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

201–210 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#201

Post by JoeAltmaier »

justincormack wrote: post #81
JoeAltmaier wrote: post #2

Silly: spoonfeeding junk-food CEOs facts about obesity, in the vain hope they'll take their share of responsibility. What, did anybody imagine they didn't know they sell the food equivalent of crack to our kids? They're not idiots; they make money doing this, and are responsible to shareholders.

Responsible to their shareholders to avoid the deluge of lawsuits that will come; it will be like tobacco, you can see the tide turning. That was their chance to change course.

They've had that info on their desks for a decade. They've had a chance every single day to do the right thing.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#202

Post by Goladus »

dredmorbius wrote: post #189
Goladus wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 calori…

Are you really putting a full cup of cream into a serving of cauliflower soup? For your strawberries and cream example, I'm known to have blueberries with cream from time to time. Which ends up typically being a half cup or so of blueberries, and a tablespoon or two of cream. Much more than that is far too much (and that's from someone who's got an appetite).

Your appetite sounds much smaller than mine. But the examples are mostly a waste of time. Either you accept my premise or not, which is:

    You're more likely to get fat eating calorie-dense foods.
There are many mechanisms to regulate calorie intake. The fullness feeling is just one of them. If you are only relying the fullness mechanism to regulate calories and every meal is loaded with high-calorie foods like butter, olive oil, gravy, fatty meat, eggs and the like, odds are higher that you're going to be running a surplus more often than not. And thus: gaining weight.

Yes, not all weight gain is bad and there is more to body composition than weight. But weight was the topic under discussion for this thread.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#203

Post by solarbunny »

pvnick wrote: post #200
solarbunny wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be so kind and elaborate a bit more on your resistance training, especially for 6-pack (repetitions, breathing, technique)? I am also doing great on IF and simply drinking natural goat milk whey before exercise instead of suggested BCAA intake. I can also second on avoiding fructose.

Certainly! First of all, the most important thing for having a visible six-pack is low bodyfat, around 8-9%. Having a strong, defined core is also important, so doing ab exercises such as hanging leg raises and ab wheel rollouts is a good idea. Avoid crunches though because those don't do anything. Read up on hypertrophy as this is how your muscles get bigger. German volume training, vince gironda's 8x8, chad waterbu…

Thank you for your tips! Legs and top was kind of easy for me, but the six-pack had been a mystery. I might look conservative, but I try to avoid "artificial" or unnatural proportions of amino acids that might kick me out of metabolic balance. Possible issues to consider: capillary and tendons getting behind the muscle tissue growth.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#204

Post by epsylon »

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.

Actually, you should stop eating before being full. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hara_hachi_bu

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#205

Post by ptaipale »

kamaal wrote: post #184
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…

Whoa! In my country people who have never been to school or even know what a school is, ordinary farm labor workers or daily wage workers involved in construction work. Or people who work as a push cart vendors or name any low level work(Which probably you don't even know in the US exists) perfectly cook their own food and feed themselves. But somehow in the US you need to go to Stanford to learn how to cook!

Or: in the US (and Europe, and other "developed" countries) you don't have to go to any school at all to learn that whenever you can blame a big company, that trumps any requirement for having sense.

For instance, take http://www.telegraph.co.uk/foodanddrink/foodanddrinknews/921...

You actually need someone to take care of you so that you can't drink 9 litres of Coke per day, and if you do, the Coca-Cola Company is responsible?

I blame consumer protection laws, which have gone too far in some things. (In others, they haven't gone far enough.)

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#206

Post by rickdale »

pvnick wrote: post #200
solarbunny wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you be so kind and elaborate a bit more on your resistance training, especially for 6-pack (repetitions, breathing, technique)? I am also doing great on IF and simply drinking natural goat milk whey before exercise instead of suggested BCAA intake. I can also second on avoiding fructose.

Certainly! First of all, the most important thing for having a visible six-pack is low bodyfat, around 8-9%. Having a strong, defined core is also important, so doing ab exercises such as hanging leg raises and ab wheel rollouts is a good idea. Avoid crunches though because those don't do anything. Read up on hypertrophy as this is how your muscles get bigger. German volume training, vince gironda's 8x8, chad waterbu…

Good stuff man. I am with you 100%.

My only tip for you is that I have a ganja induced munchies addiction and I think that at one point I was eating too much of the shit and not enough of the good stuff. Resulted in terrible stomach pains that landed me in the doctors office with pills to stop my stomach muscles from spasms. Anyways, good luck with your fitness as well.

badapada I'm loving it.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#207

Post by pvnick »

rickdale wrote: post #206
pvnick wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly! First of all, the most important thing for having a visible six-pack is low bodyfat, around 8-9%. Having a strong, defined core is also important, so doing ab exercises such as hanging leg raises and ab wheel rollouts is a good idea. Avoid crunches though because those don't do anything. Read up on hypertrophy as this is how your muscles get bigger. German volume training, vince gironda's 8x8, chad waterbu…

Good stuff man. I am with you 100%. My only tip for you is that I have a ganja induced munchies addiction and I think that at one point I was eating too much of the shit and not enough of the good stuff. Resulted in terrible stomach pains that landed me in the doctors office with pills to stop my stomach muscles from spasms. Anyways, good luck with your fitness as well. badapada I'm loving it.

Funny you mention that, it seems to help with some of my less-appetizing zero fat pig-out sessions ;)

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#208

Post by wpietri »

aaxe wrote: post #182
wpietri wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-meteri…

I'm sorry, I didn't realize I needed to put a disclaimer to hyperbole. Besides his general criticism (which is valid), he doesn't actually address any of the findings of the studies. Aka, cherry-picking.

The hyperbole wasn't the problem. Which you surely know.

Cherry-picking is where you pick the sources that support your case while ignoring the rest. What he did was a sweeping dismissal.

He may be right or wrong; I have no idea. But if you're going to accuse somebody of being an intellectual fraud, you should probably know what you're talking about.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#209

Post by dredmorbius »

Goladus wrote: post #202
dredmorbius wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really putting a full cup of cream into a serving of cauliflower soup? For your strawberries and cream example, I'm known to have blueberries with cream from time to time. Which ends up typically being a half cup or so of blueberries, and a tablespoon or two of cream. Much more than that is far too much (and that's from someone who's got an appetite).

Your appetite sounds much smaller than mine. But the examples are mostly a waste of time. Either you accept my premise or not, which is: You're more likely to get fat eating calorie-dense foods. There are many mechanisms to regulate calorie intake. The fullness feeling is just one of them. If you are only relying the fullness mechanism to regulate calories and every meal is loaded with high-calorie foods like butter,…

I largely don't accept the premise in favor of: you're more likely to get fat eating foods that promote overeating,, and partitioning those calories into fat, while failing to burn off the excess calories.

That's a large part of the salt, sugar, fat trifecta. It stimulates overeating, it spikes insulin at the same time that you're dumping large quantities of fats directly (dietary fat) and indirectly (triglycerides from fructose) into the body, while depressing inclinations toward activity.a

As to my diet, intake typically ranges ~3500-4500 cal/day. I eat consciously and exercise portion control according to my goals.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#210

Post by cbr »

shanev wrote: post #194
Goladus wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paleo isn't the only other option to the "Standard American Diet." Sure it's one answer, but the Paleo fear of agriculture can get a bit extreme. People in the US have been living to healthy ages for a long time despite eating lots of wheat, corn, rice, potatoes, and dairy products.

If you discovered a new species of ape, and wanted to put it in a zoo, what would you feed it? Would you try random things, or would you try to emulate what it ate in the wild? This is what paleo is attempting to do for humans. Agriculture is just a drop in the bucket compared to how long we've been eating an ancestral diet. Modern paleo folk don't fear agriculture. They just want to get back to a system of small, lo…

    small, local, sustainable
How do these relate to paleo?

    Modern wheat is a dwarf variety
    42-chromosome plant that cannot
    grow without human intervention.
Relevance? Why does the chromosome count matter?

And why does size matter? Do you think it's good that modern corn is much larger than ancient corn? Then why would it matter that modern wheat is half the height of the wheat people were growing a century ago? (Though probably still larger than the first domesticated wheat.)

    Hunter-gatheres were stronger and 4 inches
    taller than the farmers that followed.
This is misleading. You mean the farmers that immediately followed, not modern day people. While early farmers were malnourished in many ways your typical American is not.

    Ancient emmer wheat had 28 chromosomes and
    much less gluten than modern wheat.
Rephrased as "modern wheat has much more protein" it has a more positive sound. The pair of words gluten/protein is like calories/energy where you can choose whichever has the connotations you like.

    still produce the lactase enzyme to handle
    dairy, then you're fine.
Isn't that just a fancy way of saying that lactose intolerant people should avoid dairy?

    I believe Steve Jobs' pancreas problems
    were due to his fruitarian diet
You have nowhere near enough information on his health to conclude this.
Post reply on HN