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

521–530 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#521

Post by parliament32 »

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.

> most/all of the most protein dense foods are vegetables/legumes

Are you abusing "dense" to mean calories over calories, rather than the expected calories over weight measure? Even a cursory search shows the latter to be untrue. The former is disingenuous, because despite "density", people do not eat kilograms of broccoli daily to hit minimum-viable protein targets.

Re: Eat Real Food

#522

Post by toyetic »

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…

I think this was ( at least in theory ) the goal of the “slop” bowls we’ve seen pop up in the last 15 or so years, chipotle, cava, sweetgreans etc.

Re: Eat Real Food

#523

Post by cons0le »

hairofadog wrote: post #358
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.

The problem in my eyes is that it's performative. They're making this announcement as if they're doing something revolutionary (they're switching the food pyramid diagram around) while at the same time doing so much to damage the health of Americans: dramatically cutting healthcare access, bringing vaccine denialism to the mainstream, holding press conferences in which they wildly assert that nobody should ever take…

Its the same thing with eliminating red40 dye. its a crumb. At the very least they should end corn syrup subsidies. Its telling how people often bring up people buying candy with food stamps, but never trace the source of the problem back to how we subsidize bad food. America has a huge blindspot for corporate welfare

Re: Eat Real Food

#524

Post by tombert »

notatoad wrote: post #354
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.

from what i can tell, most of this is existing stuff that advocates have been trying to push for a while now. i think it's a perfect example of why advocates for any policy should have specific, achievable, and well-documented goals - you never know who might be an ally. politicians don't want to do this sort of detailed work, they're looking for preexisting policy they can champion, and if you're standing there read…

Yeah, I was about to say this.

Even before RFK Jr rubbed his metaphorical nutsack all over our healthcare system, doctors pretty much always told me to eat better. They told me to avoid processed foods, avoid sugar, and focus on fiber and protein.

I don't know why RFK Jr. is getting credit for telling people to eat healthy, especially since some of his recommendations (e.g. telling people to eat french fries if they're fried in beef tallow) are actively bad and will likely lead to people becoming more overweight and less healthy.

Re: Eat Real Food

#525

Post by fluidcruft »

jjkaczor wrote: post #5

Great! How will the reductions in consumer protection, health, FDA, etc. - by this current administration impact that? https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11004-a-2025-timeline-o...

You asking how reductions in protections related to processed food (that already allow ultra processed foods) will affect safety when the new advice is to eat "real food" and seems to emphasize items that are pretty easy to confirm visually?

(I mean besides the fact that the FDA came into existence due to things like selling watered down white paint as "milk")

Re: Eat Real Food

#526

Post by tombert »

elicash wrote: post #419
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:…

This is basically the same as the previous version, the "food plate" that Michelle Obama rolled out in 2011: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/business/03plate.html It's amusing how outraged people were when Michelle Obama did her Let's Move campaign focused on eating healthy and exercise and now people are pretending it's all new. (There was also a version before that, in 2005. The "MyPyramid." That one emphasized…

> It's amusing how outraged people were when Michelle Obama did her Let's Move campaign focused on eating healthy and exercise and now people are pretending it's all new.

It's the same people who got offended because Obama asked for spicy mustard because they thought that was too fancy, but still actively voted for the guy who actively plates everything with gold so as to maximize how tacky everything looks.

They've never been internally consistent and I'm not entirely convinced that they have any principles outside of "own the libs".

Re: Eat Real Food

#527

Post by xp84 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #422
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…

Interestingly, ~12% of humans in the US are responsible for ~50% of beef consumption. > The US is the biggest consumer of beef in the world, but, according to new research, it’s actually a small percentage of people who are doing most of the eating. A recent study shows that on any given day, just 12% of people in the US account for half of all beef consumed in the US. > Men and people between the ages of 50 and 65 w…

[flagged]

Re: Eat Real Food

#528

Post by doug-moen »

This is Trump's MAGA diet, a replacement for the lame liberal DEI diet of the Biden administration. Not hyperbole, the web site states all this explicitly if you click through to this link: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf>

The Scientific Report mentions Trump 4 times, so I looked up Trump's diet. Seems he eats a lot of McDonalds takeout and drinks a lot of diet coke. It seems to me that Trump's diet is an exemplary and healthy diet that follows these new recommendations, which prioritizes foods such as beef, oils and animal fat (including full fat dairy) and potatoes. Cheeseburger and fries, and the diet coke avoids added sugar, while promoting hydration. Trump might be prickly about past criticism of his diet; now he can point to these recommendations.

Re: Eat Real Food

#529

Post by burnt-resistor »

Drink raw milk, get antibiotic-resistant e. coli, salmonella, and/or listeria.

Cooking is processing. Pasteurization is processing. Not all processing is "bad".

To be consistent with their supposed "values", then they have to end subsidies for field corn, wheat, and soy and subsidize organic produce. That will never happen because these are lifestyle influencers playing bureaucrat when they don't know anything.

Re: Eat Real Food

#530

Post by loeg »

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…

"Last century" is a big piece of that, surely. As recently as 50 years ago, obesity rates were quite low (and risk of hunger among the poor was, you know, more real than it is today).
Post reply on HN