fact that a blogger was mentioned somewhere along the line.
Yeah... (Score:2)
You'd better run, egg!
Re:And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is, of course, not quite true.
The tax is only paid by producers of eggs. The difference between these guys and the RIAA isn't that are supposed to act different, it's that instead of voluntary dues assessed by the association the funding is a mandatory tax paid by egg farmers vie the government.
So your tax dollars are only relevant if you;re an egg-farmer.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that he didn't call any of them government agencies? If not, I'll leave it as an exercise to figure out what he actually said.
This is the big problem with your kind, you jump to conclusions that fit your pre-existing mental state and then freak out about it. Didn't you people used to be anti-US government and anti-everything-American?
Re: (Score:2)
Are we supposed to believe *everything* they say? (Score:5, Insightful)
I read the TFA, I even went to the news article at the Guardian, and still I can't find any real link !
It is easy to say that so and so lobby paid thousands to blogs to publish this or that, but until we can read the articles in question ourselves, how are we to believe anything reported in the news article is true?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, on Slashdot, a lot of folks like to gripe about the "Big Oil" or "Big Pharma" lobbies.
I guess what we have here is a case of the "Big Egg" lobby.
"Hey! Youse got Big Eggs . . . ?"
Re: (Score:2)
This is not unreasonable, they have nearly two hundred years worth
Re: (Score:2)
Really, who cares what they think? *pauses for reflection*
"I believe this and therefore you should too!" - is that persuading you? Well then... I rest my case.
Just stop listening to all the talking heads and the world becomes a much nice place ;D
Re:Are we supposed to believe *everything* they sa (Score:5, Funny)
"The result is that they try to make us feel guilty for eating eggs, drinking milk and even chewing on imported fruits."
It's a yolk we have to bear.
Re:Are we supposed to believe *everything* they sa (Score:5, Interesting)
It is The Guardian, beloved of the Left. You don't need to question them, it is unseemly and icky. Everything they print is true, because it agrees with the Left's pre-existing ideas. Anything contradictory is simply not printed in the first place. This is one of the big reasons the Left has gone off the rails into obsessed hate in the past 20 years, they live in an echo chamber and think that dissident opinions have no place in political speech.
I certainly do not agree with everything the Gaurdian prints, but it is worth remembering that as it is a UK publication they have printed this knowing that if they can't prove every word they would be sued into oblivion for liable under the strong laws we have in the UK. We also have a slightly more regulated press than the you in the US in terms of a body that overseas them and force retractions if they print anything that is utterly made up.
So with that in mind you can be fairly sure that there is a fair amount of substance to this story unlike half the crap that the right wing press in the US run with where your free speech laws allow them to just make stuff up. All you have to prove in the US is that although you printed a pack of lies you did not do it "maliciously". Since that maliciousness is almost impossible to prove in court the you can get away with far more.
Re: (Score:3)
How fortunate that the Guardian isn't the only journalistic outlet out there...
They're not under any obligation to run a story just because you think that it's not fair. If you don't like their slant, then don't support them.
Also, if you could provide an example of where "vegan activists" have engaged in this sort of behavior, it would go a long way towards making your argument credible.
Re:Are we supposed to believe *everything* they sa (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Are we supposed to believe *everything* they sa (Score:4, Insightful)
It's an extension of conservative absolutism. When presented with a solution that came from anywhere but the echo chamber, the right dismisses anything that isn't a magic bullet that fixes it 100% without any side effects.
I realize that's me calling the kettle black when I refer to the "right" as a monolithic entity, but the general philosophy is to dismiss anything that wasn't their idea, or is too complicated to think about in terms of shades of grey. Conservatives tend to latch on to the simple, ideological solutions without any concern for anything they don't care about. For example: It's all well and good that Trump wants to deport 12 million people. That's an attractive sound bite that fits nicely on a bumper sticker, but it ignores how complex the issue is. Complexity tends to mean expensive. Who's going to pay for identifying and rounding up all those folks? Where are they processed for deportation? How do we transport them to the border? Who replaces the cheap labor that the agricultural industry relies on? I find that they refuse to see the world as it is, but how they think it should be.
Re: No surprise...OR (Score:2, Funny)
It's always an unfair (evil illuminati) conspiracy when some vegan hippy talks shit about mainstream food for profit and ends up with naught. But whatever they have support from their imaginary pleiadian collective.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually I think the health problems are more caused by the wrong advice given by both the FDA and the American Heart Association. Basically for the last 50 years, both of them have been recommending low fat diets, and the FDA only reversed its stance recently, with the AHA (a nongovernment organization) yet to follow suit.
Research after research has proven that not only is dietary cholesterol not bad for you (and doesn't actually raise your blood cholesterol afterall,) but saturated fat isn't either, and in fact low fat high carb diets themselves are likely the cause of obesity, high blood cholesterol, and a number of other problems. It's likely not a coincidence at all that while these things have been rising in the last 50 years, dietitians have been making the wrong recommendations for the past 50 years. (Just as an example, one might look at how much the "food pyramid" has changed over that span; in fact it is no longer even used because it was proven wrong so many times.)
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb. It is NOT a healthy way to live (if you fail to watch your amino and mineral balance, you can have really bad things happen, such as blindness.) The fact is that protein and fat raise blood leptin better than carbohydrates do, which makes you feel more full on less overall calories. The only reason some vegans may appear healthier is because usually they don't consume too much sugar (a simple carb) often found in breads and snacks that are made in part by egg and/or dairy products. However neither egg nor dairy products are inherently bad, it's just the high amount of carbs found in these that are.
An example of a really bad dietary habit that most Americans (and a lot of the world at large) have is that they consume cereal grains for breakfast, (such as oats, grits, corn, wheat) or even worse, cereals that are also loaded with sugar. Classic egg and bacon breakfasts, believe it or not, are a much better option.
And no, I don't work for any food company, rather I have a number of health problems that require dietary maintenance just to keep in check, so it just happens that I've done a ton of reading on this. (And no, these health problems weren't caused by a bad diet, for example one is an immune condition called IgA nephropathy.)
Re: (Score:2)
That really shows how bad those sugar frosted amphetamine bombs* are. A good idea was taken and then ruined by soaking it in sugar. Also it's worth nothing that a classic egg and bacon breakfast is still only really fine if you have a classic farmhand's expenditure of energy in the morning. With the right lifestyle it may well be perfect, but with a more sedentary lifestyle oats with a bit of milk and sultanas (or the many othe
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Interesting)
Also it's worth nothing that a classic egg and bacon breakfast is still only really fine if you have a classic farmhand's expenditure of energy in the morning.
It's still fine even if you're sedentary, just consume less of it. So for example, a farm hand might have 2 eggs and 5 slices of bacon; if you're sedentary limit it to say 1 egg and 2 slices of bacon. I work in IT, and I limit breakfast to 250 calories. So long as those calories are mostly meat/egg, I'm usually sated until well into the afternoon, and I'm 5'11" 202lbs. I remember that I would have to eat a large bowl of cereal to get the same effect (which it turns out the typical American cereal bowl is about 600 calories worth of food, and some people eat two of those in the morning...think about that, 1200 calories of basically all carbs...it's no wonder people are getting obese.) At my peak I think I weighed about 290lbs.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
Oh and by the way, when I say bacon, I'm talking thick bacon. If you eat the regular bacon found in US stores, generally those are thin and are around 45 calories each (read the label to make sure,) with egg being 76 calories each. At that rate, even if you did say 5 slices of bacon and 2 eggs, that's about 377 calories, which isn't bad even if you're somewhat sedentary.
Compare that to a single muffin, which alone typically amounts to somewhere north 400 calories (unless it's a small muffin.) And a muffin is all carbs, which means you'll get a sugar crash before your typical lunch time, leaving you craving more calories.
Re: (Score:2)
Cake for breakfast! May as well have pancakes covered in syrup.
Re: (Score:2)
Good point.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
the typical American cereal bowl is about 600 calories worth of food
What the hell are Americans putting in their bowls? A typical UK cereal with milk is in the 125-150 calorie range. Even the worst sugar laden ones are only about 350 calories per bowl.
Are American cereals really that bad? We have Kellogg's and the like in the UK too, maybe it's different.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Funny)
And use Bourbon instead of milk, not to mention following your cereal with a cigarette, to give you that proper "ultimate power breakfast" feeling :)
Re: (Score:3)
Breakfast cereal, sugar-coated or not, is a sugar bomb. Sugar-free Cheerios are sugar. Raw oatmeal and granola are almost pure sugar. When that shit hits your saliva, it starts going through the a-amylase reaction, breaking down long-chain starches into short-chain starches. The a-amylase breaks, say, 50-sugar-chain starches down into chains of 2-3 sugars (e.g. maltose). y-amylase in your stomach, operating at a pH of 3.0, breaks sugars off the ends of these, providing GLUCOSE among other monosaccharid
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
if you fail to watch your amino and mineral balance, you can have really bad things happen, such as blindness.
I think that mental blindness appears before real blindness, often Vegans are no different from religious fanatics which also are similar to zombies.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fucking look. Another fucking strawman.
Like every group that people care to demonize, most people take the piss out of vegans, but once again, you're taking the shit you have to hear from the loudest of us. The rest of us aren't really interested in converting you. In fact, most of us wish you would just leave us alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
An example of a really bad dietary habit that most Americans (and a lot of the world at large) have is that they consume cereal grains for breakfast, (such as oats, grits, corn, wheat) or even worse, cereals that are also loaded with sugar. Classic egg and bacon breakfasts, believe it or not, are a much better option.
Lately I've been eating 3/4c of quick oats in the morning (dry measure) and then sometimes going on to also eat a plate of Huevos Rancheros, less the tortilla. And I'm losing weight. I'm not a delicate flower by any means but it's pretty hilarious. It's not falling off of me or anything, I haven't taken up meth or sex with strangers and I don't seem to have a tapeworm... I did give up the granola, though. And I'm sweetening my oats with erythitol and a bit of stevia.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually believe that you're telling the truth. Oats are probably the least offensive cereal grain, IMO. However even if it were a sugary cereal, it's still possible to lose weight on it, just more difficult because you're more likely to get a food craving well before lunch time. In the end it's all about calories, and for most people, a high protein/high fat diet should make you feel sated longer because of how long it takes for your body to convert it to ATP. The advantage that sugar has is that you mig
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Interesting)
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb.
I think you are confusing vegans with frutarians, who are just a small subset of vegans. Vegan diet can range from "mostly protein" (vegan athletes) to "just carbs until my children die horribly" extreme frutarians.
Re:No surprise... (Score:5, Informative)
I've read hundreds of the best and biggest nutritional studies, and here's my quick and dirty what nutritional "science" has actually proven beyond doubt (mostly from country-country comparisons and massive epidemiological studies):
The ideal diet as we currently know it from available evidence is essentially the Mediterranean diet, which is the only intervention that is consistently and clearly linked to longer and healthier lives. Note that an American-Vegan diet with adequate protein intake is closer to it that the typical fast-food, red-meat, fruit/vegetable-free, processed-sugar heavy disaster that most Americans consume.
My point is that I agree mostly with your summary, but it's not as simple as blaming carbs -- many countries that do better nutritionally eat more carbs than the US (though they're typically complex) -- and there's no reason to villainize vegans and worship bacon from a nutritional stand-point like so many in the geek culture do. Except to be instantly modded up to +5, that is.
Re:No surprise... (Score:4, Informative)
Largely true.
Pretty much false. Vegan diets are about not eating animal products, period. You can easily eat a high protein/high fat/low carb vegan diet.
Re: (Score:3)
Research after research has proven that not only is dietary cholesterol not bad for you (and doesn't actually raise your blood cholesterol afterall,) but saturated fat isn't either
Not certain about the saturated fat but I certainly agree the consensus has shifted away from dietary cholesterol being bad.
and in fact low fat high carb diets themselves are likely the cause of obesity, high blood cholesterol, and a number of other problems.
And here I'm very dubious. There are simply too many examples of populations on low fat high carb diets who are perfectly thin and healthy. In fact I think it's better just to forget about macro-nutrients altogether and focus more on specific foods and their palatability and satiety.
It's likely not a coincidence at all that while these things have been rising in the last 50 years, dietitians have been making the wrong recommendations for the past 50 years.
Diet isn't the only thing to have changed in the last 50 years.
Vegan diets are ALL ABOUT low protein, low fat, high carb. It is NOT a healthy way to live (if you fail to watch your amino and mineral balance, you can have really bad things happen, such as blindness.) The fact is that protein and fat raise blood leptin better than carbohydrates do, which makes you feel more full on less overall calories. The only reason some vegans may appear healthier is because usually they don't consume too much sugar (a simple carb) often found in breads and snacks that are made in part by egg and/or dairy products.
True vegans and vegetarians need to be ca
Re: (Score:2)
But who profits from good health?
Poor health is actually highly profitable for medical and pharmaceutical companies...
Obesity is highly profitable for food companies, even car manufacturers and oil companies etc as obese people are usually unwilling or unable to walk very far.
The "healthy food" propaganda is also quite ridiculous... There seems to be a demon every week wether its sugar, salt, fat, msg etc... The problem is that once you take one or more of these so called "unhealthy" substances out of the f
Re: (Score:2)
Could there BE a bigger conspiracy theory than "who profits from good health?"
If you can find someone who is fanatic about a thing, then profit is not far behind.
For instance, in the circles I inhabit these days, you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who hasn't run several kind of obstacle course races. And what are those people doing to support that habit? Crossfit. P90X. Insanity.
And have you SEEN the cost of those things? Or the add-on supplements? Or, for that matter, the cost of obstacle course r
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Raise your own hens? Or buy eggs from someone who has hens and is not associated with the egg lobby?
Honestly, if you went to your local farmer's markets, you'd probably find someone with eggs pretty quickly.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Eggs are pretty simple to grow. My brother has 3 hens in his back yard. His two school age children help with egg collection and learn about sustainable animal husbandry.
21 eggs a week provide the family of four with a soft boiled egg for breakfast each weekday.
(Now I know people live in apartments but still...)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it wasn't a suggestion for every single person in the US. I'd imagine that it'd be quite difficult raising hens in a studio apartment, or any apartment, for that matter. Given enough backyard space, though, it's feasible for anyone to do. Especially if you cook at home and produce a good amount of green waste.
Re: (Score:2)
Well I'm sure it's not bad to have an alternative at hand when for dietary or other reasons you can't eat eggs.
But normally, producers of the Real Thing (here: eggs) should NOT HAVE to worry THAT much about artificial replacements. Then again, for some reason, we have more than enough people who are more than ready to replace natural products with some cocktail of chemicals. Like the invention of artificial sweeteners. Overall effect wasn't just cutting back on sugar, no. Finally, we could have EVERY food t
Re: (Score:2)
This has literally nothing to do with news for nerds.
And how about stuff that matters?
Slashdot has never, ever been excluively tech topics.