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

71–80 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#71

Post by wpietri »

Sumaso wrote: post #25

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 wh…

I love that you say some anodyne things and then, with no actual facts or reasoning, conclude that the "true issue" is something that fixes blame and dodges the issues raised in the article. And, naturally, is a classic example of the fundamental attribution error at work.

As somebody who has gone over the past decade from no exercise to running 15+ races and is now training for my first triathlon I am happy to say that "will to exercise" is not actually the problem for anybody I know. That certainly wasn't my problem.

The good news is that people actually study this for a living. If you want a readable introduction to the limits and uses of willpower, McGonigal's The Willpower Instinct is a fine place to start understanding why, "Oh, those people are just weak," is a lazy and wrong answer.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#72

Post by NoPiece »

DanBC wrote: post #56
crazygringo wrote: post #30

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…

Take a chicken. Roast it, with vegetables. Include some lightly steamed vegetables. Have some kind of gravy. If you really want it have some kind of honey glazing for the carrots. That's a reasonably healthy meal. Take the same chicken. Take as much meat off it as you can, and sell that as chicken breast etc. Mechanically recover other bits of meat from the carcass. Shape it into a tiny mouthsize bite, with salt and…

Or take the same chicken, cover it in salt, buttermilk, and highly processed white flour, then fry it in duck fat like the New York Times does in this recipe:

http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/good-techn...

Is it conspiracy that they use some of the same techniques as the processed food industry, or is it just those are some of the basic techniques to make food taste good.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#73

Post by kibwen »

"The snack that Dunn was proposing to sell: carrots. Plain, fresh carrots. No added sugar. No creamy sauce or dips. No salt. Just baby carrots, washed, bagged, then sold into the deadly dull produce aisle."

Ha, I've actually been doing this since I was a teenager. It's really fantastic for managing junk food cravings, which arise not because I'm hungry, but because I just like to have something to chew on while I work (especially while programming). A one-pound bag lasts me about three hours and is more-or-less guilt-free.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#74

Post by wpietri »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

Silly: spoonfeeding junk-food CEOs facts about obesity, in the vain hope they'll take their share of responsibility. What, did anybody imagine they didn't know they sell the food equivalent of crack to our kids? They're not idiots; they make money doing this, and are responsible to shareholders.

I can entirely believe that they don't know.

I think they find plenty of other things to think about, and they are so removed from the consequences of their actions that they can easily avoid the truth. They just keep those graphs moving up and to the right, mouth some platitudes about "an appropriate part of a balanced diet", and keep cashing those paychecks.

People can avoid thinking about human costs when they are stepping over bums on the street. I have no doubt that they can do it from the 33rd floor of an office building.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#75

Post by omegaworks »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #47

People want to blame others for their problems. Whether it's junk food, drugs, joblessness, etc. The fact is you can't get fat if you don't consume the calories. Everyone I know who has restricted calories has lost weight. I was 210, and lost 70 lbs by restricting my caloric intake (by eating vegan). I ate sugar during this time. I ate carbs. Every single person I know who's overweight simply eats too much. They also…

The human body has mechanisms for making you Hurt Real Bad when you don't have more calories coming in then going out. Maybe your ancestors had more reliable access to food resources and didn't have to develop these responses. The human population on this planet is incredibly varied. Good for you that you and the people in your social network do well following what you describe as a calorie-restricted diet.

The self-satisfied responses to your N=1 sample size study, just because it validates the commonly accepted nutritional orthodoxy is what makes me fear for the public policies that come out of this debate.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#76

Post by diminoten »

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…

> 12 pounds that had refused to come off previously no matter how much exercise I was doing or how religiously I tracked my caloric intake

This, aside from other potentially valid points you may make, is utter nonsense. The concept of "stubborn weight" simply doesn't make sense.

Your comment as a whole reeks of the pseudoscience that plagues the nutrition field and makes it incredibly difficult to determine fact from fiction when trying to get healthy.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#77

Post by justincormack »

NoPiece wrote: post #72
DanBC wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take a chicken. Roast it, with vegetables. Include some lightly steamed vegetables. Have some kind of gravy. If you really want it have some kind of honey glazing for the carrots. That's a reasonably healthy meal. Take the same chicken. Take as much meat off it as you can, and sell that as chicken breast etc. Mechanically recover other bits of meat from the carcass. Shape it into a tiny mouthsize bite, with salt and…

Or take the same chicken, cover it in salt, buttermilk, and highly processed white flour, then fry it in duck fat like the New York Times does in this recipe: http://dinersjournal.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/good-techn... Is it conspiracy that they use some of the same techniques as the processed food industry, or is it just those are some of the basic techniques to make food taste good.

molecular gastronomy does to some extent end up making junk food sometimes, using the same techniques and ingredients. But not many people can afford to get obese on it.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#78

Post by akurilin »

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…

I think we all share the frustration of research being unable to give us conclusive answers about what works and what doesn't. Seems like good portions of nutritional studies over the past 100 years were either misinterpreted or even influenced by interested parties. We, the consumers, are paying the price.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#79

Post by justincormack »

NoPiece wrote: post #64
enraged_camel wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>One thing that genuinely does refresh is lemonade; I wonder why that hasn't caught up though. When was the last time you saw a lemonade ad?

Lemonade tastes great fresh, but it very noticeably tastes worse when canned/bottled. I think that disparity keeps it from being able to challenge carbonated sodas on a large scale. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WY_JKz9detM

In France you can get citron pressee in any bar, they just take a fresh lemon, ice, water and sugar (mix yourself how you like). Just keep some lemons in the fridge... it takes seconds.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#80

Post by MDS100 »

pvnick wrote: post #63
MDS100 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, you are referring to insulin sensitivity and calorie partitioning. Still depends on genetic makeup (insulin sensitivity can vary 10-fold). P-ratio isn't the same for everyone. So not correct what you are saying (energy does not only go into muscle cells). You can still get fat(ter) with such a diet. Muscle and liver glycogen will be full at some point and more and more fatty acids will be stored in adipocytes.…

Then exercise with weights at high-speed on an empty stomach (empty glycogen supplies) and wait for a couple hours before enjoying your large amount of carbs and protein. Maybe consume some branched chain amino acids to signal to your body not to break down any muscle. You'll enjoy all the benefits of interval training and your body will tap directly into your fat for energy at this point to burn through whatever sma…

Oh dear, intervall training. http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/fat-loss/stead-state-versus...

Spillover can be very significant, regardless of training. It depends on the makeup of the trainee. The body doesn't work like that (first muscle, than fat) for most people. It's a constant flux in and out of the cells and the overall trend over weeks and months matters for your body composition. For that reason muscle gain (as a more advanced trainee) tends to require some with fat gain if you want progress at any decent speed (Leangainers often don't). Why wait for a couple hours btw? There is no magical switch flipped, which prevents fat gain after waiting a bit longer. You probably misunderstood how important some of the processes after a high intensity training session will be for body composition. Read the article above for an explanation.

Depends on caloric density. I have no problem overeating vastly on good ice cream or nuts& dried berries. Easy to get down an additional 3000kcal.

Post reply on HN