Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

spe.lt

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#11

Post by solardev »

XorNot wrote: post #7
ivansavz wrote: post #3

That's cool, but it seems to be limited to macros and working under the assumption that a calorie is a calorie. It would be much more interesting to me to have an easy way to access the information about "how processed" a food is, for example using the NOVA classification[1,2,3] system or something like that. I'm not sure if you can access that as a DB download or an API of some sort, but worth looking into. If you c…

Why the hell would a person need an app to tell "how processed" a food is? This is the one bit of information that is contextually obvious.

I don't know, it's not really easy for me (as an ignorant American who grew up on junk food) to guess how much processing is in food. I dunno if there's much difference between cow milk, soy milk, oat milk, etc. How is tofu or blueberry yogurt made? What's in a slice of sandwich cheese? Are these fancy organic crackers any different from Ritz? What's in olive oil vs canola oil? Vegan butter vs margarine?

Most of the grocery store is made up of processed flavored glops of one sort or another. The Nova classification is new to me, but would certainly be interesting information (though possibly also fearmongering).

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#12

Post by mathgeek »

XorNot wrote: post #7
ivansavz wrote: post #3

That's cool, but it seems to be limited to macros and working under the assumption that a calorie is a calorie. It would be much more interesting to me to have an easy way to access the information about "how processed" a food is, for example using the NOVA classification[1,2,3] system or something like that. I'm not sure if you can access that as a DB download or an API of some sort, but worth looking into. If you c…

Why the hell would a person need an app to tell "how processed" a food is? This is the one bit of information that is contextually obvious.

Consider it for how processed a specific brand of food is, rather than a general food. Right now most specifications don’t get more specific than organic, free range, grass fed, vegan, all natural, no preservatives, etc. I suspect the problem would lie in data quality more than deriving insights.

For example: a sliced apple is technically processed food, but what is it sprayed with?

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#14

Post by tschumacher »

hackyhacky wrote: post #8

I entered "Cheerios" and was told one box of Cheerios cereal is 61 calories; and that one box of blueberry Cheerios is 611 calories. So I think that we need better quantification of units than just "box," since presumably these measurements are dealing with boxes of different sizes.

Similarly, 1 cup unsalted peanuts is listed as having 10x the calories of 1 cup peanuts. The latter probably refers to peanuts in their skins while the former refers only to the nuts which would be packed much denser. A photo of the food could help here.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#15

Post by sirobg »

Seems cool! Congrats!

I agree that most products - I stumbled upon and tested - in this space are frustrating.

Would be nice to have a good UX to split food by meals (and have subtotals). But maybe that is too complex and you were not aiming for that!

Additional feedback: I think knowing if the food is weighted raw or cooked is pretty important. Sorry if I missed something but I couldn't tell if the "whole wheat pasta" were cooked or not. Uncooked was available for rice, though.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#16

Post by 3pm »

Have to comment since I've been listening to Dr. Lustig lately (https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=6mS-3SKI7R4zOdYT).

The site shows that 1 can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories and less carbs than a medium apple: 90 vs 122 calories, 25 vs 30 gram of carbs. There is no other information, e.g no fiber content or added sugars section. Would this lead someone to believe, against common sense, that Coke is equivalent or even a healthier choice?

Edit: For those interested, here is a link to a similar system that contains more information (albeit not as polished): https://perfact.co:8443/Nova/

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#17

Post by bardworx »

mathgeek wrote: post #12
XorNot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why the hell would a person need an app to tell "how processed" a food is? This is the one bit of information that is contextually obvious.

Consider it for how processed a specific brand of food is, rather than a general food. Right now most specifications don’t get more specific than organic, free range, grass fed, vegan, all natural, no preservatives, etc. I suspect the problem would lie in data quality more than deriving insights. For example: a sliced apple is technically processed food, but what is it sprayed with?

Usually hydrogen peroxide[0] (when sliced) but if you are referring to what chemicals a farm uses, that would be really, really hard to provide. I believe Chipotle tried to do a farm to store supply chain doc and gave up and went with a distributor. However, they still are trying w/ robotics and other initiatives.[1]

At the end of the day, how do you really know what chemicals are used on the farm? The cost of tracking anything is astronomical. I.E. cost of a bolt in airline industry.

Lastly, at least for food: producers, distributors, end-users (stores), and everyone else uses different software with proprietary protocols and the margins don't really incentivize anyone from switching.

[0]: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0362028X2... [1]: https://www.supplychainbrain.com/articles/35217-chipotle-zer...

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#18

Post by notfed »

3pm wrote: post #16

Have to comment since I've been listening to Dr. Lustig lately ( https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=6mS-3SKI7R4zOdYT ). The site shows that 1 can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories and less carbs than a medium apple: 90 vs 122 calories, 25 vs 30 gram of carbs. There is no other information, e.g no fiber content or added sugars section. Would this lead someone to believe, against common sense, that Coke is equivalent or eve…

Adding "fiber" in the results (and changing "carbs" to "net carbs") would help.

I never understood the motive of highlighting "added sugar" though. Who cares if it's considered "added" or not? I recently was browsing the cranberry juice section at a grocery store, and without going into detail, it was obvious that some brands are gaming the definition of "added". Also, many natural sugar sources have unhealthy levels of sugar. Perhaps a metric like sugar density or caloric density would be more useful.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#19

Post by lbotos »

notfed wrote: post #18
3pm wrote: post #16

Have to comment since I've been listening to Dr. Lustig lately ( https://youtu.be/dBnniua6-oM?si=6mS-3SKI7R4zOdYT ). The site shows that 1 can of Coca-Cola has fewer calories and less carbs than a medium apple: 90 vs 122 calories, 25 vs 30 gram of carbs. There is no other information, e.g no fiber content or added sugars section. Would this lead someone to believe, against common sense, that Coke is equivalent or eve…

Adding "fiber" in the results (and changing "carbs" to "net carbs") would help. I never understood the motive of highlighting "added sugar" though. Who cares if it's considered "added" or not? I recently was browsing the cranberry juice section at a grocery store, and without going into detail, it was obvious that some brands are gaming the definition of "added". Also, many natural sugar sources have unhealthy levels…

It’s a successful propaganda campaign. There are many people that wrongly believe that “natural sugars” are somehow better/more nutritious. (My mother is one, and eats way too much fruit and fruit juice because “it’s natural!”)

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#20

Post by Lord-Jobo »

solardev wrote: post #10
hackyhacky wrote: post #8

I entered "Cheerios" and was told one box of Cheerios cereal is 61 calories; and that one box of blueberry Cheerios is 611 calories. So I think that we need better quantification of units than just "box," since presumably these measurements are dealing with boxes of different sizes.

Man, those GMO blueberries are really getting out of hand, aren't they?

It's 2023 and we don't have GMO blueberries the size of a basketball yet? Lazy ass scientists need to get back to work.
Post reply on HN