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

21–30 of 42 posts

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#21

Post by aio2 »

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…

Added sugar doesn't have as many nutrients, and is absorbed by the body much more quickly.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#22

Post by kamikaz1k »

aio2 wrote: post #21
notfed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Added sugar doesn't have as many nutrients, and is absorbed by the body much more quickly.

this is not true, sugar is sugar* -- what matters is how it is consumed, not how it is added. if sugar is consumed with a lot of fibers then it will be absorbed slower by your intenstines. the same fruit consumed as juice or whole fruit impacts how the sugar is absorbed.

[1] sugar is actually multiple sugars, and different sugars (glucose vs fructose vs sucrose) - https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-fructos...

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#23

Post by gloryjulio »

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…

Yep. Any site do this instantly lost credibility to me. Total carbs is total carbs. If they can't do basic cico it's misleading

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#24

Post by aio2 »

kamikaz1k wrote: post #22
aio2 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Added sugar doesn't have as many nutrients, and is absorbed by the body much more quickly.

this is not true, sugar is sugar* -- what matters is how it is consumed, not how it is added. if sugar is consumed with a lot of fibers then it will be absorbed slower by your intenstines. the same fruit consumed as juice or whole fruit impacts how the sugar is absorbed. [1] sugar is actually multiple sugars, and different sugars (glucose vs fructose vs sucrose) - https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/sucrose-glucose-…

But, in general, processed sugar has the effects I mentioned, because it is added.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#25

Post by stabbles »

solardev wrote: post #11
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.

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…

Chris van Tulleken has an excellent book (and talk [1]) on the subject

[1] https://youtu.be/5QOTBreQaIk

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#26

Post by RcouF1uZ4gsC »

solardev wrote: post #11
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.

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…

> I dunno if there's much difference between cow milk, soy milk, oat milk

Well given the fact that cow milk exists in nature, has been drank by humans for thousands of years, and the other two are trying to be like cow milk, right off the bat, I think a good working hypothesis is that cow milk is less processed than soy and oat milk. They may pasteurize and homogenize it and add some vitamins, but it is fundamentally pretty close to what came out of the cow. Soy mil and oat milk, need a lot more processing to turn soy and oats into something at resembles milk.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#27

Post by getwiththeprog »

lbotos wrote: post #19
notfed wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!”)

natural sugars come with free vitamins and minerals.

but sure, you can have too much natural sugars.

Re: Show HN: Intuitive nutrition information

#30

Post by getwiththeprog »

stabbles wrote: post #9
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.

It's just a nuance to the rule of thumb, that doesn't warrant such a strong reaction? If a 1st order rule of thumb is keeping caloric contents in check, a 2nd order rule doing that for nutrients individually, I wonder if someone knows a good but easy third order rule of thumb that takes into account processing. Something like "when two foods have roughly identical nutrients, prefer the one that has ingredients you co…

My 1st rule of thumb: Avoid processed foods. This way I don't have to really think much more about what to eat.

And yes, ultra-processed foods are easy to avoid if you go the right suppliers, such as grocers. Supermarkeups are definitely difficult places to eat well.

Post reply on HN