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

461–470 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#461

Post by [deleted] »

watwut wrote: post #282
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…

USA is actually healthier then in 1909. Life expectancy was going up the whole time. A whole bunch of malnutritiom related issues and diseases just disappeared. You need to go to much more recent times to get worsening results/predictions.

[deleted]

Re: Eat Real Food

#462

Post by kulahan »

NewJazz wrote: post #444
Aurornis wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US's per capita consumption of meat That number seemed unreal to me, so I looked it up. I think it represents the total pre-processing weight, not the actual meat meat consumption. From Wikipedia: > As an example of the difference, for 2002, when the FAO figure for US per capita meat consumption was 124.48 kg (274 lb 7 oz), the USDA estimate of US per capita loss-adjusted meat consumption was 62.6 kg (138 lb) P…

Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still there you're only really losing water. What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers have gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up so dramatically?

Well if it’s based on weight, and one of the steps is to reduce the weight significantly…

Point being someone eating a couple bags of jerky over a workday would probably count as having eaten literal pounds of beef, despite consumed weight being much lower. Water is noncompressible and makes your stomach full very quickly.

Re: Eat Real Food

#463

Post by rayiner »

mrguyorama wrote: post #453
rayiner wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the key point is the relative ratios of meat versus processed carbs. Right now we have government guidance telling people to eat more processed carbs than meat, and that’s backward. Americans also just need to eat less period, but that’s a separable issue.

>Right now we have government guidance telling people to eat more processed carbs than meat No we don't. Please show me where. Are you claiming the old food pyramid is where? Because Bush jr deprecated that in 2006, and his new, balanced pyramid was again replaced in 2011 by MyPlate, which did not tell you to eat more processed carbs, and was not even a pyramid. Why do so many of you people think that something that…

Okay, I amend my statement to say “we raised an entire generation to think you should eat multiple times as much carbs as protein.”

I learned the 1992 food pyramid in school. I was in college by the time they changed it, and I have no idea what the current one says. When the government undertakes a mass campaign to socialize children into a particular idea that’s what happens.

Re: Eat Real Food

#465

Post by Aurornis »

NewJazz wrote: post #444
Aurornis wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the US's per capita consumption of meat That number seemed unreal to me, so I looked it up. I think it represents the total pre-processing weight, not the actual meat meat consumption. From Wikipedia: > As an example of the difference, for 2002, when the FAO figure for US per capita meat consumption was 124.48 kg (274 lb 7 oz), the USDA estimate of US per capita loss-adjusted meat consumption was 62.6 kg (138 lb) P…

Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still there you're only really losing water. What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers have gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up so dramatically?

> Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still there you're only really losing water.

The problem with the number is that people see it and imagine pounds of meat like they see at the grocery store, but it's measuring pounds of meat that go into the meat processing plant.

> What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers have gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up so dramatically?

No, the two numbers show the ratio.

The "pounds of meat consumed per person" from the FAO is a pre-processed weight.

The pounds of meat consumed per person from the USDA is the end-user weight. It's about half of the FAO number.

Re: Eat Real Food

#466

Post by zahlman »

chrsw wrote: post #97

Great. Now let's start replacing fast food places with places that still serve you quickly but serve healthy food. Complete meals of whole foods. One of the problems with the way we live and work is that it's so easy to go for the quick option. If you're working 60+ hours a week or trying to run a busy household, unhealthy food options are really attractive for you because they're so convenient. People generally know…

Wasn't Panera supposed to be this, before the hyper-caffeinated lemonade scandal at least?

Re: Eat Real Food

#467

Post by zahlman »

lloydatkinson wrote: post #332

Looks like a very good effort, shame some people will disagree with it just because it doesn't match their politics.

Clearly, both political parties are incentivized to provide good scientific information, so that their voters will eat healthy food and their opponents will sabotage themselves. (I joke, but I do wonder just how bad the political climate has gotten. Of course, there are several other competing incentives in this, too.)

Re: Eat Real Food

#468

Post by Aurornis »

Aurornis wrote: post #317
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.

This has been the running theme so far: Big talk to energize the base and make a splash, followed by actual policy implementations that are much more down to earth. Remember all the talk about banning COVID vaccines? In the end they just changed the wording of the federal recommendations and included things like "having a sedentary lifestyle" as one of the vague reasons to get a COVID vaccine. In some states you had…

Too late to edit, but I see I'm getting downvoted.

To clarify, I'm not in support of the actions or the administration. I'm just pointing out that this is becoming a trend where they say one thing but do something milder.

Regarding the NHS: Here's a link showing NHS COVID-19 vaccine eligibility, which is highly restricted relative to the access we enjoy in the United States: https://staustellhealthcare.nhs.uk/surgery-information/news/...

Again, I'm not saying the current system is good or that the NHS has it right, but trying to put it in perspective.

Re: Eat Real Food

#469

Post by giantg2 »

weslleyskah wrote: post #265
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?

This can be an outrageous amount for a normal individual. These proportions are used for bodybuilders and powerlifters. And even then this rule is not perfect because of individual genetics, metabolism rates, activity level, percentage of lean mass, etc. Americans (US citizens) really do eat a lot. What the hell

1.5g/kg for a 90kg person is 135g. You can get almost half that daily need from a chicken breast or a few ounces of fish. Two meals of that and a few non-meat things like rice and beans, lentils, peanut butter, etc and you're set, even towards the higher end of the recommended range. That's doesn't seem outrageous at all.

Re: Eat Real Food

#470

Post by fogzen »

The "Reducing Saturated Fat Below 10% of Energy and Risk of Coronary Heart Disease" research appendix says they purposely excluded any study before 2010. Why? Also they only included randomized-controlled trials that lowered SFA below 10%. Why 10%?
Post reply on HN