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

221–230 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#221

Post by zahlman »

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…

> Also, the "cholesterol" thing is a very bad thing to focus on. Cholesterol is not bad! You need cholesterol. (What do you think cell membranes are partially composed of?

There is also not a very strong connection between dietary cholesterol and serum levels, anyway.

Re: Eat Real Food

#222

Post by wat10000 »

schmuckonwheels wrote: post #30

Speaking from personal experience, this is consistent with multiple doctors over the years recommending high-protein, low carb diets. (Clarification: low does not mean no carb.) I don't understand people freaking out over this - outside of a purely political reflex - hell hath no fury like taking away nerds' Mountain Dew and Flamin' Hot Cheetos. Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP -…

This department is led by an insane person who constantly says ridiculous things. It's not a "purely political reflex" to have an initial bad reaction to anything he puts out. The fact that this is fairly sensible is quite surprising. I'm sure it won't last, and we'll soon be back to saying Advil causes schizophrenia or whatever the next round of madness is.

Re: Eat Real Food

#223

Post by dachris »

tracker1 wrote: post #129
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.

No vegetable is as protein dense as actual meat in its natural form. Ruminant meat is absolutely one of the best bioavailable forms of a mostly complete amino acid profile, though eggs and dairy is more complete with differing ratios depending on form/feed. As to lentils, tofu, chickpeas etc. They're fine for most people in moderation, but they are also relatively inflammatory and plenty of people have digestive issu…

As you say, in moderation. That also applies to red meat, considering the adverse effects listed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat

Re: Eat Real Food

#226

Post by IncreasePosts »

oulipo2 wrote: post #217
zeroonetwothree wrote: post #191

For all the lunacy of RFK this somehow is actually a really good set of guidelines? Certainly better than the previous version. I didn't expect that to be honest.

Well, it's... what we've been told to do (at least in the rest of the world) for more than a century? Packaged as some "app-like" / "tech-like" website? Pathetic

I don't think there was guidance to avoid ultra processed foods 100 years ago anywhere in the world. I don't believe that concept even existed, let alone was promulgated by health authorities. But I'd lkvd to be proven wrong.

Re: Eat Real Food

#227

Post by KaiserPro »

Sounds like big government getting into people's lives to me.

Snark aside, american food culture is geared towards people working hard manual jobs, rather than desk work. It was fine in the 70/80/90s when people were still doing that kind of job, but times have changed. If you're burning 2k calories at work, you need a high calorie, high salt meal to replenish what you burnt/sweat out.

I would also gently point out that a "balanced" meal is generally better than a protein heavy meal. It also is highly dependent on your genetic makeup. I am much less sensitive to carbs compared to my Indian friend, My family also doesn't have a history of type 2/1 diabetes.

I'm also not sure how this is going to be balanced with farm subsidies.

Re: Eat Real Food

#228

Post by wat10000 »

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…

Common sense says that adults are not embryos and humans are not chickens, so if eggs are nutritious for adult humans, it's more of a happy coincidence.

Re: Eat Real Food

#229

Post by hexbin010 »

drcongo wrote: post #79
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.…

UK supermarkets these days have a high protein version of just about every single product on the shelves. It's bizarre, and I'm guessing something to do with more protein being the advice when you're on GLP-1 drugs. The one that makes me laugh the most is "high protein" peanut butter.

Definitely related to GLP-1 drugs. I've seen people on the Mounjaro sub Reddit advising 1g per POUND of weight. Wtaf

Re: Eat Real Food

#230

Post by dmschulman »

bruceb wrote: post #37
schmuckonwheels wrote: post #30

Speaking from personal experience, this is consistent with multiple doctors over the years recommending high-protein, low carb diets. (Clarification: low does not mean no carb.) I don't understand people freaking out over this - outside of a purely political reflex - hell hath no fury like taking away nerds' Mountain Dew and Flamin' Hot Cheetos. Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP -…

Pure partisan spite. The gov't not spending money on candy and sugary drinks is good. Just like when Michelle Obama pushed for better school lunches.

When Michelle Obama pushed for better school lunches she was excoriated for trying to get healthier foods into the hands of children. Glenn Beck's response was "Get your damn hands off my fries, lady. If I want to be a fat, fat, fatty and shovel French fries all day long, that is my choice!". Seems partisan spite cuts both ways.

I'm glad to see this announcement and despite the leadership in Washington right now I don't think these adjustment will be seen as too controversial by the American public. The recommendations are based on a lot of good nutritional science that's been out there for years, but the buck seems to stop at the conversation around fat.

They went to great lengths to remove the debate around good fat vs bad fat from this discussion. Even reading the report, emphasis is put on the discussion of why we use so many pressed oils in the food chain, but not why we phased lard and shortening out of the American diet.

"Eat real butter" is ostensibly a recommendation presented at the bottom of the webpage, but butter is not a healthy fat. Same with some people's obsession with frying in beef tallow, but the report doesn't want to dig into this distinction for obvious self interested reasons. They even recommend:

> When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options can include butter or beef tallow.

Which is a good recommendation. But no, you don't want to replace olive oil with butter or beef tallow. There's a lot of good nutrition science to back this up, but the report would prefer to not go there. Maybe "eat some butter" is appropriate, but unless the FDA wants to have an honest conversation around HDL and LDL cholesterol and saturated fats, I don't see this inverted pyramid doing too much good for overall population health (besides raising awareness)

Post reply on HN