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

371–380 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#371

Post by shuntress »

baggachipz wrote: post #346
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 -…

> Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible. I can think of one issue here. Ultra-processed foods, candy, and sugary drinks are cheap and shelf-stable. They're cheap because they're subsidized. Fruits and vegetables are more expensive, and they don't last very long. So a person on a very limited SNAP budget will get less food under the new…

The actual issue is that "Ultra-Processed" is EXTREMELY broad and vague.

For example, hot dogs are ultra-processed. Obviously hot dogs are not the healthiest food but also obviously "franks and beans" is a pretty good meal for a tight budget and is something you should be able to get with SNAP.

Re: Eat Real Food

#372

Post by nradov »

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.

I guess it's a matter of perspective and what you're used to. Some indigenous North American peoples used to subsist largely on bison for at least part of the year and often consumed 5 pounds or more of meat and other animal products per day. Was that too much?

Re: Eat Real Food

#373

Post by [deleted] »

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".

[deleted]

Re: Eat Real Food

#375

Post by addisonl »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #309
dyauspitr wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot of red meat is probably one angle I can’t get behind. They are very high in cholesterol and triglycerides which are deadly for the heart over the long haul.

Is pretty clear that eating cholesterol doesn't lead to higher blood cholesterol. It just doesn't matter.

Its actually not "pretty clear"—about 25-30% of people are hyper responders who are impacted by dietary cholesterol.

Re: Eat Real Food

#376

Post by ericd »

woodruffw wrote: post #246
jdlshore wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says 1.2-1.6 grams of protein and healthy fats per kilogram of body weight, from animal and plant sources (including milk). Is that really advocating for more meat?

The implication is that the current food pyramid disproportionately weights against proteins and fats. Assuming that Americans follow the current pyramid (this is a hell of an assumption), then any change to the pyramid that asks them to change their diets in favor of more protein and fat is likely to result in them eating more meat. In reality, I don't think anybody in the US follows the food pyramid religiously. Bu…

As I see it, the point of this new pyramid is not to add more emphasis to meat specifically, but to undo some of the past vilification of fat (note the emphasis on whole milk and full fat dairy), and to move emphasis away from carbs as the basis of the diet. And honestly, I think that's pretty much correct - the low fat movement was a disaster for our collective health, because food manufacturers added more sugar to compensate for the bad effects on taste that that has, and because if you eat a good amount of full fat stuff, there's not nearly as much need to snack between meals.

If you go to Western Europe, they're not drinking lots of skim milk, and if you eat things from the bakeries, there's more butter and not as much low quality vegetable oil or sugar. When my French cousins come here, they find lots of the stuff sold here revoltingly sweet.

Re: Eat Real Food

#377

Post by AstroBen »

woodruffw wrote: post #246
jdlshore wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It says 1.2-1.6 grams of protein and healthy fats per kilogram of body weight, from animal and plant sources (including milk). Is that really advocating for more meat?

The implication is that the current food pyramid disproportionately weights against proteins and fats. Assuming that Americans follow the current pyramid (this is a hell of an assumption), then any change to the pyramid that asks them to change their diets in favor of more protein and fat is likely to result in them eating more meat. In reality, I don't think anybody in the US follows the food pyramid religiously. Bu…

Americans do not follow the food guidelines. It's an absurdly low percentage who do

Re: Eat Real Food

#378

Post by doctorpangloss »

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…

besides being loud in the media and policy, does it matter?

to keep this focused on hacker news. this is like asking the programming community to solve "some intractable social problem," and then sometimes you get an answer, "well, what we need is, a new kind of open source license."

disputes over guidelines and the meaning of highly processed, outside the academic humanities context, is kind of pointless right? if you are talking about cultural influence - you can't coerce people to eat (or not eat) something in this country, so cultural influence is the main lever government can pull regarding food - the answer to everything is, "What does Ja Rule think?" (https://www.okayplayer.com/dave-chappelles-ja-rule-joke-is-h...) that is, what do celebrities say and do? And that's why we're at where we are at, the celebrities are now "running" the HHS.

There's a definition for highly processed food, it's whatever Ja Rule says it is. Are you getting it?

Re: Eat Real Food

#379

Post by malectro »

dazhengca wrote: post #356

Way too much scroll jacking for me to be honest, probably the worst site I’ve seen of their team, but still for government site not bad

Drives me nuts that people still build these in 2026. Scroll animations should only ever be used to supplement existing scrolling. If scrolling is replaced entirely by an arbitrary animation, there's no longer anything to anchor the action, and basic UX feels broken.

Re: Eat Real Food

#380

Post by pstuart »

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.

There remains concerns about saturated fat, especially for those with high cholesterol levels. I recognize that mistakes have been made in the past (low fat diets, fear of salt, etc), but it seems like RFK et al are driven by ideology rather than science.
Post reply on HN