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

531–540 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#531

Post by xp84 »

Waterluvian wrote: post #433
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.

I’m pinning the blame for the frustrating animate-while-you-scroll design squarely on RFK.

It actually behaves surprisingly well when you just scroll with the spacebar, as I always do[1].

[1] note: using this method (spacebar to jump one screenful, and shift-spacebar to go back up) on sites that insist on doing the "sTiCkY hEaDeR" idiocy results in losing a line or two on every page, so, I guess, don't get too used to it as it's hard to use today.

Re: Eat Real Food

#532

Post by iterance »

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 -…

Restrictions on SNAP are tricky business. You can't ask someone on SNAP to spend time preparing food. Prepared meals are expensive, often not accessible, and sometimes difficult to prepare for people with certain disabilities. It might seem strange, but I have known people, very poor people, who rely on "foods in bar and drink form" out of necessity. I have known poor people for whom eating fruit is physically challenging.

SNAP changes like this may be better on a population health level, to be sure. On this I have no evidence. But each restriction placed on food for people living in destitution may mean some people go hungry. (And this excludes issues of caloric density.) I would like to see better data, but sadly, there is none.

Re: Eat Real Food

#533

Post by perhapsAnLLM »

The website is beautiful, but I'm so tired of landing pages that require me to scroll for eons to see all the content, chunk by chunk. It's aesthetically gorgeous, but painfully impractical.

Re: Eat Real Food

#534

Post by xp84 »

great_wubwub wrote: post #256
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 man is stark raving bonkers mad in that head-in-the-sand, if-I-ignore-science-then-it-can't-hurt-me way but (and OMG I think I'm going to throw up a little in my mouth even coming close to agreeing with anything that come out of his mouth) isn't that basically what we've been doing with dietary guidelines since the 80s? Like, don't get me wrong, RFK will kill N*10^5, N*10^6 people with his outlook on diseases, bu…

How dare you insult my diet of 7 Sausage McGriddles per day!

Re: Eat Real Food

#536

Post by tombert »

seizethecheese wrote: post #397
ixtli wrote: post #355

Wow thank god it's my fault im sick and i can make personal choices to stop chronic conditions! I was worried it might have something to do with material conditions i live in but also can not control, or worse that i might require medicine! Relatedly its a great thing that "real food" access isn't class-based.

Really strange comment. You're offended by the implication that what we eat may impact our health? Regarding the class comment, sure a access to some food is class based, but pretty much all westerners can afford basic "real food". I know because I've lived on minimum wage and could buy eggs, rice, beans, chicken thigh, etc.

Not the person you're responding to, but the thing that frustrates me isn't that they're saying to eat healthy, but that they're acting like that's the only thing we need to change, while actively deregulating pretty much everything else that also affects health.

Yes, obviously what we eat affects our health, I don't think that's ever been in dispute by any significant number of people (despite what the inbreds who love RFK Jr. seem to think), but part of the frustration is that they're acting that that can solely explain all chronic illnesses, ignoring things like air pollution (which they are actively deregulating).

Oh, also, RFK Jr. telling people to eat at Five Guys because they fry their fries in beef tallow is really dumb and is likely to lead to worse health outcomes.

Re: Eat Real Food

#539

Post by hk1337 »

I really don't like web site designs that take control of things like my mouse wheel. This site isn't just scrolling down, it's advancing the presentation which in most places is moving down.

Re: Eat Real Food

#540

Post by raybb »

Does anyone have a recommendation for a good course to take to learn the basics of nutrition. I've done some very very simple ones from my insurance company for a small incentive but looking for something more serious and rooted in current scientific consensus (which I hear is not always so clear when it comes to nutrition).
Post reply on HN