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

161–170 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#161

Post by SilasX »

lukifer wrote: post #160
SilasX wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogy is a very loose one: I mean more the general incentive to maximize profit to the detriment of customers, going right up to the line, but not over, where they stop paying you.

Sure, but it breaks in that customers don't have to buy from the company that got them hooked -- it drives them to buy from everyone who sells that, not just the initial "pusher".[1]

It's similar to the implausibility of group selection -- doing things for (unrelated) group members doesn't give a differential advantage for the doer's genes, so it tends not to happen. Likewise, techniques that hook you on "sugar-fat foods" ("superstimuli") in general benefit all companies in the market, not just yours.

So I don't think the vendor lock-in model has the same dynamic or is representative of the incentive set that food companies have.

[1] Pushers of illegal drugs have yet another dynamic at play, in which case finding a steady source of the drug is hard, so hooking one user will likely mean they buy from that pusher, not from dealers in general, due to the difficulties of navigating an illegal market.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#162

Post by trentfowler »

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…

I agree with you 100%. However, I gotta say that the bit about pushing to increase Coke consumption on the extremely poor didn't sit right with me.

So they have this model called "drinks and drinkers" which tells them that heavy drinkers are their bread and butter because it is more efficient to get existing users to drink more than it is to find new 'drinkers.' OK, I get that. But how do they use this information? They identify poor people as potential heavy users and start targeting them by aggressively marketing to vulnerable areas and making smaller bottles that cost only 20 cents. Sure they'll have somewhat lower profit percentages but they can make up the difference in volume.

I follow the logic but here is my problem: is hawking the stuff off on Brazilians living in favelas really ok? You could make the case that it's a win/win scenario (Coke gets more money and poor people get Coke for cheaper than water) but the fact that they are being targeted because they are more susceptible to becoming 'heavy users' (read: addicts) seems nefarious to me.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#163

Post by frooxie »

Goladus wrote: post #52
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 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…

Taubes has responded to the wholehealthsource critique (I have not read it, but it was referred to as a "thorough multi-part smack down"):

http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ances...

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#164

Post by vevillas »

If restrict the tone of dicussion to calories, fat, carbs and proteins, it is just not going to work out.

If something has been learned in the last 10 years is that whole foods matter and that you cannot reduce them to their macronutrient profile. Two foods with identical profile yield totally different results.I recommend to read Willet book on eat, drink and be healthy. http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/eat-drink-and-be-healthy-wal...

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#165

Post by wpietri »

aaxe wrote: post #150
wpietri wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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_...

Yes, the opinions of one pop-sci writer are just as well-studied and well-understood as something that has been carefully examined since 1543.

Your jerkiness aside, his reply to that seems clear and cogent. In particular, this seems like a reasonable criticism: http://nusi.org/the-science/review-of-the-literature/

It's not even clear to me that the post you link and his reply are necessarily at odds. A calorie-metering approach and a shift in diet could both be effective weight-loss strategies in that they would be acting at different points in the process and using different resources.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#166

Post by Ixiaus »

enraged_camel wrote: post #41
MDS100 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss). http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle... Regarding fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29…

>> If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat I think the point of the article is that it is easier to overeat processed foods (such as cake) than unprocessed ones (such as potatoes and nuts) because the former are engineered to not trigger your brain's sense of satiety. Aside from that, I'm a bodybuilder and I hold CrossFitters in very low regard - but the commen…

Why the need to jab at people who do CrossFit? Sure, there are people in the mix that coach in ways that damage the body but there are plenty of people/coaches/gyms who focus on building sustainable athleticism (read: not breaking people's bodies).

You're welcome to your own opinion, of course, I can't change that; but what you wrote is just as silly as someone saying that they hold "black/white/asian" people in very low regard.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#168

Post by Goladus »

frooxie wrote: post #163
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…

Taubes has responded to the wholehealthsource critique (I have not read it, but it was referred to as a "thorough multi-part smack down"): http://garytaubes.com/2011/09/catching-up-on-lost-time-ances...

I'll read it, but I'm unfortunately suspicious now. When a response to a piece as thorough and logical as Guyenet's gets called a "smack down," it's almost always full of rhetorical blustering which is highly satisfying to people predisposed to side with the smacker. But anyone with genuine interest in seeing the discussion advance and see where Guyenet's argument breaks down is likely to be disappointed.

Beginning the article with a lengthy, seemingly unrelated narrative (shaggy dog story) is precisely the sort of rhetorical distraction that I am disappointed to see.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#169

Post by Ixiaus »

MDS100 wrote: post #44
MDS100 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh god. What the hell does "clean" mean. That's orthorexic nonsense. Unprocessed foods can be very helpful, but they aren't magically different kcal, If you eat too much potatoes and nuts (instead of cake) you'll still gain the same amount of fat (controlling for fiber and protein energy loss). http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle... Regarding fructose: http://www.alanaragonblog.com/2010/01/29…

@enraged_camel: Yes, agree. Ad lib it's far easier to not overeat. My point being, that "clean" is too vague and misleading. Why not say unprocessed. Agree on the crossfit comment.

Because "unprocessed" means - nothing that's been processed by humans. That means no salt. No ground pepper. Which is obviously silly BUT there are purists in the primal/paleo community that do follow the guidelines of eating unprocessed food.

Is the word "clean" slightly ambiguous? Sure. Is English as a natural language ambiguous? Definitely. I'm not going to go write an entire article about what "clean" means to me then reference said article every time I try to talk about "eating clean".

Your agreement with the above poster about "holding CrossFitters in very low regard" is just as childish as the statement you're agreeing with. How would you feel if I decided to belt out saying (or agreeing) that something you do which can't possibly be represented by any one generalization is something I hold in very low regard?

I'm not about to get my feelings hurt across the internet - but I promise if you do go about your life acting like that you will hurt someone's feelings.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#170

Post by jonnathanson »

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 big issue, addressed in part in the linked article, is that processed foods have been engineered to fool the body's natural hunger and satiety signaling. They've been relentlessly tested and optimized to maximize enjoyment and minimize fullness or desire to stop (this point on the curve being the so-called "bliss point" alluded to in the article).

It's possible, and perhaps likely, that the body treats processed fats very differently from natural fats. But the real crux of the issue is everything the fats come packaged in. In an almond, the fat comes packaged with a lot of fiber, a decent amount of protein, and a host of other nutrients. In a handful of Cheetos, the fat comes packaged with an array of chemicals designed to circumvent satiety signals, plus a lot of salt, sugar, and other goodies thrown in for good measure.

Dietitians like to draw comparisons between, say, the nutritional profile of a single serving of almonds vs. the nutritional profile of a single serving of Cheetos. But who eats just one serving of Cheetos? That's the real issue. It's pretty hard to eat natural foods to excess; it's exceedingly easy to eat artificial foods to excess.

In other words: it's not simply that artificial ingredients, in and of themselves, are bad. It's that artificial ingredients are intentionally combined in ways to increase caloric density and decrease the brain's recognition of said density.

Post reply on HN