The reason why healthy food doesn't taste good

Post Reply New Topic

Fail.
A little over two cups of TVP is a HUNDRED grams of protein. Around 200 calories. I'm not sure why you think X amount of protein necessitates eating X number of calories. TVP is dirt cheap. I just got a canteloupe-sized ball of the stuff, around ten cups of it, for a dollar something at Whole Foods. My cholesterol's "amazing" (doctor's word). What gives?

Because different protein types have different caloric amounts.

Let's say it IS 4 calories a gram. So then it's 400 calories. Not "5,000-6,000".

Right, I see that now- the one in the store might have been wrong, or I misread.
In any case, as you can see, it provides about a quarter of the recommended daily protein.
Calories can either come from fat, protein, or carbs. If you're doing the low-carb thing, that leaves the other two.
A snack-sized amount of nuts packs a ton of calories.
Veganism isn't a welfarist philosphy, so "humanely-treated" doesn't have much to do with it.

TVP is expensive here in Norway and the manufacturing process decreases the protein quality. You can get it quite cheaply because the USA is the world's largest producer of soybeans, whereas it needs to be imported here because of the climate.

Furthermore, the estrogen level in soy is very high. One cup of TVP is 320 calories and 48 grams of protein. This is twice the calorie amount of tuna and only five grams or so more worth of protein.

Men need more cholesterol than women; this is what testosterone is derived from.

I'm not saying that having humanely treated makes me more like a vegan, but it does eliminate the negative effects of meat in terms of health.

Uh...what?

...but not "5,000-6,000", and without the environmental or ethical questions of tuna.

...but not "5,000-6,000", and without the environmental or ethical questions of tuna.

Furthermore, the tuna fish I buy is caught with equipmemt that doesn't harm dolphins. If you buy tuna, make sure it's from Thailand and not the pacific ocean, though. You should also make sure it's skipjack tuna—this is caught using methods that do not harm birds as well.

Have you ever wondered why what tastes good is often not healthy despite the fact that from evolutionary point of view the whole purpose of taste is to get you to eat what is healthy? I found an interesting explanation that probably none of you have thought of. On a grand scheme of things, what tastes better IS healthier:

1. Salad tastes better than dirt, and salad is healthier than dirt
2. Cookies also taste better than dirt and they, too, are healthier than dirt

Now, since the VAST MAJORITY of food available is dirt, ON A GRAND SCHEME OF THINGS the healthy things DO taste better than unhealthy ones. The problem is that correlation is not perfect. So one small "imperfection" in correlation is

3. Cookies taste better than salad BUT salad is healthier than cookies

Now, item 3 is VERY SMALL compared to 1 and 2. Just think about it: it is A LOT more unpleasant to eat dirt than any unpleasantness one would have eating salad. And it is A LOT worse to your health to eat dirt than it would be eating cookies,

But as "small" imperfection as it might be, the "imperfection" is all you are going to pay attention to. After all, since dirt is neither healthy nor tastes good, the dirt simply would never enter your mind. In order for item X to enter your mind, item X has to EITHER be healthy OR taste good or both. And here is what makes healthy food taste bad:

4. If item X is healthy (e.g. salad), it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE bad taste
5. If item X tastes good (e.g. cookie) it has a "qualification" to "enter human consideration" DESPITE being unhealthy

This, together with the fact that

6. Most things taste bad and most things are unhealthy
7. Most things (e.g. dirt) never enters human consideration
8. The pattern exemplified by 1 and 2 is not perfect

provides an excellent statistical explanation why healthy things taste bad and unhealthy things taste good.

Lets put it this way: items 4 and 7 imply that

4, 7 ==> If an item X tastes bad and it enters human consideration, it MUST be healthy

Items 5 and 7 on the other hand imply that

5, 7 ==> If an item X is unhealthy and it enters human consideration, it MUST taste good

Finally, item 6 imply that

6 ==> Things that are BOTH healthy AND taste good are EVEN LESS common than things that are ONLY one OR the other (I mean, two "rare" things co-existing at the same time is even more rare)

(4, 7 ==>), (5, 7 ==>) and (6 ==>) above imply that AMONG THINGS THAT ENTER HUMAN CONSIDERATION there is "opposite correlation" between being healthy and tasting good

It's because humans are hard wired toward three distinct flavors:
1. Sweet
2. Salty
3. the flavor of fat

These flavors, unfortunately, are associated with unhealthy foods like sugar, table salt and fat, of course! It's so weird that humans are so attracted to these flavors that do not occur naturally that much in their surroundings, except maybe if they live near an ocean or source of salt. If they are growing wheat or barley, not much flavor there. Not much in many wild berries, leaves and roots, either. Meat, of course, has fat, but it's mostly the big game that has a lot and humans long ago relied on fish and small game more. So why did humans evolve to be so attracted to these flavors?

Maybe because in the past these things were so rare that you ate what you could when you found it but now we generally have access to whatever we want whenever we want but we still have an unneeded urge to gorge on it?