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

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

#281

Post by hogFeast » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:42 AM UTC

Miraste wrote: post #188

hogFeast wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, according to the article that kind of science (i.e. the basic logic of energy usage) was invented by Coca-Cola. This is what happens when you combine weak knowledge of science with a credulous mind (you think everything is a conspiracy theory invented by group of people you dislike ). Maybe "processed food" (whatever that means, according to the article it is everything not produced in an "artisinal restaurant")…

> which is a function of greed and laziness This is incorrect, or at least not a useful lens with which to examine the problem. Societal changes on the level of the obesity epidemic (universal to the point of affecting lab animals) don't happen because of individual increases in greed and laziness. There is at least one broad nutritional/socioeconomic factor behind this, probably several, but because of the state of…

Yes, the social factor is...obese people eat more and exercise less. If you are assuming that every other developed country has this problem, they do not. In those countries, people eat less and/or exercise more.

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

#282

Post by voisin » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:44 AM UTC

Miraste wrote: post #186

ACow_Adonis wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

what's scary is that you said UK and not US. Coming from other Anglo cultures and going to the US feels similar to what you describe moving from Russia. instant increase in added sugar and serving sizes.

I live in the US and recently tried to find bread--standard, sliced bread--without sugar in it at my local store. They don't have any. The lowest I could find was a gram of sugar per slice!

There is reason for optimism. Less than a decade ago you could barely find something in the middle aisles of a grocery store that didn’t have trans fats and now it is relatively rare. These things can be overcome in relatively short order if the will exists.

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

#283

Post by matheusmoreira » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:48 AM UTC

kindatrue wrote: post #220

01100011 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>video games were just getting started It's also worth noting that the nature of video games have changed. Back then you'd pay $ for a cartridge and CD and that was it. There was little in the way of analytics. Now it's all about DLC and ancillary monetization - with high power analytics. The model has shifted towards addiction.

Yeah. Video games are literally designed to be addictive these days. Many mobile games are essentially gambling...

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_game...

Anyone who's ever played some gacha money sink will understand the danger they pose. It seems harmless until you're waking up at 4 AM to do daily tasks that boil down to nothing but resetting a couple timers.

The worst part is the traditional games industry is watching. They really like the way these mobile games generate revenue. This sort of design is starting to show up on the more traditional platforms too...

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

#284

Post by esyir » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:54 AM UTC

bumby wrote: post #177

curryst wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza The argument against this is that it becomes a regressive tax scheme. Many in the lower income strata disproportionately eat these foods because they are convenient and relatively cheap. A 10% increase in the food budget of someone at or near poverty isn’t trivial. Talk to chefs at high-end restaurants and you’ll see how much fat is inherent in (or gets added to…

Sure, but the lower income strata are also the ones who are more disproportionally fat as well, so they benefit. Something I've always found amazingly annoying is the tendency to throw pragmaticism out the window for "virtue points".

Also, chefs at high ends restaurants is a non-sequitur. People, even of wealth, do not eat those every day. And those with the capability to do so are a tiny subset of the population. Furthermore, there's a negative correlation between wealth and obesity in developed countries.

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

#285

Post by hogFeast » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

bonoboTP wrote: post #251

hogFeast wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, according to the article that kind of science (i.e. the basic logic of energy usage) was invented by Coca-Cola. This is what happens when you combine weak knowledge of science with a credulous mind (you think everything is a conspiracy theory invented by group of people you dislike ). Maybe "processed food" (whatever that means, according to the article it is everything not produced in an "artisinal restaurant")…

1. Yes, if you got fat, you consumed more calories than you used up. The solution will require getting closer to balance. 2. The actionable way to achieve that is non-trivial. Different foods with same amount of calories have different physiological effects, including which hormones are produced with what timings and what neural circuitry is activated. This leads to different degrees of psychological fullness, cravin…

It isn't. And how often have you lost weight eating junk food yourself? I have done it...no effect. Satiety doesn't matter...thinking that it does is why people don't lose weight. You will be hungry, it will be unpleasant, but continue. Again, this is the fat person with the diet soda effect...most diets that exist don't work, that is why there are so many fat people. Reduce it to something simple, measurable, and it works. The idea of Good/Bad food is destructive for weight loss because it introduces guilt and complexity.

Also, your basal metabolic rate means you can lose weight eating two medium pizzas a day...again, it is very hard to gain weight the way many people do, it is competitive eating amounts of greed done daily, and very few people have a strong idea of the calories in food...just vague moralising about Good and Bad.

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

#286

Post by kgin » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #181

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…

>I wish we put more emphasis on educating young people about basic cooking and nutrition. More difficult than it sounds. Most people want to eat healthier but when they research it they'll get fad diets and pseudoscience. Just look at Keto, paleo, whole 30, etc.

Nobody wants to talk about the easy, basic stuff. And that fact makes finding the easy, basic stuff really really hard.

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

#287

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 3:58 AM UTC

titzer wrote: post #278

SoSoRoCoCo wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can't believe no one has quoted Michael Pollan yet, but his 7 rules still ring true (see #4 for your question): 1. Don't eat anything your great grandmother wouldn't recognize as food. "When you pick up that box of portable yogurt tubes, or eat something with 15 ingredients you can't pronounce, ask yourself, "What are those things doing there?" Pollan says. 2. Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or in…

> 2. Don’t eat anything with more than five ingredients, or ingredients you can't pronounce. That's dumb. I struggled with "Quinoa." > 4. Don't eat anything that won't eventually rot. "There are exceptions -- honey -- but as a rule, things like Twinkies that never go bad aren't food," Pollan says. That's dumb. Twinkies go bad and popping corn doesn't. > 5. It is not just what you eat but how you eat. "Always leave th…

[deleted]

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

#288

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 4:00 AM UTC

symlinkk wrote: post #164

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…

That’s not remotely true at all. a) Walk into Chipotle, walk out. $10, 10 minutes. b) Prepare a list of ingredients. Go to the grocery store. Find and select those ingredients. Go home. Cook and prepare ingredients. Clean dishes and cookware. $7, 2 hours. Is your time worth so little that you’d spend hours to save $3?

I gotta say, I laughed out loud at your "hours to save $3."

Its honestly the exact response I expect from people who eat at Chipotle.

Even if we assume you never go to the grocery store, making a specific trip to the grocery store instead of Chipotle can likely be assumed to take the same amount of traveling time. And next time you go to Chipotle, think for a moment the complexity of the ingredients your getting. Rice? It's rice. Black beans? You could buy them canned, you won't taste the difference in a bowl. Salsa? You can just buy salsa, it's a dollar or so and lasts ages in the fridge. Cheese is cheese. Lettuce is lettuce. Now all that's left is cooking some chicken breast, your choice how to do it.

If it takes you hours to cook chicken... I don't know how to help you. Perhaps Google how to bake chicken, how to pan fry chicken, how to cook chicken in an instant pot. Literally anything.

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

#289

Post by hogFeast » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 4:02 AM UTC

mike00632 wrote: post #234

hogFeast wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't work. Doing that basically encourages people to lie to you, and poisons the relationship. Everyone trying to lose weight will cheat, and it is often the response to that cheating that determines your ability to continue. By making cheating shameful, you are basically guaranteeing failure (this is a corollary of the idea that places that don't have obesity shame fat people...naturally appealing to places…

I imagine the "you" in this case to be the person losing weight. If I want to lose weight then I'm going make such a commitment and it doesn't really matter who I send the photos to. It's rather just an exercise in documenting what I eat. I'd send the photos to you if you agreed to be my accountabili-buddy.

Again, that works if you assume that you won't fail at any point and/or react poorly to failure. But you will fail at some point, and very few people are determined enough to continue. Investing yourself creates risk.

It is far more effective to take a less judgemental approach, track the things that matter, and do it for yourself...not because you don't want to be shamed (most fat people get a rough ride, shame isn't a long term strategy).

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

#290

Post by ApolloFortyNine » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 4:05 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #276

tartoran wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

As mentioned above, I cook every meal I eat these days (averaging take-out once every 6-8 weeks). Chipotle is still much faster. Cooking chicken takes a minimum of ten minutes, rice is longer, even assuming no prep time and no clean-up.

The thing is, you don't have to stare at the rice as it's cooking.

Unless you live on top of Chipotle it's very likely the time actually invested cooking will be less than traveling to Chipotle and coming home again.

And beyond that, your simply overpaying for a meal that can be made at home. It's a waste of money, you can save it and waste it on something else you couldn't just make at home.