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

Eat Real Food

realfood.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#141

Post by Alcor »

diath wrote: post #105
isoprophlex wrote: post #21

let me first post a shallow, obligatory complaint about the unreadability of this submission due to egregious scrolljacking. for those interested without getting angered by weird scroll behavior, see below. too bad there's such a focus on animal protein/products, which isn't all that good if you want to design a world-wide society of billions of people that's going to last into the next 1000 years. seems like at leas…

> too bad there's such a focus on animal protein/products, Non-animal protein sources (like soy and beans) have very poor bioavailability.

I've heard this claim repeated a lot, in the case of soy "very poor" just doesn't seem supported by the data and more importantly in a real world setting one particular protein source lacking a specific amino acid doesn't matter as much because it is mostly not consumed in isolation.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171741/

Re: Eat Real Food

#142

Post by nihakue »

samiv wrote: post #94
nihakue wrote: post #55

How is it possible that beef, dairy, and chicken are front and center while Lentils, Tofu (or even just soy), Chickpeas, Nutritional Yeast, Broccoli, etc are all left off? Why do they arbitrarily split "protein" and "fruit/veg" given that most/all of the most protein dense foods are vegetables/legumes? Steak is a terrible source of protein (in terms of nutrient density). Immediately pretty suspicious.

Steak is actually an excellent source of protein (and fat, if you get the fattier steak as you should). Just because vegetables, lentils or nuts contain protein it doesn't mean it's the same/equivalent to the protein in an animal product. Meat is actually super easy for humans to digest and it has no downsides to it. All vegetables on the other side contain plenty of anti-nutrients such as folate and oxalates. Everyt…

It's a good point, and maybe Broccoli isn't then as compelling as something like tofu, which contains nearly as much (and nearly as bio available) protein/calorie as lean steak.

I guess I'd challenge the 'no downsides' claim. Few people stick to super lean grass-fed cuts, and the picture on the site is even a ribeye steak :P

The protein density (g/kcal) of a ribeye steak is basically the same as tofu (I think like 14g/100kcal vs 11g/100kcal in tofu)

I know I'm moving the goal posts slightly (I admit I didn't know about bio availability, and see now that I have more to read up on e.g. Broccoli), but am learning as I discuss rather than arguing a fixed point.

Re: Eat Real Food

#143

Post by tracker1 »

reissbaker wrote: post #133
nihakue wrote: post #55

How is it possible that beef, dairy, and chicken are front and center while Lentils, Tofu (or even just soy), Chickpeas, Nutritional Yeast, Broccoli, etc are all left off? Why do they arbitrarily split "protein" and "fruit/veg" given that most/all of the most protein dense foods are vegetables/legumes? Steak is a terrible source of protein (in terms of nutrient density). Immediately pretty suspicious.

Beef has ~3x more protein per gram than legumes. It is much more protein-dense than vegetables or legumes. Similarly, it's a "complete" protein, whereas most vegetables and legumes are missing necessary amino acids. The downside of beef isn't the "density" of nutrients: the downside is high saturated fat. Chicken breast, though, is similarly high in protein without the saturated fat downside.

Worth noting that like amino acids there are essential fatty acids as well, and most people have poor nutrition there... red meat isn't "only" saturated fat, but a fairly balanced fatty acid profile. You can have too much, but in moderate cuts it isn't too bad.

I usually suggest around 0.5g fat to 1g protein as a minimal, higher if keto/carnivore.

Re: Eat Real Food

#144

Post by SirMaster »

pengaru wrote: post #117
FumblingBear wrote: post #42

Moderately amused at the quote "We are ending the war on protein." In my experience, every single brand in recent years has been coalescing around the idea of making protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein are in items, etc. I'm not opposed, as protein seems to be a good target to prioritize, but claiming there's a war on protein just seems so out of touch to the point of absurdity.…

The irony is everyone already seems obsessed with protein these days, which I guess plays nicely with meat lovers / producers. The last thing Americans need is more encouragement on the protein front IMO. Suddenly everyone thinks they're a body builder when it comes to food. The few friends I've known were attempting ketogenic diets over the years kept focusing on the protein side when the actual diet is supposed to…

I mean protein does fill you up faster and better with fewer calories which is good for weight loss or management.

Re: Eat Real Food

#145

Post by orwin »

tracker1 wrote: post #61
FumblingBear wrote: post #42

Moderately amused at the quote "We are ending the war on protein." In my experience, every single brand in recent years has been coalescing around the idea of making protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein are in items, etc. I'm not opposed, as protein seems to be a good target to prioritize, but claiming there's a war on protein just seems so out of touch to the point of absurdity.…

[flagged]

> On the flip side, I firmly believe a lot of the issues that we are having societally with regards to hormone imbalance, mental health and fertility issues really comes down to insufficient intake of essential fatty acids which include some saturated fats.

Why werent those issues in the late 19th century? We certainly ate very, very little meat and didn't have any fertility issues.

I'm saying that, but even nowadays, the countries with the highest fertility are those where people eat the less meat.

Re: Eat Real Food

#146

Post by aworks »

opinion3k wrote: post #128

it's great to recommend these things but if you're poor and live in a food desert, it doesn't address the actual issues that prevent people from eating healthier: money, living in an area where the bodega or wal-mart are your only food options, corporate interests that want us to eat ultra-processed foods, not having the time or ability to cook, and many more I'm sure.

I was roaming around the rural Western US last year.

If I saw that there was a Walmart in town, I perked up. Consistent, low-priced and large number of grocery items. Likely better than an unknown, variable, often poorly stocked local grocery (or worse, groceries at a gas station/convenience store).

I also liked seeing the economic diversity of customers that I wouldn't see at home.

In larger cities, I'll choose other groceries if I can for better selection, if not better prices.

Of course, except for maybe Sprouts, all the places I shop emphasize ultra-processed corporte interests.

Re: Eat Real Food

#147

Post by NickC25 »

mcswell wrote: post #80
galoisscobi wrote: post #9

Ironic that a steak is one of the three things showing up on the landing page. Is that the beef lobby money coming in? I enjoy an occasional steak but if the goal is to improve diet of masses, it’s not the food I’d put at the center.

If Lysenko Jr wants us all to eat steaks, he should get to work on either eliminating ticks, or creating a cure for alphagal (alpha galactose) allergy transmitted by many ticks. I've had to stop eating beef (my wife gives me a little bite of her steak once in awhile), along with lamb and pork (pork seems to be less of a problem than beef, but I still have to eat it in moderation). In case you're not familiar with thi…

>he should get to work on either eliminating ticks, or creating a cure for alphagal

Or he should just lobby to make high quality, lean, grass-fed steaks cheaper so everyone who wants to consume them can consume them. It's not currently cheap.

Re: Eat Real Food

#148

Post by tracker1 »

cpursley wrote: post #125
diath wrote: post #100

Fish, lean beef, chicken, eggs, kefir, milk, cheese, rice, potatoes, EVOO, fruit and vegetables is all you need for peak athletic performance and optimal hormonal profile.

Kefir is amazing! My breakfast is now a Kefir shake with a half a ripe banana (those two work together), handful of frozen quality strawberries or blueberries, scoop of no-sugar added peanut butter and a pinch of salt. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir If you're stateside, you can buy it at Publix and other groceries: https://www.publix.com/pd/lifeway-lifeway-original-plain-kef... What is EVOO btw?

Extra Virgin Olive Oil... a mono-unsaturated fatty acid blend that's one of the healthier minimally processed oils. Not great for medium to high heat cooking. Avocado oil has a similar nutritional profile and can tolerate a bit higher heat. If you are doing anything resembling frying or higher heat cooking you're likely better off with a more saturated fat option, tallow/lard.

Re: Eat Real Food

#149

Post by tracker1 »

sudobash1 wrote: post #43

> Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. I was amused to see (kilo)grams used for the weights. I'll admit that as an American, I have no idea what my weight is in kilograms. Body weight is something that I always think of in pounds. I do use grams sometimes in food prep, but I think even that makes me a bit of an abnormality around here. Not that I am complaining about their unit choice. I…

There are 2.2lb in 1jg... practically, just cut the amount in half (0.6-0.8g per lb of lean body weight). I say lean body weight as if you are overweight the target isn't the same.

Re: Eat Real Food

#150

Post by overgard »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #114
overgard wrote: post #25

I'm pleasantly surprised, this is actually really good. The reason I'm surprised is because of how corrupt the creation of the previous food pyramid was (the sugar industry likely paid to downplay the danger of sugar[1]) I find when it comes to health advice, generally government sources can't be trusted because there's too much special interests and money involved. You really have to do your own research. [1] https:…

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/dyor-do-your-own-...

Unfortunately it's pay-walled so I can't read it, I can only react to the headline. But yes, of course with "do your own research" it's "not that simple", but any student of history should know that you should have a very healthy skepticism of any official or mainstream source. For some reason we think in modernity that we've gotten everything right, and it's only in the past that the official explanations were wrong. My money is on the experts being wrong about a lot of things in this era too.
Post reply on HN