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

331–340 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#331

Post by [deleted] »

parl_match wrote: post #241
woodruffw wrote: post #236

Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more beef[2]. A demand for the average American to eat more meat would have to explain, as a baseline, why our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding p…

I'm a weightlifter and as part of my training, I eat pretty close to about a pound of meat a day during bulk, usually about 12-14oz. This is because I need to eat about 200g of protein a day. I supplement it with protein shakes. I find that to be a challenging amount of meat. It's a lot! And to find out that's average ??? Americans eat way too much meat. Cheese, too.

[deleted]

Re: Eat Real Food

#334

Post by sallveburrpi »

sdo72 wrote: post #324

I don't think it's even about low carb vs. high protein to begin with. Many countries and regions in the world are fine with a high-carb diet, and people there live long, healthy lives. Americans eat so much processed food simply because it is much cheaper than fresh food. Processed food is made to get consumers addicted (through convenience, taste, etc.) and encourage them to consume much more. Fresh food is almost…

This should be top comment

When I was visiting the US I was shocked how much more expensive “real” food is. Here I am spending more if I eat out or processed food versus cooking my own food at home. In the US it was basically the inverse, didn’t make any sense to me. (N=1 and 10 year old experience, but it seems to have only gotten more extreme since)

Re: Eat Real Food

#335

Post by bluerooibos »

What a brilliant marketing campaign for the Trump administration to look like they're doing something positive.

Yet, I see absolutely nothing on this website to suggest how they are going to change American diets. Do they think these guidelines don't already exist somewhere?

Re: Eat Real Food

#336

Post by fabbbbb »

max_ wrote: post #321
fabbbbb wrote: post #292

Unfortunately there seems to be no good aligned definition of what (highly) processed food is. 1,2 Whole grain bread or infant formula can be “highly processed” despite very healthy. In the end someone else cooks for you and packages it. They can cook healthy or not or in between, add a lot of salt or little, .. as always it’s more complex. 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1 2 https://www.cambridge…

>Whole grain bread or infant formula are “highly processed” despite very healthy. "processed" and "healthy" are oxymorons. I think it's better to tell people to restrict themselves to "whole foods".

Did you find evidence for your two claims?

You can compose a pretty healthy diet from what’s called “processed” (prepared, cooked and packaged). From the very same pyramid.

Re: Eat Real Food

#337

Post by crims0n »

Havoc wrote: post #315

Think it's telling that all the things shown first and most prominently in their food pyramid just so happen to have massive lobbies. Beef, Egg, Diary & chicken. Doesn't seem terrible but that already makes me very suspicious of the reliability of this

Fish is also right there. They are all high quality, readily available protein sources. It should not be a surprise that they show up so prominently as a recommendation.

Re: Eat Real Food

#338

Post by sallveburrpi »

overgard wrote: post #25

I'm pleasantly surprised, this is actually really good. The reason I'm surprised is because of how corrupt the creation of the previous food pyramid was (the sugar industry likely paid to downplay the danger of sugar[1]) I find when it comes to health advice, generally government sources can't be trusted because there's too much special interests and money involved. You really have to do your own research. [1] https:…

The biggest issue with sugar is that it makes stuff taste better which leads to overeating. Incidentally it’s also the only downside of glutamate, it just makes stuff taste so good you’ll eat much more than your appetite would guide you to

Re: Eat Real Food

#339

Post by bluerooibos »

overgard wrote: post #25

I'm pleasantly surprised, this is actually really good. The reason I'm surprised is because of how corrupt the creation of the previous food pyramid was (the sugar industry likely paid to downplay the danger of sugar[1]) I find when it comes to health advice, generally government sources can't be trusted because there's too much special interests and money involved. You really have to do your own research. [1] https:…

It's a nice website, sure.

But what is this administration actually doing to change American diets? It's going to take a little more than throwing up a marketing landing page with a well produced video and nice photos.

Re: Eat Real Food

#340

Post by malfist »

max_ wrote: post #321
fabbbbb wrote: post #292

Unfortunately there seems to be no good aligned definition of what (highly) processed food is. 1,2 Whole grain bread or infant formula can be “highly processed” despite very healthy. In the end someone else cooks for you and packages it. They can cook healthy or not or in between, add a lot of salt or little, .. as always it’s more complex. 1: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41430-022-01099-1 2 https://www.cambridge…

>Whole grain bread or infant formula are “highly processed” despite very healthy. "processed" and "healthy" are oxymorons. I think it's better to tell people to restrict themselves to "whole foods".

Processed and healthy are not oxymorons.

For one, most all preservation methods are processing, including canning, freezing and drying. You can't possibly claim that frozen or canned veggies are unhealthy

Post reply on HN