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

121–130 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#121

Post by pvnick »

davidtanner wrote: post #118
pvnick wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What part of this sounds like shitty nutrition? Fasting is wonderful for your health. I used to do the whole preworkout meal, snack, post-workout shake, all that "bro" science. Now I won't train any other way. If there's one common thread among health enthusiasts, it's stubborn tendencies. Try it before you call it a terrible idea, I think you'd love it.

Well I can see it working for some people, but I think it's very dependent on what sort of workouts you're doing. When I'm doing heavy squats and deads I drink a fuck ton of milk with ice in it during the workout. I find this helps me get through it and makes me feel better. If I'm doing BJJ I'll have a medium/light meal and a glass of water or 2 before hand so I have nutrients but my stomach isn't all bloated. I hav…

Heavy strength training in the vain of powerlifting or something like that with a bunch of potentially dangerous heavy exercises is certainly something you'd want energy for and drinking milk or something like that is probably a good idea. Personally I like a gallon full of water mixed with BCAAs and pure dextrose, but then again I don't really do power lifting much anymore, mostly out of vanity. I tend to think powerlifters have a tendency to look like blobs, and I like Vince Gironda's style of training at least partially for aesthetic appeal, but that's all personal preference of course. So yeah, if you were doing something like starting strength or madcow 5x5 then I'm not sure training on an empty stomach is a great idea, but then again I'm not sure that it isn't. I don't have the necessary data to make such a conclusion.

But I do actually think the average novice would benefit greatly from intermittent fasting because, at the very least, it's far easier to get exactly the right amount of calories and fat/carb/protein distribution with 1-2 large meals than with 10 small meals.

Edit: btw, I misread your name and thought I was talking to the Doctor for a second. I was a little disappointed :P

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#122

Post by 127001brewer »

jmj42 wrote: post #114
127001brewer wrote: post #14

... "As a culture, we’ve become upset by the tobacco companies advertising to children, but we sit idly by while the food companies do the very same thing. ..." Why aren't parents more responsible for their children's health? As a parent myself, I know how damn hard it is for kids to eat anything consistently, especially "healthy" foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. And our kids have snacks in moderation. It…

I've not found it difficult to get my kids (2 teenage daughters) to consistently eat healthy foods. Hell, we can't keep fresh fruits and vegetables in the house. A one pound bag of baby carrots lasts about a week, one pound bunch of bananas: about 3 days, a pint of blue berries: About an hour (blue berries never last long at our house). The list goes on, but that's not the point. I don't think it's really a responsib…

... fresh fruit and vegetables are actually quite expensive and far more difficult to keep than your average junk snack.

Great points - and, besides the expense, even having access to fresh fruits and vegetables can be difficult for some.

Unfortunately, I over-simplified my view, but parents are a huge influence in their kid's behavior and choices. And the analysis of a market changing to be more healthy is not new - Frontline investigated this several years ago:

"The investment analyses -- and there have now been three of them that I'm aware of: one from UBS Warburg, and J.P. Morgan in Great Britain, and another from Morgan Stanley in the United States -- all three of them say the same thing, that if people start losing weight, they're going to have to be eating less. Eating less is going to be bad for business, and it's going to be much worse for some businesses than others, so that if these food companies don't fix their product mixes to make healthier food products, and market them in a way that emphasizes the healthfulness of food products, especially those that are lower in calories, they're going to be left behind in this mass movement towards more healthful eating."[1]

[1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/th...

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#123

Post by stdbrouw »

maxerickson wrote: post #35
3am wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your point is great, but could you elaborate on how you read the article as pushing, "fat makes you fat"? I read it much more as saying that large food companies have developed deep expertise in tuning the quantity of sugar, salt, fat, and texture to make their products bypass our body's natural mechanisms for feeling full. I think if you're reading this through some kind of paleo/non-paleo lens, then you're missing…

It's amazing how much arguing and pontificating there is about subtle effects of dietary composition with little or no mention of massive increases in intake. For example: http://www.usda.gov/factbook/chapter2.pdf Says ~25% increase since the mid 1980s. I do tend to accept the idea that it is better to get excess calories from fat than from simple carbohydrates and sugars, but I don't think any ongoing significant ex…

While that's a good point, things are a little bit more subtle than that. Changes in dietary composition have an effect on satiety and whether or not you experience hunger spikes, and thus can affect intake quite drastically. Two links in the chain of causality.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#124

Post by svachalek »

acheron wrote: post #84

Company finds out what people want and offers to sell it to them: News at 11! Seriously, this hand-wringing is ridiculous. Excellent article here: http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/25/frito-lay-wont-make-yo...

Would you make the same argument about cigarettes? Heroin?

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#125

Post by nicholas73 »

schoper wrote: post #92
Goladus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! Overeating makes us fat. Caloric surplus makes us fat. It's pretty trivial to consume a caloric surplus eating lots of fatty foods. In that sense: fat makes us fat and it's silly to try denying it. It doesn't mean a low-fat diet will make you lose weight, it j…

I'm not too impressed by Stephan Guyenet's article. He is wrong about one of his main points that fat is completely regulated by the brain and that insulin does not cause fat gain. You can Google for photographs of people who have done insulin injections in a single place over many years (rather than moving the injection point around) and see huge fat deposits at the injection site. That has got to be tissue regulati…

I don't see how your example is related. Firstly, Stephan's description of the brain's role is that it regulates both appetite and metabolism. These mechanisms indirectly regulate fat storage.

Insulin of course would cause fat storage, but your example neither eliminates the other mechanisms, nor is a fault in the brain signalling system as it's an local injection. It's unrealistic to expect the system to have such a fine degree of control.

The role of insulin is to remove excess energy and funnel it into fat cells. That is of course why you see the weight gain. But that is only one part of the system.

As for your experiment, I can say it won't work on me - I typically eat until there is no food left, regardless of "fullness". In fact if I were at a buffet I would eat to actual physical fullness. Yet I do not have discomfort and I am still lean enough for me stomach muscles to show. I have stayed the same weight for the last 15 years. Thus, there has to be a regulation system, perhaps as proposed by Stephan.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#126

Post by jcfowler »

schoper wrote: post #92
Goladus wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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! Overeating makes us fat. Caloric surplus makes us fat. It's pretty trivial to consume a caloric surplus eating lots of fatty foods. In that sense: fat makes us fat and it's silly to try denying it. It doesn't mean a low-fat diet will make you lose weight, it j…

I'm not too impressed by Stephan Guyenet's article. He is wrong about one of his main points that fat is completely regulated by the brain and that insulin does not cause fat gain. You can Google for photographs of people who have done insulin injections in a single place over many years (rather than moving the injection point around) and see huge fat deposits at the injection site. That has got to be tissue regulati…

Guyenet literally addresses the issue of fat gain around injection sites in the linked article.

Like you, I am generally not impressed with articles I have not read.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#127

Post by diminoten »

positr0n wrote: post #113
diminoten wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a false implication that it's the body's set of physiological processes that are to blame for the inability of a person to lose weight, when in reality it's a myriad of psychological issues which are really to blame. So yes, in practice, it doesn't make sense.

Are you arguing that losing weight is purely a psychological process with no physiological component?

No?

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#128

Post by 127001brewer »

127001brewer wrote: post #14

... "As a culture, we’ve become upset by the tobacco companies advertising to children, but we sit idly by while the food companies do the very same thing. ..." Why aren't parents more responsible for their children's health? As a parent myself, I know how damn hard it is for kids to eat anything consistently, especially "healthy" foods, such as fresh fruits and vegetables. And our kids have snacks in moderation. It…

Look's like I'm having humble pie for dinner tonight ... hopefully Swanson's.

Our poll used a unique design to get at what is actually happening in the life of a "target child" in each household. We supplemented their responses with more than 800 that came in when we asked parents, through NPR's Facebook page, to describe their own "crunch times."

The most striking finding is that U.S. parents "get it."

When we asked a parent or other principal caregiver in our poll how important it is that their child eats and exercises in a way to maintain a healthy weight, more than 9 in 10 said it was important — and most said it was "very important."

But all too often, there's a disconnect. Despite good intentions, it's not happening. [1]

[1] http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/02/25/172717996/how-cru...

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#129

Post by goostavos »

svachalek wrote: post #124
acheron wrote: post #84

Company finds out what people want and offers to sell it to them: News at 11! Seriously, this hand-wringing is ridiculous. Excellent article here: http://reason.com/archives/2013/02/25/frito-lay-wont-make-yo...

Would you make the same argument about cigarettes? Heroin?

How is that relevant? This discussion is over junk food, a human fuel, a caloric substance.

Are you really asking why chips and snacks are thought of differently than a drug like heroin, or a drug delivery system like a cigarette? I'd say you're playing your hyperbole card a little too strong if so.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#130

Post by schoper »

jcfowler wrote: post #126
schoper wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not too impressed by Stephan Guyenet's article. He is wrong about one of his main points that fat is completely regulated by the brain and that insulin does not cause fat gain. You can Google for photographs of people who have done insulin injections in a single place over many years (rather than moving the injection point around) and see huge fat deposits at the injection site. That has got to be tissue regulati…

Guyenet literally addresses the issue of fat gain around injection sites in the linked article. Like you, I am generally not impressed with articles I have not read.

He addresses it (barely), but not in regards to brain versus tissue regulation, which is the context where I brought it up.

What he says (the injection site issue is "argument #4" in his article):

"cases where insulin levels and/or insulin sensitivity are changing independently of one another, [...] through drugs. This is why they're irrelevant..."

Post reply on HN