Live data from Hacker News

Eat Real Food

realfood.gov

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#571

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.

Sure. Give him a participation trophy. Assuming the guidelines aren't just to promote favored industries like meat production.

Re: Eat Real Food

#572

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 -…

> I don't understand people freaking out over this

Personally I'm not a fan of any diet that recommends high meat consumption and I say that as someone who eats everything.

Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10 to 1 factor.

While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and pollution caused by cattle. Even focusing on CO2 emissions by industry avoids the elephant of the room of the insane levels of methane produced by cows, a gas that's 200 times more harmful.

There is little evidence that a meat heavy diet is good for people, but there's plenty of evidence of the contrary.

So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for freedom, there has to be also some kind of consciousness into how do we use the resources on this planet, and diet is by far more impactful than the transport of choice.

Re: Eat Real Food

#573

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.

It was a low bar. The previous nutrition guidelines were garbage for generations

Which ones? The guidelines this replaced were "half your plate should be fruits and vegetables, the other half protein and grains (at least half of which should be whole grains)." That's not way different from this.

There are differences: the previous guidelines are very down on saturated fat, for example. But I feel like a lot of people are imagining that this is replacing the old food pyramid with the huge grain section at the bottom bigger than everything else, when that's been gone for over a decade.

Realistically I don't think these guidelines really have much effect at all, except maybe things like school lunch programs that may be downstream of them.

Re: Eat Real Food

#574
post #561

Are these protein guidelines legit? I’m 200lbs (I’m tall) so they’re recommending 100-150g of protein per day. That feels like a lot…

Definitely. I'm 235lbs atm, and eating 183g of protein a day. It's pretty easy if your lunch/dinner is protein based.

https://help.macrofactorapp.com/en/articles/83-how-much-prot...

Re: Eat Real Food

#575
This is the only good idea that has or probably will come out of this administration, and it’s still flawed:

- Despite folic acid in processed foods causing ADD and other problems in those with MTHFR mutations like me, folic acid does help prevent birth defects.

- The U.S. doesn’t produce, transport, or store sufficient quantities of organic fresh food to feed the entire country, nor would schools all have access to it.

Re: Eat Real Food

#576
post #506

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's absolutely no need for the average American to eat more protein, we are eating more protein than ever and health outcomes are not improving. Likewise, the dairy intake recommendation is not backed by any science whatsoever.

When I went as a kid with my parents to the US, there was this 'milk, it does a body good' commercial playing all the time. While in my country there was already talk that it really doesn't do a body good. Not sure what it ended up with, but we definitely never had the kind of gallons of milk in the fridge and grabbing cartons when you want something to drink.

Re: Eat Real Food

#577

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…

There’s a restaurant in Las Vegas, the Heart Attack Grill, which sarcastically plays on this trope. > It has become internationally famous for embracing and promoting an unhealthy diet of incredibly large hamburgers. Customers are referred to as "patients," orders as "prescriptions," and the waitresses as "nurses." All those who weigh over 350 pounds are invited to unlimited free food provided they weigh themselves o…

A must visit, though I have no idea how anyone could possibly get past the single bypass...

Re: Eat Real Food

#578

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

My understanding is that it adds a complex layer of regulation where one did not previously exist. Large retailers and grocers have the systems that can accurately track this. (Essentially: does your POS have the ability to sync with the Federally Approved Foods For Poors list or not.)

Smaller convenience stores (more common in places where poor people live) are less likely to have the resources be able to comply. Rather than get sanctioned for accidentally selling a Gatorade on SNAP, they will simply pull out of SNAP altogether. This means that even the non-sugary foods they have will no longer be available to people on SNAP.

The net effect is expected to be to remove SNAP purchasing ability from entire geographies. I understand the effect is expected to be most pronounced in rural and dense urban areas.

Re: Eat Real Food

#579

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…

So the data is skewed by burgers georg who eats 3,000 Big Macs each day?

Re: Eat Real Food

#580

I appreciate the nod to whole milk, which has been repeatedly shown to be associated with _lower_ obesity in children. E.g. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31851302/ , many other studies.

I appreciate the nod to whole milk because 'lite' milk is, well, Nick Offerman said it best as Ron from Parks and Recreation: "There's only one thing I hate more than lying: Skim milk. Which is water that's lying about being milk"

You know that character is a joke, right?
Post reply on HN