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

The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#21

Post by pvnick »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all , it's that fat makes us fat! The NY Times has even run other articles saying as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really... (by Gary Taubes, whose book "Why We Get Fat" is a must-read.) The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is o…

While you're right that fat in and of itself does not lead to weight gain, it's the combination with sugar that absolutely, 100% leads to weight gain. Sugar and other high glycemic index foods (eg white bread) causes an insulin spike and puts your body into an anabolic, "building" state in which it will assimilate whatever it has lying around. Usually, if you're eating something with high amounts of sugar, it will also have high amounts of fat (ice cream, cookies, etc). Thus you will have a large amount of fatty acids lying around which your body will go ahead and form into droplets to be stored in adipose tissue. That's how you build fat.

However, if you are in a state of muscular stress, such as after weight lifting, and you eat a ton of glucose - notice I said glucose, not sugar, which contains fructose - and you combine this with a moderate amount of protein and little to no fat, you'll have a bunch of amino acids floating around and this insulin spike will cause your muscles to soak up all that protein and become bigger/stronger/both depending on the type of weightlifting you did with no spillover into adipose fat tissue.

It's this very simple metabolic process that people don't get. Everyone gets all worked up on pointing the finger at fat or sugar or whatever, but this is the "secret".

Btw, for anyone looking to lose weight or put on muscle in a healthy way, check out intermittent fasting, specifically the leangains plan.

Source: I'm a biochem major with a six pack

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#24

Post by xefer »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all , it's that fat makes us fat! The NY Times has even run other articles saying as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really... (by Gary Taubes, whose book "Why We Get Fat" is a must-read.) The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is o…

Taubes actually started the mainstream reexamination of fat over 10 years ago with his New York Times Magazine article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?":

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-...

The key point is that it is only very specific varieties of fat that matter for heart disease. It goes in to much more detail than his opinion piece for those looking for more info.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#25

Post by Sumaso »

Out of all of the articles that I've read regarding weight loss, none seem to refute that: lowering calorie intake, and some moderate exercise will result in healthier body.

If you want to reach a certain aesthetic then that's fine, but as far as I know the "obesity problem" is more about a persons health and well being, not being aesthetically pleasing.

So we can sit here and point fingers at what diet is best or whether or not we should cut fats out of our diet, but at the end of the day the true issue is simply people do not have the will to exercise, and they either do not have funds or the will to eat a healthy amount of calories.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#26

Post by MDS100 »

ericabiz wrote: post #7

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all , it's that fat makes us fat! The NY Times has even run other articles saying as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really... (by Gary Taubes, whose book "Why We Get Fat" is a must-read.) The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is o…

You are wrong. Too much energy dense food makes you fat. Fat will make you fat if you overeat (because the fatty acid molecules from your food will be stored in your fat cells). It's not as easy as "more carbs" = obesity epidemic. There are many more factors, most important being inactivity and overconsumption of food. The carbohydrate hypothesis is very clearly Bullshit: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.de/2011/08/carbohydrate-hy...

When people go on a low carb diet they: a. restrict their food intake by restricing their choices (less processed foods if you exclude a massiv part of " b. increase protein intake (protein has a higher thermic effect than any other macronutrient and drastically cuts down total kcal consumption in ad lib feeding trials by reducing appetite)

You can do something similar with a low fat diet (on which another part of the population will feel better - skewed towards more active and leaner people).

Low carb (whatever that means - not clearly defined) isn't a better choice for your health than a mixed diet with a high(er) protein intake. If it works for you: great. But that doesn't mean calories don't count and carbohydrates/insulin cause obesity. Nor that it works for everyone.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#27

Post by MDS100 »

Ixiaus wrote: post #12
joedev wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If "a colorie is a calorie", then why do you single out "eating too many carbs and sugars" as the cause of your occasional weight gain?

A colorie is a calorie (in the sense that a unit of energy is a unit of energy); however, there are some (I don't have science to cite, so I won't say it is factual) people that say fructose is worse for you than glucose (the two monosaccharides). Here's an interesting article you can read: http://www.eatingrules.com/2011/05/introduction-to-sugar/ In this sense, a calorie is not a calorie - but to be precise it's mor…

Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss). http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...

Regarding fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29/the-bitter-truth-ab... http://weightology.net/?p=434

Gluten is extremism overhyped, but sensitivity to it can be a problem.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#28

Post by dfxm12 »

pessimizer wrote: post #13
ams6110 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, they sit around in smoke-filled rooms scheming about how to make kids fatter and fatter. They in fact would like nothing better than if all children died of diabetes before they reach puberty. They do like we all do. Try to develop a product, test it, refine it, in order to sell more of it. One of the common mantras here is that its good to do A/B testing to get better conversion. But when General Mills does it,…

When we do it, it's sometimes evil - see http://darkpatterns.org/ . But we're not poisoning people, even in the worst case. All we can do is screw up the internet.

Food companies aren't poisoning people either. People are poisoning themselves.

You can make the case that these "poisonous" snack foods are so appealing because they are cheap, because the government only gives subsidies to agriculture used in making junk food, but that's a stretch & still assumes there are no other options (like eating healthier or eating less).

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#29

Post by MDS100 »

xefer wrote: post #24
ericabiz wrote: post #7

It amazes me that this article still pushes the agenda that "fat makes us fat." If there's one thing that hasn't proven out at all , it's that fat makes us fat! The NY Times has even run other articles saying as much: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/opinion/sunday/what-really... (by Gary Taubes, whose book "Why We Get Fat" is a must-read.) The problem with "low-fat" processed food in particular is that the fat is o…

Taubes actually started the mainstream reexamination of fat over 10 years ago with his New York Times Magazine article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?": http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-... The key point is that it is only very specific varieties of fat that matter for heart disease. It goes in to much more detail than his opinion piece for those looking for more info.

http://examine.com/faq/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me.html

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#30

Post by crazygringo »

It's so funny how, over the past couple of years, good-tasting food is now a "conspiracy".

When a Michelin chef meticulously constructs a dish to give you pleasure, he's a creative genius whose dedication to his art is applauded.

But when the people behind Snickers do it to give you pleasure, they're nefarious conspirators trying to manipulate you and keep you addicted.

Yes, people who make food are trying to make it taste better, minimize their own costs, and keep you coming back. Why is this suddenly considered "news"?

(I mean, the article is plenty interesting, it's just the sensationalism of calling it "food engineering", "addiction", etc. that bothers me.)

Post reply on HN