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

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

#301

Post by edmundsauto » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 5:47 AM UTC

whatshisface wrote: post #155

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…

> Honestly, I think the best way to tackle it is not to outright ban the foods, but just add an excise tax. If we added a 10% tax to soft drinks, fries and pizza, it probably wouldn't make a huge difference to the average citizen's spending. It would be a 10% increase in your food budget if that's all you eat though. If you want to go crazy, add a program that lets you earn that back by doing healthy things, like rid…

It has worked to some degree with cigarettes.

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

#302

Post by martamorena918 » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 5:58 AM 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…

This is akin to legalizing all drugs and selling them in every grocery store with huge ads of George Clooney puffing the magic dragon... And then complaining that everyone is an addict.

American food is a drug. And by any comparison much more harmful than alcohol, smoking and weed combined. However try to tell a normal person to eat a healthy diet (aka, don't be an addict) and they will hate you for it. Or actually, let's start with "healthy diet". What does that even mean? The only proven healthy diet I know of is AIP and related diets. However, it takes substantial mental strengths and abstinence from social gatherings to get going. I know, because I am on it. It completely changed my life, why is the only reason I can sell my brain to hate all the "normal" (addictive) food.

The only way to eat healthy is to realize other food is making you sick and let your brain stop yourself from eating it. The other way around it doesn't work. You can't force yourself to eat healthy; you need to fully buy into it and live it and want to eat healthy from the inside out.

To me, this problem is much worse than drug addiction. Drug addiction is frowned upon. Drugs are largely inaccessible, they are expensive and mostly prohibited. You know it's bad to be an addict. You know stronger drugs literally destroy your body.

Bad food on the other hand... All ads want to make you eat it. Your family eats it, your friends eat it, everyone eats it and wants you to eat it. And it destroys your body over decades, making it hard to connect the "old age" at 40 with your eating habits... I guess I am getting old, huh? Let's order some pizza. It is frowned upon to eat healthy. Healthy food is hard to get (you need to cook it yourself). Healthy food is expensive... See some similarities here? There is an inversion. When it comes to food, the drug is the easily accessible, socially accepted product, while the healthy ones are moved to the margins, just like real drugs are. Crazy stuff.

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

#303

Post by joubert » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 6:03 AM UTC

Scheherazade wrote: post #264

Damorian wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bake various types of bread on a weekly basis, and have never seen a recipe that doesn't require sugar or honey. I'm pretty confident it's needed to fuel the yeast for the rising process vs the flour alone.

It’s quite frightening that you’ve never heard of sourdough bread given your baking experience. And as the other replies allude to, it’s quite common historically and in other places. Are baking books edited to exclude that knowledge in America? It really brings to mind the possibility.

C’mon. http://www.bbc.com/travel/story/20200402-why-san-francisco-d...

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

#304

Post by octodog » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 6:34 AM UTC

an_opabinia wrote: post #102

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…

Ultraprocessed is a counter marketing term from the meat and dairy lobby. It is authored in opposition to things like Impossible Burger and Beyond Meat. Nobody uses this term organically, look in Google Trends yourself. It is an obvious and conspicuous marker of a campaign, exactly equivalent to something like “drinkability,” an Anheuser Busch marketing term. This is a market that traditionally derives most of its pr…

What evidence do you have that this is from opposition to Beyond and Impossible?

Yes, it's a new term in the literature, but the fact that it Beyond and Impossible are also newish products is a correlation at best.

Most content online I see that refer to 'ultra-processed' are usually referring to items like potato chips, soft drinks or coloured breakfast cereals.

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

#305

Post by TACIXAT » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 6:43 AM UTC

hoka-one-one wrote: post #238

dota_fanatic wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can resolve this for yourself experimentally. Or just look at the math (pulled from google's nutrition facts): Eat two cups of cooked white rice, ~412 calories, 316 g. A day later with the same starting conditions, eat 316 g of butter, or ~2,265 calories. I bet you're going to feel way more full after eating the same "amount" of butter vs rice. As for 500 calories of rice vs 500 calories of butter, hopefully some…

Wow! So butter is healthier than white rice?

Satiety has nothing to do with health. As well, one is going to affect your blood glucose, and the other might mess with your arteries. It's not such a black and white healthier or not. It also depends on your body, for example, if you are in ketosis you will process that fat differently.

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

#306

Post by car » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 6:49 AM UTC

Anyone interested in science informed nutrition information and advice should check out http://nutritionfacts.org. Great content from Dr. Michael Greger, also author of the bestseller “How Not To Die”. He scours the literature and compiles what he finds into short videos. Totally opened my eyes.

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

#307

Post by vram22 » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:07 AM UTC

jriot wrote: post #142

vram22 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to have missed some words in your second paragraph. What were they? One, I guess, is doctor.

Ah, sorry about that. Edit - Preparing each meal everyday is time consuming but I view it as the best investment in my family's life. We rarely get sick, if so its a day (a cold) when the weather changes. We sleep a solid 8 hours a day, and only go to the doctor for our yearly health check-ups. We also highly active naturally so this factors into it.

Got it, thanks.

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

#308

Post by car » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:12 AM UTC

syntaxing wrote: post #2

I mentioned this before on HN but it still blows my mind how much weight I lost by simply not eating processed food. Thanks to COVID, I cook most of my meals now and I lost a considerable amount of weight even though I didn't cut my portions. I think the biggest problem is that processed food makes me crave food even though I'm not hungry and the stuff used is just so packed in calories (fructose syrup).

Great, this is exactly what has been found in studies. There is a way to eat as much as you want, no calorie-counting, no portion control, just eat. It is well explained by Dr. Greger [1]. It boils down to foods having different energy density since our stomach signals satiety by how full it is. Highly recommend his videos for actionable nutrition info.

[1]https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-best-diet-for-weight-lo...

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

#309

Post by car » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:23 AM UTC

syntaxing wrote: post #57

goda90 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious, what's your cut off point for processed food? Just things that are ready to eat besides fruits and veggies? What about white flour and rice as opposed to whole grains?

I used to eat a lot of quick meals (mainly instant food like instant noodles or mac and cheese and the occasion microwave food). It sounds crazy and purely anecdata, but I found that processed organic stuff tend to have less calories than non organic food. I have started eating the less processed variant of food (brown calrose rice, wheat bread, and steel cut oats) and maybe that has helped(?). But one thing I cannot…

Makes sense, is has to do with how quickly the blood sugar rises after a meal. This is known as glycemic index, which can for instance be defined by the way food was process. An example are instant oatmeal vs. steel cut oats. Great explainer video on this topic [1] (and many many others!).

[1]https://nutritionfacts.org/video/which-is-a-better-breakfast...

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

#310

Post by car » Fri, Dec 18, 2020, 7:39 AM UTC

sg47 wrote: post #180

jasode wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My greenie is not the sweet kind and very simple. The 2 bulk ingredients are kale and tomato. To save time, you can use canned tomatoes (half can of diced tomatoes). Then add for flavor... basil, olive oil, lemon/lime juice. I sometimes add spoonfuls of ground flax seed and hemp. The purpose of olive oil is to add some fat to satiate the appetite and also give it a buttery flavor. The purpose of lemon/lime juice is t…

I'm actually trying to avoid sweet smoothies. So you just add kale, tomato and other ingredients you mentioned? I'm just worried if that much kale will bother my stomach. I'll give it a shot though. Seems like a great breakfast.

The “How Not to Die” cookbook also has some good smoothie recipies.