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

Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 345 posts

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

#241

Post by tartoran »

nickff wrote: post #161
ApolloFortyNine wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The popularity of Chipotle really says a lot to me. The steak bowls are a little more cost effective, but for the price of one chicken bowl, you seriously could make at least 4 chicken bowls if you simply went to the grocery store instead of Chipotle. The time to cook and prepare is quite similar to Chipotle as well, especially if you go to Chipotle instead of delivery. Rice, beans, salsa, lettuce, cheese, chicken. E…

I can walk into Chipotle, order a burrito, and be out in less than 5 minutes with a delicious meal and no clean-up (maybe 10 if there's a lineup). It takes me much longer to cook the chicken and rice, even if the 'prep' is done, and I still have to clean up! I have what I'd consider a healthy diet, and I've been avoiding restaurant and prepared meals throughout the pandemic, but cooking everything has been a huge tim…

Cook food for a couple of days and time per meal will decrease. It takes a bit of getting used to it but once you find the gist of it it really works out

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

#242

Post by thettiguy »

acuozzo wrote: post #116
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…

(Please forgive the scattered reply. I'm tired and I've mostly pieced this together from other discussions I've had on this topic.) I firmly believe that the problem stems from a mass unspoken refusal to address obesity as a symptom of food addiction. Food addiction is among the hardest to kick because humans not only need food to survive, but also need glucose (and/or ketone bodies) in order to have sufficient menta…

Cheap food might be the biggest issue you sort of glossed over. Cheap because the US government heavily subsidizes wheat and corn. So we have chips, sugar, sugary stuff galore ... it’s cheap. One could argue it starts there.

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

#243

Post by bonoboTP »

seltzered_ wrote: post #157

"Corporate food and beverage companies such as Coca Cola have engaged in what I will refer to as “corporate scientific activities.” These activities are designed to produce and influence the scientific knowledge used to evaluate, promote, legitimise, and regulate their products" Years ago, I remember listening to a podcast and while I can't find it the host was excerpting a study he was critical of on and noting it w…

A typical marketing activity of companies selling sugary drinks and sugary fatty salty snacks is to overemphasize the role of exercise in weight loss.

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

#244

Post by DobryMorozov »

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?

I always made three meals a day even alone in a apartment. It's not difficult to make eggs or cook salmon

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

#245

Post by Aerroon »

curryst wrote: post #149
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…

> The question is whether some foods are inherently addictive, at least for some people who are more predisposed to food addiction. In some sense, yes, because to get to extremely high weights, you need to consume extremely high amounts of food. Your stomach will grow, but I would imagine a person would struggle to eat enough carrots to weigh 500 pounds. Quick napkin math says some obese people eat 6700 calories a da…

But what makes carrots "healthy food"? Is it that it has some vitamins and few calories? Does that mean that a multivitamin pill combined with a piece of plastic is the ultimate healthy food? It has vitamins and basically zero calories, because you can't actually eat the plastic.

On another note, 6700 kcal is a once in a while type event. Calorie calculators put the calories needed at 6700 kcal at excess of 450 kg (1000 lbs). That's more than the record weight of a person. 6700 kcal is still 2.5 kg of Big Macs.

Also, carrots just aren't great as food. They're more like flavorings. You would definitely have a brought deficiency on a carrot diet, whereas it's less so on a Big Mac diet.

The thing is that our bodies need a wide range of materials to function well. We can function even when our diets aren't great, but there will usually be some small problems. I don't understand why food that's actually poor as a food is considered healthy.

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

#246

Post by nxc18 »

01100011 wrote: post #139
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 ba…

Re: fat shaming, this is horribly misunderstood by people who have never struggled with obesity.

When you are obese, you are fat shamed by yourself, every day of your life, every time you look in the mirror and what you see doesn’t reflect who you think you are. There is an incredible amount of societal baggage in being fat - the stereotype is that fat people are lazy, stupid, and incompetent. I know better, but even I have to catch myself to avoid unfair bias against fat people (e.g. in hiring decisions) - and I know the stereotype is bullshit because I myself used to be morbidly obese.

Fat acceptance is bullshit, being fat is unhealthy. And because so many people are fat, many folks don’t even know what a healthy weight looks like. I’m not advocating for fat is good or fat is beautiful thinking, because that is counterproductive.

But fat shaming is far worse than saying nothing. Binge eating/food addiction is driven by cycles of shame and hating yourself for being fat is a big part of that. I couldn’t have lost 120+ lbs without first getting over shame and embarrassment.

In my first-hand experience with obesity fat-shaming is a great way to push people harder into a shame->self hate->binge eating-> shame-> self hate cycle, which just makes things worth.

This is clearly a societal problem, we shouldn’t shame people for succumbing to it, but instead work to help people recover.

P.S. it is sometimes hard for naturally skinny people to empathize with obesity. Obesity makes all of the steps to lose weight harder - exercise, nonstop hunger (due to broken hormone regulation). Struggling with dieting long term causes metabolism slowdown which makes the problem harder. I gain weight on 1300 calories, and that’s with an active lifestyle with 16.000 steps of walking daily. American culture at least makes it really difficult to participate in society and stay under 1300 cal/day. I imagine it’s even worse if you’re not a 6ft male.

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

#247

Post by selimthegrim »

vram22 wrote: post #182
dcolkitt wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Its not like "processing" makes something more or less poisonous I completely agree with this. There's nothing inherent to processing food that makes it less healthy. In fact it could potentially make it even more healthy, e.g. adding fiber or protein to a starch. Heck, even just like at the original processing technique. Cooked vegetables are more nutritious than raw vegetables. But the reality is that 99% of proc…

Interestingly, Ayurveda recommends cooked vegetables more than raw vegetables, and less (but not zero) of raw food generally, on the principle (IIRC) that cooked foods are usually easier for humans to digest - and digestion is "the key to health" in Ayurveda. Source: Prakruti - your Ayurvedic Constitution, by Vaidya* Robert Svoboda. *Vaidya is the title for an Ayurvedic doctor.

If this stuff has the same veracity as what was in Aghora, I have to wonder if Svoboda met any Ayurvedic experts at all

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

#248

Post by mmcconnell1618 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #75
aitchnyu wrote: post #18

They had me. I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars! I also assumed the public knows sodas contain a nauseating amount of sugar. How will this "research" benefit Coca Cola as a soda company?

If calories in the bars are equal, and if your body can absorb the same number of calories from the food, and if your metabolism stays the same on the different kinds of foods, and if you have the self-discipline to eat only the same number of calories when the sugar rush from the chocolate bar wears off and you want another.

I believe your metabolism responds differently. The sugar signals your body that you've eaten a rich calorie source but fat is lacking, please save this as fat for later. If you had eaten a meal with more fiber and fat, it signals to your body that fatty meals are available now, you can use some for energy, no need to create more storage.

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

#249

Post by blix »

dragontamer wrote: post #173
blix wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> Seriously, read that book. If you have a point to be made, you can make it here and now without the need of a hundred-page reference. I understand you put a lot of work into reading books about diets or whatever, but I also make my arguments based on the findings supported by a large body of research. I'm not going to ask you to read through all of the reference material I'm using to build up my arguments. At best,…

I'm offering the book as a resource because I think it might be helpful or interesting to you and other people with similar thoughts. It discusses many things you have mentioned. There's only so much depth one can put in a comment, but some of my favorite books are ones I found metioned in passing here. You can take it or leave it.

I'm really not sure what the "mainsteam science of food" is. Studies linking food to health outcomes are notoroiously low quality, and there isn't strong consensus on most things, other than basic stuff like "eat more vegetables." And it wasn't that long ago that the USDA was saying "eat more grains, less veggies." If you think it is simple I would suggest you read a larger variety of sources. Human health is a very complex subject and there is a lot we still don't know.

I would rather we teach people how to help themselves, rather than teaching them ways to trick themselves. It's hard to trick yourself for long periods of time, especially when you are up against biological imperatives. People who's strategies don't rely on tricks are more successful.

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

#250

Post by andrekandre »

chubot wrote: post #143
dragontamer wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The first ingredient of Lard is... Lard. Which is "non-processed" by this strange designation. Would you say that Lard is more, or less healthy than a high-fiber cereal?

It seems like you think that Lard is axiomatically unhealthy, which may have been a common view 20 years ago, but no longer is. Lard doesn't contain trans fats, which is what fast food is full of. Lard is a time-tested animal product that has been used by many long-lived civilizations. "trans fats" wasn't a thing until ~20 years ago, so basically science is catching up with the implicit knowledge people have had for…

> Lard is definitely healthier than processed oils, e.g. vegetable oil in the supermarket.

but from the linked article...

---

For everyone else, choose liquid oil high in monounsaturated fats, such as olive oil or organic, non-GMO canola oil, which are trendy now and healthy, says Lindzon, even for baking your next birthday cake. “The bottom line is change your grandmother’s recipes that call for butter and lard,” she says.

---

by 'vegetable oils', do you mean processed oils like margerine and shortening?

Post reply on HN