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

161–170 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#161

Post by anon291 »

cpursley wrote: post #48
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…

Stick with this list and kick the refined carbs, limit even whole grains and no sugar (including most alcohol) and it's actually difficult to be over 15% body fat even if you overeat all the rest (assuming no hormonal issues, that can throw a wrench into things).

Yes. As someone who's struggled with weight and finally approaching below 20% body fat as a man, I wish this had come out ten years ago. Nothing helped until I switched to this eating plan. It is impossible to overeat actual meat and veggies. (Note the actual meat part, eating processed meats loaded with carbs is not helpful)

Re: Eat Real Food

#162

Post by anon291 »

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 market has clearly moved on, as you've identified, primarily due to bro science. Meanwhile, the medical establishment still thinks protein is going to kill you.

Re: Eat Real Food

#163

Post by tracker1 »

Alupis wrote: post #83
throwfaraway4 wrote: post #3

Makes sense. Now make protein affordable.

Beef may be crazy prices right now, but chicken is still very cheap and very healthy. Chicken breast here in a moderate HCOL area can be found for around $2.50/lb.

Similarly, we usually buy several Turkeys for the deep freezer when they're on sale, I also find pork close to $1/lb a few times a year. Eggs are usually pretty well priced but I tend to prefer pasture raised.

Re: Eat Real Food

#164

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

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.

> The downside of beef isn't the "density" of nutrients: the downside is high saturated fat.

There are other downsides to beef .. such as the batshit crazy use of ecosystems and resources required to produce it at industrial scale.

Got a (beef) cow roaming in your yard, somehow getting by on whatever grows out of the ground? Enjoy your steak! Generating 6x the calories via a water-intensive cover crop to feed the cow so you can eat it later? Just say no.

Re: Eat Real Food

#165

Post by tracker1 »

observationist wrote: post #34
throwfaraway4 wrote: post #3

Makes sense. Now make protein affordable.

The disparity between prices in blue states and red states is bonkers - a 10-15% difference in costs. Under $2.00 per dozen eggs (on sale, ~$3.00 normally, seems to be trending down too?) where I'm at contrasted to $4.00 or higher in big cities. The closer you live to ranches and farms, the cheaper the meat, as well. If you go to farmers and ranchers directly, source your protein well, make a monthly trip out to the…

Ironically, since the pandemic junk foods have gone up in price much higher relative to meat and eggs.

Re: Eat Real Food

#166

Post by tracker1 »

chrsw wrote: post #97

Great. Now let's start replacing fast food places with places that still serve you quickly but serve healthy food. Complete meals of whole foods. One of the problems with the way we live and work is that it's so easy to go for the quick option. If you're working 60+ hours a week or trying to run a busy household, unhealthy food options are really attractive for you because they're so convenient. People generally know…

There's a chain here in Phoenix called "Salad and Go" that's pretty awesome... I'd love to see a fast food place that specializes in breakfast items that include keto bread options and low carb bowls all day.

I'll also get plain beef patties or grilled chicken breasts from misc fast food places in a pinch.

Re: Eat Real Food

#167

Post by tracker1 »

drakythe wrote: post #35

Disregarding comments on the proposed diet (as I am not qualified to comment and it all feels relatively like what I have passively absorbed over the past decade anyway): Why, WHY, does this page act like an Apple marketing page and require so much scrolling??? Thanks. I hate it.

Yeah, I hate the progressive scrolling crap myself too.

Re: Eat Real Food

#168

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

overgard wrote: post #132
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds more like the fad Atkin's weight loss diet that said you could eat unlimited meat/fat/protein, but no carbs. This new JFK Jr diet has something in common with the Paleo "cave man" diet, which at least makes some sense in the argument ("this is what our bodies have evolved to eat") if not the specifics. I'm not sure where the emphasis on milk/cheese and eggs comes from since this all modern, not hunter-gat…

Eggs are very healthy. There's a lot of nutrients that are hard to get from other sources that eggs have in abundance. And it makes sense in just a common-sense sort of way -- if you're a chicken you want to surround your offspring with the best possible food you can as they grow. With regards to dairy, it's more about a person's individual reaction to it. It's a similar argument with nutrient density (since milk is…

There's certainly a difference between modern and ancient grain varieties, but OTOH whole grain bread is basically what fed at least the western world for the last 2000 years - bread was the center of the roman diet and also of the medieval diet, which seems more than long enough (~100 generations - evolution is fast) for this to be the natural "our bodies evolved for this" diet that we should be targeting!

As far as eggs and dairy go, sure they are healthy for who is meant to be consuming them - baby chickens and baby mammals, but that doesn't mean they are good for us in excess.

There have been, and continue to be, so may flip flops in dietary recommendations and what is good/bad for you, that it seems common sense is a better approach. All things in moderation, and indeed look to what our relatively recent ancestors have been eating to get an idea of what our bodies are evolved to eat - whole foods and not processed ones and chemical additives.

Re: Eat Real Food

#169

Post by pimlottc »

knollimar wrote: post #109
pimlottc wrote: post #7

This website is far too complicated, just show a clear, labeled image of the new pyramid. This is designed to scare people, not inform them.

I don't think they have a visually representative pyramid. The guidelines seem at ends with their half baked image imo

There is a pyramid that you can see entirely only at two precise scroll points, but it’s not labeled with any recommended amounts.

Re: Eat Real Food

#170

Post by overgard »

bccdee wrote: post #131
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.…

Yeah, (1) there is no "war on protein," (2) you do not need to eat very much protein unless you are trying to build muscle and you already work out a lot. The normal recommended daily intake for protein is 0.8 g/kg. 1.2-1.6 is silly; that's a recommendation for athletes.¹ Starches have been a dietary staple in pretty much every society forever. Sugars have not. It's silly that they treat grains as a "sometimes" food.…

Starches are basically glucose. They have a massive insulin response -- often even worse than sugar (because you eat starches in a much higher volume since they don't usually taste sweet).

It's very hard to overeat protein naturally. It's very easy to overeat starches and other carbohydrates naturally.

With regard to "processed" food, it's not a great label. I would use this metric: could you conceivably produce this in an average kitchen with the raw materials? If you can, it's probably safe, if you can't, it's probably something you shouldn't eat. For instance, processing often means "partially hydrogenating" a fat, or milling grains into a fine dust and bleaching them. Sometimes chemically produced oils are deodorized, because they would otherwise smell very unpalatable. You generally should not want your food to be bleached or deodorized..

Post reply on HN