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

581–590 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#581

Post by kristopolous »

Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK...

Here's industry reports

https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm...

https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio...

And straight up lobbying groups

https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline...

https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p...

Lobbying groups, putting out press releases, claiming victory...

Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those.

Just because you might like the results doesn't mean they aren't corrupt as hell

Re: Eat Real Food

#582

Post by dyauspitr »

bsder wrote: post #449
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.

The problem is that when people say "red meat" they're almost always referring to the modern "hamburger-like substance" which almost certainly high on the ultra-processed scale. An actual steak or hamburger ground at a butcher would be a pretty gigantic step up for most people.

No it’s just the contents of regular red meat. But there’s also a genetic component to it. Some people are more negatively affected than others.

Re: Eat Real Food

#583

Post by NewJazz »

kaonwarb wrote: post #224

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.

What other sources do you have besides that one observational study?

Re: Eat Real Food

#584

Post by NewJazz »

CGMthrowaway wrote: post #110
sudobash1 wrote: post #43

> Protein target: 1.2–1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per day. I was amused to see (kilo)grams used for the weights. I'll admit that as an American, I have no idea what my weight is in kilograms. Body weight is something that I always think of in pounds. I do use grams sometimes in food prep, but I think even that makes me a bit of an abnormality around here. Not that I am complaining about their unit choice. I…

Nutrition labels are already in grams. I agree g/lb would be more readable, somebody probably raised their hand though and said "we're mixing system"

More like all the research uses g/kg

Re: Eat Real Food

#585

Post by avazhi »

omgJustTest wrote: post #243
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?

90g of protein, what is recommended for me, is like 4 hamburgers or a 16oz steak per day ...

Nobody said you have to get all your protein from meat…

Re: Eat Real Food

#586

Post by anonzzzies »

parliament32 wrote: post #500
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…

> In the end someone else cooks for you and packages it. I think someone else cooking for you isn't the problem, the problem is at "packages it". Because, when you cook something at home, it's good for a few days to a week -- but food processors effectively always need various additives to keep the food shelf-stable for long enough for it to go factory -> warehouse -> store -> your house -> your meal. There are defin…

4 days... we bake bread from different grains: it's barely edible after 24 hours. But that is how we do it: bake a loaf early morning, eat what we need, give the rest to the animals. Just like my grandparents did.

I don't get the cooking pain or dinner problem anyway nor do I know anyone irl who has that luckily. I hear it online sometimes and then I check their profile and it becomes clear why.

Re: Eat Real Food

#587

Post by gnarlouse »

kristopolous wrote: post #581

Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK... Here's industry reports https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm... https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio... And straight up lobbying groups https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline... https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p... Lobbying groups, putting out press rel…

The irony is Tyson's is an absolutely horrendous organization and ruins food left and right. Not to mention the absurd living conditions for the animals they feed us.

Re: Eat Real Food

#588

Post by danpalmer »

iterance wrote: post #532
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 challe…

+1 – it's all well and good for me to buy just some vegetables this week, because I have a pantry full of hundreds of dollars worth of basics, spices, a herb garden, bulk (more expensive) rice/pasta, etc. I also have a single 9-5 job so can spend an hour each day cooking.

But if I had an empty kitchen, lacked the funds to invest in bulk purchases, and had 30 minutes to cook and eat, I'd be eating very differently.

Re: Eat Real Food

#589

Post by insane_dreamer »

Couldn't agree more that we should be eating minimally processed food -- our family spends money and time to do just that. I'm glad the gov is promoting it more heavily.

But this statement on the home page of that website is preposterous:

"For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized highly processed food,"

What guidance ever suggested eating highly processed food? Other than ads of course, but this implies medical guidance. Doctors, nutritionists etc. have been pushing minimally-processed fruits and veggies and avoiding highly-processed food for decades.

What a horrible attempt to portray this as somehow "new" guidance by a "newly enlightened" leader (aka RFK).

Re: Eat Real Food

#590

Post by nhumrich »

kristopolous wrote: post #581

Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded RFK... Here's industry reports https://www.nationalbeefwire.com/doctors-group-applauds-comm... https://www.wattagnet.com/business-markets/policy-legislatio... And straight up lobbying groups https://www.nationalchickencouncil.org/new-dietary-guideline... https://www.meatinstitute.org/press/recommend-prioritizing-p... Lobbying groups, putting out press rel…

Might be corrupt, but is at least closer to truth then the last corrupted version. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of progress
Post reply on HN