Live data from Hacker News

Oatly: The New Coke?

divinations.substack.com

221–230 of 429 posts

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoting this study https://actascientific.com/ASNH/pdf/ASNH-02-0083.pdf (note: I get an error opening the PDF) > Extra virgin olive oil (EVOO) yielded low levels of polar compounds and oxidative by-products, in contrast to the high levels of by-products generated for oils such as canola oil. But I formed my position from many other points, the degradation in public health in the USA has tracked perfectly with the swi…

Any idea where I can find that study? The link above is dead. I have been using Canola oil for frying because I thought it was a neutral tasting oil that didn't produce as many toxic compounds when exposed to high heat—vs olive oil which purportedly did produce them. Seems I've been misinformed.

Unfortunately no, the title is " Evaluation of chemical and physical changes in different commercial oils during heating", hopefully you can find it.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

i agree wholeheartedly with the spirit of your comment, but saying "nutritional science is complex" or "the dosage alone makes it so that a thing is not a poison" does not help people figure out what foods to choose or how much to consume. looking at the glycemic index is a useful heuristic and some of the research on canola oil makes me skeptical of it, and i think it is good for the author to point that out, as it…

The one thing I'd change there is to delete the word "new" from the last sentence. There are all sorts of foods that are terrible from a health perspective, but get grandfathered into a culture because they became popular before science really caught on. If you're closely analyzing the biochemistry of oatly or soy milk or whatever, and finger-wagging at others for drinking them, but still drink beer on a regular basi…

> There are all sorts of foods that are terrible from a health perspective, but get grandfathered into a culture because they became popular before science really caught on.

Yes and no. There is some element of an inherent scientific method involved in having cultures eat various foods for tens of thousands of years and then seeing which ones are still around at the end of the “experiment”

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#224
post #152

The author should write a similar article about himself, because the whole article is filled with dubious claims and misguided evidence. The two main claims are "Since the GI is a measure of how much of a negative response your body has to certain sugars" and "research showing harms from canola oil". Neither can be ascertained. A big problem with nutritional science is that it's complex, therefore it is neigh impossi…

Not to mention Glycemic Index of foods is misleading. If you have a lot of fiber in your gut it slows down the digestion of everything. GI can’t be used in isolation. It’s useful to know, but Oatly also has a lot of fiber in it. I am less keen on the Canola oil though.

No only that, its only relevant if you have diabetes/pre-diabetic markers. If you're not then it's as relevant to you as being concerned about lactose if you're not lactose intolerant.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#225
Oatley is replacing half and half and the like for a lot of coffee drinks. It’s not like that dairy is good for you anyways...

There’s such an expectation that plant based substitutes should be amazingly healthy when often the things they’re replacing and pretty bad for you anyways.

Those products often replaced also have massive lobbying groups and ad campaigns they go up against just because they exist. Take “got milk” or “beef, it’s what’s for dinner” big expensive campaigns backed by big lobbies spouting dubious claims.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#226
I'm from the home of Oatly, southern Sweden, Malmö. Most of my friends are vegan and even I buy Oatly just to avoid milk protein because I'm getting older.

BUT a lot of my vegan friends are shying away from Oatly now apparently because they're partially funded by a large Chinese state owned company.

And we actually have more locally produced alternatives to Oatly coming out here in Sweden, one is now launched in Stockholm but still waiting to spread down here.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#227
post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The one thing I'd change there is to delete the word "new" from the last sentence. There are all sorts of foods that are terrible from a health perspective, but get grandfathered into a culture because they became popular before science really caught on. If you're closely analyzing the biochemistry of oatly or soy milk or whatever, and finger-wagging at others for drinking them, but still drink beer on a regular basi…

> There are all sorts of foods that are terrible from a health perspective, but get grandfathered into a culture because they became popular before science really caught on. Yes and no. There is some element of an inherent scientific method involved in having cultures eat various foods for tens of thousands of years and then seeing which ones are still around at the end of the “experiment”

Surely the species of most foods available nowadays are only a couple centuries or decades old?

Plus there's survivor bias: just because population A survived on food X, doesn't mean it won't halve the life expectancy when introduced to population B. E.g. high calory foods in the oceania populations caused obesity.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#228

I'm sympathetic to marketing counterfactuals, so I wanted to like this article, but its claims did not sway me. - The appalling environmental footprint of the dairy industry was never addressed. - The canola oil claims cited were nowhere near conclusive (see twanvl and NotOscarWilde's comments below). - The nutritional comparison seemed to me to be more or less trivial. Okay, it's got a higher glycemic index and simi…

Picking a nit: “Lattes are bad for you” come now. No food is inherently “bad”. In moderation or in a balanced diet you can regularly eat some amount of “bad” food and remain perfectly healthy. I do agree they aren’t a health food but I dislike “good” and “bad”. I think healthier and unhealthier is a much better axis for food, and making choices around food.

You have it backwards. No food is inherently “good” for you. Most people are better off skipping meals until they absolutely need nutrients. There’s toxins in all food.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#229
post #152

The author should write a similar article about himself, because the whole article is filled with dubious claims and misguided evidence. The two main claims are "Since the GI is a measure of how much of a negative response your body has to certain sugars" and "research showing harms from canola oil". Neither can be ascertained. A big problem with nutritional science is that it's complex, therefore it is neigh impossi…

Though this is my anecdotal experience, I've had an interesting journey related to food sensitivities and realizing how much certain foods actually caused physical pain when eating them once I had removed them and allowed my body to become de-conditioned to that level of pain/stress; conditioning is the action of not noticing, eliminating it from your awareness, however from my experience that shows that that doesn't mean something you don't notice isn't harming you or causing you problem. I had done an Igg food sensitivity test (inflammatory marker diagnostic; just a few drops of blood on a card that would get sent in) to test for ~200 foods. I removed the foods that showed up and I felt better. Weeks later multiple times with different foods I would eat one of the foods on the list and I was amazed at how clearly I could feel, experience the physical pain - some severe - that I would experience from now eating it.

This brings me to another point I wanted to make. You said the term "healthy" shouldn't be used, I'd posit that a caveat is necessary to avoid generalization - generalization which is the actual culprit: "may not be healthy for you specifically." It's very naive to ignore that though most of us have a head, two arms, two legs, etc. that our inner workings aren't complex and diverse - including our sensitivity level and tolerances for different types of stressors. We can know however inflammation in the body can lead to Alzheimers-Dementia, and that sugars carbohydrates, and certain other foods like dairy are highly inflammatory (for everyone) - whether that causes enough dysfunction for you to eliminate them from your diet or not is one question. Another question is perhaps a person is using these foods to self-medicate: inflammation has a depressant effect on the nervous system, and so they could be eating certain foods - perhaps dependant on them - to regulate their mood, stress, etc. This may work for some people their whole lives, it may also lead to dis-ease progression over decades.

And to reference your Paracelsus quote, it's not solely the dosage but a dosage that acts poisonous will differ between people. Some might be okay for some people, any tiny amount may be problematic for some people. The vague and arguably dismissive rhetoric of "everything in moderation" in response to when people reply in regards to people's comments on eating food they know is unhealthy for them and makes them feel sick. The dismissive behaviour of of parents for when their children not liking certain food and not wanting to eat it, they force or incentivize them to continue to eat food that harms them with a reward like dessert that further harms them is also problematic and I believe the starting point for many people who then struggle later in life in various ways. Eventually the child may become conditioned to not feeling the harm of the food, perhaps with the added aid of the numbing effect of the inflammation (the depressant effect on the nervous system), and become disconnected from a foundational cause or source of future dis-ease progression related symptoms. Parts of this pattern were certainly part of my journey.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saturated fat doesn't increase all cause mortality and yes if you are lactose intolerant it's bad for you, maybe even carcinogenic. Also this article is an advertisement for a book "The cheese trap" another pop science, pop nutrition sensation I'm sure. Nutrition was better before everyone and their dog was trying to sell a book, diet plan or health product.

It's not an advertisement, it's listed in the further reading section. And have you read the book? But hey, I guess you know better than 12,000 physicians.

Physicians don't have time to keep up with the latest science:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4532752/

It's the only book in the further reading section, this is an advertising piece. Why would I read another pop science nutrition book by a physician? I trust a physician to sew my leg back on or treat my obscure rash but nutrition books are a racket, read the source material instead.

Post reply on HN