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

Canada's New Food Guide

food-guide.canada.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 146 posts

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#51

Post by tom_mellior »

RugnirViking wrote: post #40
freeone3000 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm surprised you don't see that recommendation often. It's a very cheap, versatile cooking oil. I wouldn't say it's anyone's favourite, but it's effectively the default?

No? At least where I'm from, the default is sunflower oil and if you want to upgrade its olive oil. I've never heard of canola oil

FWIW, you may know it as rapeseed oil. "Canola was originally a trademark name of the Rapeseed Association of Canada, and the name was a condensation of "Can" from Canada and "ola" from other vegetable oils like Mazola,[6][7] but is now a generic term for edible varieties of rapeseed oil in North America and Australia. The change in name serves to distinguish it from natural rapeseed oil, which has much higher erucic acid content." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canola_oil

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#52

Post by novaRom »

My food guide is to learn from examples: How average people of my age and older look like in different parts of the world? Are they healthy? What do they eat? What their habits? etc.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#53

Post by tom_mellior »

spraak wrote: post #36
AnthonBerg wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no reason to avoid fat. Here is one instance of an easily accessible peer-reviewed-science-based list of the current knowledge on dietary fat: https://www.foundmyfitness.com/news/t/fat It does not show that oils or fat are something to blanket avoid.

I didn't say to avoid fat, I said to avoid extracted fats (oils). Whole food fats e.g. the olive instead of olive oil is fine

Olives make a good snack, olive oil doesn't. Olive oil is great for frying things in, whole (or even sliced) olives aren't.

It's silly to pretend that you can pick one and live your life without the other. Or that there is never a need for some sort of cooking fat.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#54

Post by ddeokbokki »

novaRom wrote: post #52

My food guide is to learn from examples: How average people of my age and older look like in different parts of the world? Are they healthy? What do they eat? What their habits? etc.

A people's traditional diet does not necessarily correlate to their longevity, there are many other factors one needs to take into account (way of life, access to healthcare, access to food, etc)

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#55

Post by Vinnl »

kogepathic wrote: post #28
Vinnl wrote: post #22

It's interesting how we can all check out Canada's food guide, but we cannot do the same with e.g. the Dutch food guide, or the Italian one, or the Russian one, unless you speak those languages. In any case, this one appears pretty similar to the Dutch one, so I guess that that's a good sign. The Dutch one recommends specific portions (250g of vegetables for an adult, for example), but I think in similar ratios as sh…

> It's interesting how we can all check out Canada's food guide, but we cannot do the same with e.g. the Dutch food guide, or the Italian one, or the Russian one, unless you speak those languages. It's the same case for Canada's food guide? They're not making it available in other languages except English and French.

Of course; it wasn't a criticism, but an observation. Just because many of us here speak English, even though we're not from Canada, we can know what is recommended in Canada, and how that compares with our own. I wouldn't expect them to make it available in other languages :)

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#56

Post by chki »

benj111 wrote: post #47
ginko wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? Too much? Too little?

The egg seems to be the most reliable scale indicator? Assuming that's a normal size egg, that is a very large plate of food. I know the intent is to indicate relative proportions of food, but you question suggests more work needs to be done on portion control also.

I think if you divide the food on the plate over the course of a day that might be a reasonable amount, maybe a bit too much. Generally the site tends to focus too much on the problems of overeating while some people (myself included) might rather have problems to eat enough (healthy) food sometimes.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#57

Post by clydethefrog »

sattoshi wrote: post #2

Canada.ca is a recipe website now and it's what HN always wanted: a recipe with no weird preface personal stories about grandmother's or something drinking tea.

Some say it has to do with SEO purposes. There is a browser extension that directly shows the recipe itself called Recipe Filter.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#58

Post by Vinnl »

tom_mellior wrote: post #30
Vinnl wrote: post #22

It's interesting how we can all check out Canada's food guide, but we cannot do the same with e.g. the Dutch food guide, or the Italian one, or the Russian one, unless you speak those languages. In any case, this one appears pretty similar to the Dutch one, so I guess that that's a good sign. The Dutch one recommends specific portions (250g of vegetables for an adult, for example), but I think in similar ratios as sh…

Literally typing "dutch food guide" into DuckDuckGo got me to this summary in English: http://www.fao.org/nutrition/education/food-based-dietary-gu... Then following some broken links to https://www.voedingscentrum.nl , here is The Netherlands Nutrition Centre's English home page: https://www.voedingscentrum.nl/nl/service/english.aspx where following some more broken links you get to their "Wheel of Five", "the pract…

Wow interesting, it didn't even occur to me that the Voedingscentrum would have made available English-language content. To be clear, I wouldn't expect the Canadian food guide to be made available in Dutch either.

It's just that I often compare Dutch guidelines with foreign (usually American) ones, and they often diverge. For example, in the Netherlands it's common not to use anaesthesia when giving birth, where most other countries AFAIK do.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#59

Post by Amygaz »

pugio wrote: post #33
lelima wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"unsaturated fats (such as olive oil) are not suitable for (high-temperature) cooking." That's not true, another human myth. here is the paper, TLDR: olive oil retains most of its nutritional benefits even when heated in high temperatures. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf020506w go for healthy fat! :)

You're missing the point – oils are (un)suitable for cooking primarily based on the risk of oxidation via heat. That study is only about the polyphenol content of olive oil (which, according to the study, do not get degraded as much as we might have thought), but it says nothing about the oxidation of poly-unsaturated fats. Unsaturated fats are at a much higher risk of oxidation, which is why cooking with canola oil…

Olive oil can easily sustain 160C for hour long period of time. You can use it for saute and pan frying. What you are refering too is deep frying with temperatures above 190C. That is what the consensus is, also my personal experience: it smokes really fast and tastes rancid.

Re: Canada's New Food Guide

#60

Post by [deleted] »

lelima wrote: post #31
leethargo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basically, many of their healthy fat oils are actually highly processed (which are not recommended), while the non-processed unsaturated fats (such as olive oil) are not suitable for (high-temperature) cooking.

"unsaturated fats (such as olive oil) are not suitable for (high-temperature) cooking." That's not true, another human myth. here is the paper, TLDR: olive oil retains most of its nutritional benefits even when heated in high temperatures. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jf020506w go for healthy fat! :)

[deleted]
Post reply on HN