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

141–150 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#141

Post by NoPiece »

DanBC wrote: post #116
NoPiece wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are a couple of differences. Look at that recipe - you have big bits of meat, with bones, and some salt / fat coating. You take a bite, and you chew it, and then you have to fiddle about getting bits off the bone. Popcorn chicken is tiny. You pop one in, and you're reaching for the next one as you're chewing the first. The recipe uses big bits of chicken. Popcorn chicken uses the bits of the carcass that would…

Those are good points. The confluence of maximally tasty and minimal cost can leads to very unhealthy food. I just don't like the intent that is implied when the article uses inflammatory phrases like science of addiction or designed to addict.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#142

Post by will_work4tears »

BlackJack wrote: post #135
scythe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are two things that come to mind when we ask if dietary fat causes obesity. First: fat and carbohydrates sum to literally all of food . The caloric value of protein is (essentially) negligible. What is certainly the case is that we can point to people who are fat (preferred term) on a low-fat diet. We can point to people who are fat on a fat-intermediate diet (rough balance of fat/carbs). Can we find many peopl…

The caloric value of protein is (essentially) negligible. In what sense? Protein gets you about 4 cal/g like carbohydrates. I agree that the amount of protein we ingest is much smaller than the amount of carbs, but certainly not negligible.

Not the person making the claim, but it's more like 3g with TEF taken into effect, and combine that with the satiating effects of protein, it isn't very likely that people are going to eat 2000+ calories of protein. Even if you consume it in vast quantities like many bodybuilders, 300g of protein is only 1200 calories, ignoring TEF. Eat 1200 calories of protein and see how hungry you are for even more.

Not quite "negligible" but food for thought. (pun intended)

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#143

Post by SilasX »

lukifer wrote: post #70
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…

Engineering food to be "addictive" is no different than vendor lock-in. It's either a normal result of incentives, or a sinister Borg plot, depending on your perspective/narrative.

So when you start eating Snickers, that locks your stomach into not accepting Mr. Goodbar until a long "upgrade"?

I think there's a big difference from standard vendor lock-in, in that many different companies provide similar junk food.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#144

Post by grhino »

dreamdu5t wrote: post #133
omegaworks wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-…

The science is pretty basic. It's the law of thermodynamics. Your body can't magically create fat or other weight from calories you don't have.

The number of calories are measured in a food using a bomb calorimeter can be different from how many calories of the digested food are available for use to the human body. Also, some foods require more energy to be broken down. Some foods can trigger secondary effects that change behavior which could alter metabolism.

Now, I think those secondary considerations have a small impact on overall calorie consumption. For just about any food, a calorie measured by a bomb calorimeter is probably just about a calorie available to move the body, maintain the body, or stored in fat for later.

The body is a tough thing to study objectively.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#145

Post by Goladus »

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…

Try making cream of cauliflower soup tonight, one with skim milk and the other with heavy cream. Measure how many spoonfuls of each that you can eat before getting full.

The important question is not how many spoonfulls it's, how many calories?

1 cup of skim milk is 86 calories. 1 cup of heavy cream is 821 calories.

Let's imagine something a little more simple than cauliflower soup: strawberries and cream. 50 calories of strawberries + 1/2 cup of heavy cream would be 460 calories. An easy, common dessert. You could also eat those 50 calories of strawberries along with 5 cups of skim milk. Or maybe eat a whole pound of strawberries (150 calories) and only need 3.6 cups of skim milk. Or maybe 50 cals of strawberries, 100 calories of shortcake, and 3.6 cups of skim milk.

Which eater is more likely to overshoot their ideal caloric intake by a bit? Which eater is more likely to stop eating the moment they get full?

The brain isn't fooled, but it doesn't have to be. The person who gorged on the shortcake knows they overate, but they still took on more calories than they're going to burn. And of course-- if the brain can be fooled, being fooled by high-calorie foods is going to be worse than being fooled by low-calorie foods, on average. Which is more likely to result in a calorie surplus: Salt on your mashed potatoes or salt on your buttered, cheese-smothered mashed potatoes?

That is why I listed calorie-dense foods as #1. Without understanding caloric density, it's very hard for anyone to know (without outside guidance) when or how they are being fooled.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#146

Post by greatzebu »

goostavos wrote: post #129
svachalek wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's no bright line between food and drugs. Alcohol is a caloric substance, and also an addictive one. That's not to say that we shouldn't distinguish between potato chips and heroin, but it's not clear to me that foods are unproblematic by virtue of the fact that they're foods.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#147

Post by Goladus »

scythe wrote: post #132
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…

There are two things that come to mind when we ask if dietary fat causes obesity. First: fat and carbohydrates sum to literally all of food . The caloric value of protein is (essentially) negligible. What is certainly the case is that we can point to people who are fat (preferred term) on a low-fat diet. We can point to people who are fat on a fat-intermediate diet (rough balance of fat/carbs). Can we find many peopl…

The main issue I have with the paleo example and banning of processed foods is that it neglects to explain people who can eat processed foods in moderate quantities without getting fat.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#148

Post by Goladus »

shanev wrote: post #138
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…

The truth is, you guys are both right. The only people I know who think obesity is complex are the people who still believe in calories in = calories out. Calories DO matter, but only at a certain point. Fat only makes you fat if you are also consuming a huge amount of calories. But in that case, anything can make you fat, including carbs and protein. If you stick to a paleo/primal diet, it's very hard to get fat bec…

The only people I know who think obesity is complex

Do you think obesity is not complex?

You'll probably be skinny fat

Probably? What if you are not? Do you just not count those people?

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#150

Post by aaxe »

wpietri wrote: post #85
aaxe wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taubes is a dogmatic cherry-picker.

Perhaps you could provide some, I don't know, facts or reasoning or something?

May as well provide evidence on the earth revolving around the sun.

But here you go: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/12edbj/im_gary_taubes_...

Post reply on HN