Live data from Hacker News

Oatly: The New Coke?

divinations.substack.com

321–330 of 429 posts

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#321
I'm not convinced that Oatly is so tremendously bad, all things considered, and I forgive a little marketing-speak so long as they are being honest and forthcoming when engaged. That being said, I find the amount of "good for you" literature and products out there to simply be overwhelming. Do I want to know about what I put in my body? Sure. Do I want a PhD in nutrition? Umm...

There is a simple rule I follow which I, probably erroneously, call the Law of Nature. If you want to trust what goes in, make it yourself and make it with whole foods that you can see and touch. Why is a food refined? To make it easier to preserve, store, and transport or to modify it's consistency, taste, or nutritional characteristics. 99% of these refinements lead to a product which is less nutritious for you and likely bad for you in some way. Indulge occasionally but realize that most forms of modern food refinement is not natural, and our bodies have evolved over tens of thousands of years to efficiently consume what occurs in nature. If you need a lab or the bacteria doesn't seem to manifest magically, it doesn't meet my definition of natural.

I know this basically sounds like a Paleo plug, but my purpose isn't to define a practice you should follow. My main problem is information and deception. I don't have time to vet an entire grocery store of products, so I trust my evolution as a default. I want to feel comfortable and confident about what I consume rather than building an ideology out of it.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably because OP posted it twice, the first time was 19 hrs ago.

I guess that kind of makes sense, thanks :) solemnly looks out window contemplating points that could have been

I’m only guessing but I know that look. :)

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#323
post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a non-coffee drinker, I drink my oatly pure, in the same way as I drank my milk growing up. So yeah, 340 ml is apt when I use my big mug. You make it sound as if no-one drinks pure milk in your environment? I find THAT weird.

It's absolutely fascinating to read these replies! We have a very diverse set of people here. I had no idea that people didn't drink milk on its own. Apparently some Europeans don't. I eat cereal mostly to drink milk. If Oatly was a good substitute, I'd probably have started using it. (I haven't tried it yet.) 340ml is 0.08 gallons. That's consistent with "about a bowl of cereal."

I've seen a bunch of sides of it in the US. In the midwest where I grew up parts of my family required children to drink a glass of milk because the milk-industry propaganda at the time said it was important for kids to drink a bunch of milk for bones and growth and other stuff that was never true and was known to never be true.

But we didn't have the internet yet, so how do you fact check it? The TV said so.

I do see fewer people interested in milk as you go younger here, I think that once it was more broadly understood that milk is marginal the pressure to drink it was gone but there was still some cultural kind of urban legend nonsense that is really hard to get rid of in a society that doesn't trust experts. Which I can't blame anyone for if we're talking about nutritional experts because anyone alive for more than twenty years has seen them flip their opinion on at least a quarter of food types.

It is notable that in that part of my family, half the kids ended up lactose intolerant and still are frustrated about their parents for making them sick all the time as kids by requiring them to drink something they didn't want to drink anyway.

I liked chocolate milk because who doesn't, but after someone for the first time pointed out that it's kinda weird for humans to drink milk intended for calves (maybe I was 13 or 14?) I pretty much just stopped drinking it because it just wasn't that good anyway and now I had an excuse. My brother and mother are both lactose intolerant, it turns out.

I think a lot of people have felt low grade sick their entire lives in the US because they've never gone for long enough without dairy to notice.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#324
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article is about the failings of Oatly, not the failures of milk. There’s lots of milk substitutes that aren’t as bad for you as Oatly. I read the comparison to milk as just a comparison to the baseline or what Oatly wants to taste like, not as an endorsement of cow milk.

Which milk substitutes are better? Especially in the sense that they wouldn't be able to accrue complaints from an assailant as dogged as this writer.

There are many milk substitutes that don’t have the sugar of Oatly, the ones I’ve tried are the unsweetened almond and coconut milks.

I think they suck in coffee (so does Oatly) but they are good for cereal or smoothies or just liquid protein.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#325
Author fails to mention that Coca-Cola (and most other soft drinks) have like 35 grams of sugar per serving, so even with maltose's higher GI, it's still nowhere near the blood sugar bomb that a Coke is. Comparing that to 7 grams of sugar per serving (of which "quite a bit" is maltose) is just completely unreasonable.

Whole piece similarly strikes me as dishonest and agenda-driven.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#326

I'm not convinced that Oatly is so tremendously bad, all things considered, and I forgive a little marketing-speak so long as they are being honest and forthcoming when engaged. That being said, I find the amount of "good for you" literature and products out there to simply be overwhelming. Do I want to know about what I put in my body? Sure. Do I want a PhD in nutrition? Umm... There is a simple rule I follow which…

I think for the most part your philosophy is a good one, if you can afford it (in money and time). The problem is that for many people, healthy foods aren't as accessible. It takes more time to cook your own food, or places that sell fresh foods are not close by. Or you don't have time to make grocery trips more than once every two weeks. If you are a single parent working a full time job, it's going to be very difficult to find time to cook from scratch every night. That's why we have to move toward making food more healthful by default.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#327

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…

The article was about the marketing methods, comparing them to Coke from before. It wasn't about oats vs milk, per se

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#328

Author fails to mention that Coca-Cola (and most other soft drinks) have like 35 grams of sugar per serving, so even with maltose's higher GI, it's still nowhere near the blood sugar bomb that a Coke is. Comparing that to 7 grams of sugar per serving (of which "quite a bit" is maltose) is just completely unreasonable. Whole piece similarly strikes me as dishonest and agenda-driven.

Yeah, a lot of claims with 0 sources doesn’t inspire confidence. So milk was never shown to be unhealthy, fat+cholesterol isn’t harmful but oat milk is terrible for you. Gotcha

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#329
post #299

"Made for humans" also draws attention to the fact that the milk you're drinking from a cow is not being drank by the offspring of that cow like it normally would and many people don't realise you have to keep making diary cows give birth to get more milk. Newly born male cows are usually turned into veal in a few weeks and female cows are separated from their mothers so they don't drink the valuable milk. Milk givin…

That probably should be taught at school. That's the way farms work. Animals are slaughtered so you can eat them. The reason I think it should be taught at school is first because it basic knowledge. Farms employ a significant portion of the population of most countries, and that's what puts food on the table and keeps you alive. That's pretty important. Another reason is that school can teach that with a neutral poi…

I learned all of this in school in a country where agriculture was a significant segment of the economy. It was most definitely not taught with a "neutral point of view".

Now that I have learned to understand the world with a more informed and nuanced perspective than the one my public education provided me with, I would certainly agree much more with the "extremists" you mention than any meat-eater justifications of how it "keeps you alive" or "respecting" the animals by eating them. And I say this as someone who still consumes meat and other animal products.

Re: Oatly: The New Coke?

#330
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m ideologically positive to vegetarianism and veganism but I’m so sick of this argument. Something being “made for humans” is in no way a positive — so is cocaine.

Look, if the marketing for oatly just focused entirely and explicitly on the cruelty of the dairy industry that they are competing against, they would never be a successful alternative to dairy because most consumers don’t respond positively to being exposed to graphic, disturbing, and negative information about competitors on product packaging. If anything it makes consumers want to look away, reach for humor to tri…

>the cruelty of the dairy industry that they are competing against

I have first-hand knowledge of "the dairy industry". I don't see cruelty. Can you fill me on what's cruel about it?

Post reply on HN