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

211–219 of 219 posts

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#211

Post by akurilin »

MDS100 wrote: post #86
akurilin wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we all share the frustration of research being unable to give us conclusive answers about what works and what doesn't. Seems like good portions of nutritional studies over the past 100 years were either misinterpreted or even influenced by interested parties. We, the consumers, are paying the price.

Oh we do have answers on many questions. Just not 100% sure, because detailed experiments on humans are kind of hard to get through the ethic committee. Reading the available Pop science books/articles on nutrition however will probably just confuse people than help them. What kind of questions do you have?

Well, as someone who has read some of the intermittent fasting, paleo and low-carb literature (including all of Taubes' monster tome GCBC) over the years, I continuously run into people pointing to articles (and perhaps studies?) of how all of the conclusions of these authors are incorrect and so we shouldn't believe the hype despite the dozens of pages of scientific references that some of these text propose.

I basically don't know who's right and who's wrong anymore, because everybody claims that everybody else has an agenda or is being intentionally misleading.

Having eaten paleo for several years and done low carb, keto, zig-zag and all that jazz under expert supervision, I still don't know if at the end of the day I'm killing myself. The chain of events that leads to atherosclerosis seems to be very poorly and inconsistently understood by mainstream medicine, and you hear vastly different interpretations of what your lipid panel numbers actually signify for your long-term health.

That's where my frustration is coming from.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#212

Post by wutbrodo »

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…

That's quite the red herring. The same argument could be applied regarding children smoking cigarettes, but I presume* that you don't think that the doors should be thrown wide open to kid-focused tobacco advertising because parents should be "more responsible for their children's health".

You do realize that you're saying "tough shit" to the children too, right? You know, those whose outcomes are the whole point of these discussions? They're ultimately the ones who have to deal with the consequences the most, and for some reason dismissing their stake in this with "you should have thought about that before you decided to have irresponsible parents" doesn't seem to hold much water.

Note that I'm not making a point for or against regulation of advertising unhealthy foods to children, but dismissing the comparison to tobacco with "parents should be responsible" is beyond silly.

*If my assumption is wrong and you are actually in favor of completely allowing the advertisement of tobacco to kids, then never mind, disregard this comment.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#213

Post by Bjuukia »

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…

Fresh raw milk (plain milk or cultured products) will have the enzymes intact, so everyone sould be able to tolerate it. Pasteurizing milk destroys the enzymes, making it difficult to digest.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#214

Post by vannijain »

mhb wrote: post #32

Mediterranean Diet Can Cut Heart Disease, Study Finds: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/health/mediterranean-diet-...

Mediterranean diet benefits overall health of an individual. A major advantage of Mediterranean diet is that it is heart healthy. Read more.. http://goo.gl/JM9xi

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#215

Post by wpietri »

dfxm12 wrote: post #28
pessimizer wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When we do it, it's sometimes evil - see http://darkpatterns.org/ . But we're not poisoning people, even in the worst case. All we can do is screw up the internet.

Food companies aren't poisoning people either. People are poisoning themselves. You can make the case that these "poisonous" snack foods are so appealing because they are cheap, because the government only gives subsidies to agriculture used in making junk food, but that's a stretch & still assumes there are no other options (like eating healthier or eating less).

Your implied intellectual model here is that people are entirely in control of their actions and are (or at least can be) perfectly rational about them.

That's far from the truth. These junk food brands spend enormous amount of money on advertising, product placement, and other ways to influence consumers. Why? Because it works to manipulate them.

See, for example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cognitive_biases http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_economics

Or talk to anybody who works in mass-market advertising. Or hell, just visit Vegas. If people were rational actors, Las Vegas would still just be a place where the Hoover Dam workers lived.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#216

Post by Goladus »

jonnathanson wrote: post #170
scythe wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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.

I think that, in many cases, no extra chemicals are even necessary. Salt, sugar, fat in the right ratios and right texture is all it takes. Moisture and fiber content may also make a difference.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#217

Post by Goladus »

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…

Sure you can sustain yourself on grains, but why would you do that when you can thrive on paleo?

Grains are cheaper.

Grains are more efficient to eat, especially on a regular basis.

Grains taste good.

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#218

Post by Goladus »

dredmorbius wrote: post #209
Goladus wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I largely don't accept the premise in favor of: you're more likely to get fat eating foods that promote overeating

My argument is that the factors are not mutually exclusive.

Huh and yeah, 4000 calories per day would constitute an absolutely enormous intake, consistent with a professional athlete (marathon runner, NFL linebacker, etc).

Re: The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food

#219

Post by dredmorbius »

Goladus wrote: post #218
dredmorbius wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

I largely don't accept the premise in favor of: you're more likely to get fat eating foods that promote overeating My argument is that the factors are not mutually exclusive. Huh and yeah, 4000 calories per day would constitute an absolutely enormous intake, consistent with a professional athlete (marathon runner, NFL linebacker, etc).

Male, 6'2", 250#, athletic, weightlifting and rowing.
Post reply on HN