Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition • Hacker News Board

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#131

Post by Gibbon1 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:18 PM UTC

throwawaysea wrote: post #51

One of the dangers of large economies of scale with processed foods, is that the companies that produce these foods accumulate market power and then force the entire agricultural industry towards producing particular crops as cheaply as possible. This has not only led to a drastic reduction in variety and diversity of foods that people eat, but large-scale crop monocultures also have significant environmental implica…

I've read that the amount of protein in wheat has been declining for a century.

I remember 40 years ago rye bread was really dense and rich. Now it takes like rye flavored white bread. Also bread now tastes suspiciously sweet to me.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#132

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:19 PM UTC

blix wrote: post #125

dragontamer wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is puzzling to me why low-fat cereal would be some kind of win or automatically should be considered great thing. You get energy from fat, sugar and proteins. Healthy human can and should eat all three, but I really dont understand why specifically amount of low-fatness of some cereal box would be advantage. Dietary fiber is a huge part of nutrition and you're ignoring it in your above analysis. In particular, d…

You shouldn't need "stomach filler" to feel satiated. If the food you are eating has enough nutrients, you should not feel hungry. Nutrition-derived satiety is not the same thing as fullness, which should probably be considered a negative consequence of overeating. Unfortunately many people are so used to eating nutritionally bankrupt food that the connection between satiety and nutrition is broken, and many people e…

> Please stop hating on pork belly. It is fine in moderation.

I know I can finish an entire pound of pork belly tonight if I am given the opportunity. I'm not going to do it, because I know that's not "in moderation".

The amount of nutrition you get from 1-lb of pork belly will be miniscule compared to a properly balanced meal. But its so damn tasty that you really can just keep shoving that sort of thing into your mouth.

Anything in moderation is healthy. Saying "X is healthy in moderation" is almost not useful at all. That's why serving sizes and yes, religious dedication to weighing foods and portion control is a thing that serious people do when they're seriously dieting.

Oxycodon in moderation is healthy. That's how unhelpful that "in moderation" statement is for dietary health.

----------

As for "Pork Belly", I'm really saying Lechon kawali, which is a particular Filipino preparation of Pork, which is probably the best tasting pork in the world. Its very good stuff. I just don't think the general English-speaking audience will know what "Lechon kawali" is, so I'm using a rough translation.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#133

Post by kazen44 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:25 PM UTC

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #114

dcolkitt wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Yes, cooking healthy may be "easy" but it's still more work than junk food. One advantage of intermittent fasting is that it's much less burdensome to make a single, large healthy than it is to make three healthy meals plus snacks. (Though this can be a double-edge sword. If you wind up eating junk food, like pizza, for your large meal, then it becomes the equivalent of eating junk food for breakfast, lunch and din…

Who the hell makes 3 meals a day anyway? Unless you include reheating something prepared in bulk several days ago in that count?

also, what consists of three meals? the way I learned to cook (and most people I know) is you get a couple of ingredients for a dinner, and use the leftovers for lunch/dinner the next day. breakfast usually consists of something simple like bread + cheese or a kind of meat. (some people don't even eat breakfast and just start the day with a coffee or a glass of water).

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#134

Post by throwawaysea » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:27 PM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #131

throwawaysea wrote: post #51

One of the dangers of large economies of scale with processed foods, is that the companies that produce these foods accumulate market power and then force the entire agricultural industry towards producing particular crops as cheaply as possible. This has not only led to a drastic reduction in variety and diversity of foods that people eat, but large-scale crop monocultures also have significant environmental implica…

I've read that the amount of protein in wheat has been declining for a century. I remember 40 years ago rye bread was really dense and rich. Now it takes like rye flavored white bread. Also bread now tastes suspiciously sweet to me.

Other common staples like corn and rice had hundreds of varieties in the past, many of which are extinct or only exist in a seed vault. The same is true for fruits. If you travel to particular developing countries or even just to Hawaii (where native varieties are protected), you'll see how different their fruits and vegetables are - both in variety but also smell and taste. I'm sure that has nutritional implications that simplistic reductionist nutrition approaches can't capture.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#135

Post by inglor_cz » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:28 PM UTC

acuozzo wrote: post #130

inglor_cz wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am just watching the British "Supersize Vs Superskinny" series. The heavy articipants have serious addiction problem, obviously. The question is whether some foods are inherently addictive, at least for some people who are more predisposed to food addiction. There are some obvious commonalities in the diets of the superfatties: pretty much every one of them consumes a lot of pizza, fries, soft drinks and various fa…

I'm sure some foods are inherently addictive, but I hesitate to put the blame on specific foods because I gained most of my weight from eating sushi rice… a pot at a time. My experience suggests to me that food addiction is primarily psychological in nature and is often the result of a history of "experience coupling" (examples to follow) and a genuine misunderstanding of what feeling "full" truly feels like. Most ob…

"have no idea when they've eaten enough food and often don't stop eating until they're in pain"

Our hunger / satiety feelings are driven hormonally by hormones called ghrelin and leptin. Ideally, those two take care of a perfect equilibrium.

If something messes this self-balancing mechanism up, feelings of hunger and satiety may no longer respond to actual caloric intake - a recipe for a slow-motion disaster.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#136

Post by bergstromm466 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:40 PM UTC

PragmaticPulp wrote: post #12

This statistic from the article is mind-boggling: > Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Note that they aren't just referring to processed foods. They classify ultra-processed foods as a step beyond what we typically think of as processed foods: > Ultra-processed foods and beverages ca…

> For many people, the idea of cooking a meal has been elevated to a special occasion event, as a treat or a date night. This is partially due to the fact that boring, everyday meal recipes just aren't as flashy as a 15-ingredient, hour long recipe that results in a stunning picture for someone's blog or instagram.

I think the root is that everyone's rents and other costs are way higher. Many folks are barely getting by. I don't think it's Instagram or vanity - I think that might reveal your personal privilege and position in society. That isn't meant in a demeaning or derogatory way, it's just that it surprises me how today people from different classes do not often 'meet' each other anymore, in their day to day lives. Propably due to rising inequity. I think a lot of working class people buy quick meals because they have so little time.

> Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store.

100% agree. Shame we're still letting corporations brainwash the general population, not to mention kids.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#137

Post by stanford_labrat » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:41 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #120

jasode wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>, but in my experience most people prefer these foods because they think it's more convenient. [...] Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store. It's amazing how many people don't know how easy and cheap it can be to prepare simple crock pot or stir-fry meals that are healthy and delicious. I'm a strict health food eater but I have to be realistic and concede t…

I wonder what is the effect of the widespread loneliness on the willingness and ability to cook. If you are two or a family, cooking for the others to enjoy is a pleasure. If someone lives alone, I can see why they rather eat something quick-and-dirty.

Anecdotal, but I am much more motivated to cook a nice meal when my partner is staying over. When I’m alone I find it easy to slip into grabbing fast food on the drive home from work.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#138

Post by blix » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:46 PM UTC

dragontamer wrote: post #132

blix wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't need "stomach filler" to feel satiated. If the food you are eating has enough nutrients, you should not feel hungry. Nutrition-derived satiety is not the same thing as fullness, which should probably be considered a negative consequence of overeating. Unfortunately many people are so used to eating nutritionally bankrupt food that the connection between satiety and nutrition is broken, and many people e…

> Please stop hating on pork belly. It is fine in moderation. I know I can finish an entire pound of pork belly tonight if I am given the opportunity. I'm not going to do it, because I know that's not "in moderation". The amount of nutrition you get from 1-lb of pork belly will be miniscule compared to a properly balanced meal. But its so damn tasty that you really can just keep shoving that sort of thing into your m…

Pork belly contains important macronutrients like protein and fat, which is part of why it tastes good. Despite that, I know I can stop eating it when choose to. Pork belly itself is not a problem; the problem is unhealthy eating habits. Thankfully, habits can be learned, unlearned, and modified.

"X in moderation" is pretty good advice for most X. It just turns out many people are quite bad at moderation, prefering instead to "shove X into their mouth" or otherwise consume in ways that promote overindulgence. Usually, these habits deserve scrutiny more than X. It possible to choose to eat in a different way.

Seriously, read that book. If you've studied "serious diets," you should know their medium- and long-term success rates are absolutely dismal. Luckily it is not the only way. Working with the hard-to-modify aspects of food psychology is easier, more sustainable, more enjoyable, and more effective than fighting against them.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#139

Post by 01100011 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:52 PM UTC

inglor_cz wrote: post #104

Just by comparing photos and videos from the 1980s to the situation in the streets now, it is painfully obvious that we (and by "we" I mean at least half of humanity) have a serious obesity and metabolic syndrome problem. It is breathtaking how civilized nations silently accept such an enormous slide in quality of life, when other, much smaller problems lead to civic unrest, political discussions and overhaul of old…

45 here. Here's what I've noticed since the 80s:

- More wealth and more choices now. - More eating out now. Meals are bigger, sweeter, richer, etc. - Less activity now. When I was a kid, video games were just getting started and most folks didn't own computers. TV & media was less engaging.

Food addiction seems more... refined these days. There is a lot less fat shaming too, although I'm not suggesting we bring it back. I think it did have an effect on reducing obesity though.

I grew up on fast food and TV dinners, so I don't see food being significantly more refined now, but I am aware there are newer ingredients(thickeners, texture modifiers, preservatives, etc).

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#140

Post by silicon2401 » Thu, Dec 17, 2020, 9:56 PM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #35

silicon2401 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this really what you ate like on a day to day basis? Not snarky or anything, just genuinely shocked and curious

Yes. It was actually even worse than that on most days. The portions were bigger and I didn't include snacks and desserts. My whole family was overweight and most of us were obese (myself included). This is the majority of Americans. I'm sure that this style of eating is extremely common.

Sorry to hear. Sadly, like a typical American I also had my days of weight gain, junk food, mcdonald's, etc in my childhood, but I also grew up having mostly home-cooked food, so that's where my curiosity comes from.