The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food • Hacker News Board

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#111

Post by jlees » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

3am wrote: post #18

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…

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…

The article mentions in multiple places the saturated fat content of the junk food, often alongside sodium and sugar content, implying that these are the "bad numbers" to care about.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#112

Post by positr0n » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

fusiongyro wrote: post #105

columbo wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bleh. I may as well respond by bringing up the mother of three who works 12 hour shifts at walmart was expelled from highschool and never had even the most basic idea of food preparation or culinary training. I suppose she should simply 'bootstrap up' like the rest of us did when we were in that situation. Hah, oh that's right, the vast majority here are college educated and in the top 15% of income earners. This get…

I don't think you need to be a top 15% earner to know to stop eating when you're full.

Did you read the article? If so I'd focus in on the "vanishing caloric density" section (and the rest of it too).

Not saying you don't have a good point, but it's not as mindlessly easy as you make it seem.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#113

Post by positr0n » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

diminoten wrote: post #109

randallsquared wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The concept of "stubborn weight" simply doesn't make sense. Except, you know, in practice. There are many potential explanations for why this could happen, but "pretend it doesn't happen" is not one.

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?

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#114

Post by jmj42 » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

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 responsibility thing. I don't know any parent that _want_ their kids eating junk, but fresh fruit and vegetables are actually quite expensive and far more difficult to keep than your average junk snack. That's the hard part: justifying the higher cost and spoilage when you're just barely making the bills.

Most of my childhood was spent right at the government assistance threshold. During the down times, our health increased, and our dit included more fresh fruit and vegetables. During the times above that line, with no assistance, the high cost of fresh produce meant meant that it wasn't around.

So, to answer your question, "Why aren't parents more responsible for their children's health?" Because they can't afford to be. Though there are many factors that contribute to the obesity problem, claiming it's poor parental responsibility is a useless over-simplification.

Btw, I've been parenting for 18 years now. When is it supposed to get hard?

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#115

Post by pvnick » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

davidtanner wrote: post #108

pvnick wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This sounds like a terrible, shoot yourself in the foot idea for the vast majority of weight trainees. Why on earth would you want to make something hellishly hard(weight lifting) even harder with shitty nutrition?

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.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#116

Post by DanBC » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

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.

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 normally have been used for soup.

There are different ratios of fat to meat content - popcorn chicken has a lot more fat, because it has a lot more coating.

Both of them are tasty, but one has been engineered to be maximally tasty at minimal cost.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#117

Post by jlees » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

MDS100 wrote: post #26

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/…

The thermic effect of protein is pretty much negligible, and food restriction has also been shown to not be the obvious explanation in trials where they partitioned out exactly the same amount of food (2000 kcal, I believe) in different ratios to find that the lower-carb apportioning caused the greatest weight loss.

In short, whatever facts anyone wants to bring up, there will always be more that either disprove, or at least throw them into doubt. But your final point is absolutely spot on -- it is absolutely about what works for your health and your situation. I've found low carb, unprocessed (i.e. paleo) with a sprinkling of IF and cycling works great, but I don't intend to be a militant defender of this approach; rather, I absolutely advocate n=1 experimentation, figuring out what works for you, and doing something rather than nothing. Learning about paleo kicked off a huge revelation in terms of my personal health and I want others to discover this joy.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#118

Post by davidtanner » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #115

davidtanner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a terrible, shoot yourself in the foot idea for the vast majority of weight trainees. Why on earth would you want to make something hellishly hard(weight lifting) even harder with shitty nutrition?

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 have heard some good things about fasting and I'm not against it per se. I just think it's a bad idea if you're doing heavy strength training for any purpose, especially fat loss.

If one is trying to loose fat, heavy compound movements + a slight calorie restriction seems like a very effective method. But lifting heavy is hard as hell on a calorie deficit so why not do yourself a favor and have nutrients in your blood during the time you're lifting the weights at the very least.

IMO fasting before lifting seems more likely than not to be counter indicated for the typical novice who is trying to loose fat/get fit.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#119

Post by rdouble » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 6:58 PM UTC

pvnick wrote: post #115

davidtanner wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This sounds like a terrible, shoot yourself in the foot idea for the vast majority of weight trainees. Why on earth would you want to make something hellishly hard(weight lifting) even harder with shitty nutrition?

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.

IF is just the latest broscience fad.

Anything related to nutrition, exercise and sports performance is broscience to a degree.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#120

Post by stdbrouw » Mon, Feb 25, 2013, 7:06 PM UTC

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…

It didn't bother me, though. Most of the article is about attitudes about healthy food in the processed foods industry, and about how that industry is trying to get you to eat more. One or two little mentions about how fat is bad detract very little from the story. It'll take a while to root out 50 years of erronous dietary advice and conventional wisdom.