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

601–610 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#601

Post by paulryanrogers »

dottjt wrote: post #594
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…

Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group? Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby group?

Not all lobby groups are asking for harmful things. But nearly always they act in their own short sighted self interest. Which usually comes at the expense of citizens or the would be customers or competitors.

Which is why sane countries make paying for access and influence illegal.

Re: Eat Real Food

#602

Post by hellcow »

overgard wrote: post #132
HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That sounds more like the fad Atkin's weight loss diet that said you could eat unlimited meat/fat/protein, but no carbs. This new JFK Jr diet has something in common with the Paleo "cave man" diet, which at least makes some sense in the argument ("this is what our bodies have evolved to eat") if not the specifics. I'm not sure where the emphasis on milk/cheese and eggs comes from since this all modern, not hunter-gat…

Eggs are very healthy. There's a lot of nutrients that are hard to get from other sources that eggs have in abundance. And it makes sense in just a common-sense sort of way -- if you're a chicken you want to surround your offspring with the best possible food you can as they grow. With regards to dairy, it's more about a person's individual reaction to it. It's a similar argument with nutrient density (since milk is…

> You need cholesterol.

Your body produces cholesterol naturally, without any meat or dairy. In my case it actually produces way more than I need, even on a vegan diet, because of genetic factors. People should test their LDL and evaluate whether eating cholesterol is healthy _for themselves_ as it’s different for everyone.

Re: Eat Real Food

#603

Post by OJFord »

jayers wrote: post #599
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…

Too many calories is the basic explanation for why American's health sucks. Calories available per person has gone up ~32% since the 1960s (we obviously can't measure calories consumed per person, but supply and demand would dictate these excess calories are going somewhere). It is not clear to me that meat specifically is a problem so much as excess consumption leading to obesity, which then causes chronic health pr…

People are more wasteful now (in times of relative plenty generally) too though, at least I'm sure that's true in the UK.

Re: Eat Real Food

#604

Post by ctoth »

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…

> Interestingly, ~12% of humans in the US are responsible for ~50% of beef consumption.

Go on...

> One limitation of this work is that it was based on 1-day diet recalls, so our results do not represent usual intake[0].

Ah.

[0]: Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates of Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age of Global Warming https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/17/3795

Re: Eat Real Food

#605

Post by sublinear »

baggachipz wrote: post #346
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 -…

> Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible. I can think of one issue here. Ultra-processed foods, candy, and sugary drinks are cheap and shelf-stable. They're cheap because they're subsidized. Fruits and vegetables are more expensive, and they don't last very long. So a person on a very limited SNAP budget will get less food under the new…

> a person on a very limited SNAP budget will get less food under the new restrictions ... make it so that fresh produce and other healthy options are cheaper than the junk food

I'm confused by these statements. How are you deciding to measure the quantity of "food"? If you see food as a means to deliver nutrients, fresh produce is already far cheaper than junk food.

From the perspective of your body, you can sustain yourself much better on a smaller amount of nutrient dense calories than a larger amount of empty ones. Obesity is not merely an overconsumption of calories or a measure of food or body mass.

Re: Eat Real Food

#607

Post by sublinear »

shuntress wrote: post #371
baggachipz wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible. I can think of one issue here. Ultra-processed foods, candy, and sugary drinks are cheap and shelf-stable. They're cheap because they're subsidized. Fruits and vegetables are more expensive, and they don't last very long. So a person on a very limited SNAP budget will get less food under the new…

The actual issue is that "Ultra-Processed" is EXTREMELY broad and vague. For example, hot dogs are ultra-processed. Obviously hot dogs are not the healthiest food but also obviously "franks and beans" is a pretty good meal for a tight budget and is something you should be able to get with SNAP.

Franks and beans are not the best meal on the cheap. Sounds more expensive than cooking fresh and you're missing out on better nutrition.

For the most bang for your buck you want to be eating less expensive real protein like chicken and pork and filling up on salads. Limit carb intake from beans and other starches. Prefer fruit for carbs because it has fiber and vitamins you can't get anywhere else.

Re: Eat Real Food

#608

Post by bilbo0s »

nhumrich wrote: post #590
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

>but is at least closer to truth then [than?] the last corrupted version

I'm pretty sure you did the rhetorical equivalent of looking at a roomful of pregnant high school girls..

.. and declaring one of them to be closest to virginity.

Re: Eat Real Food

#609

Post by kristopolous »

dottjt wrote: post #594
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…

Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group? Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby group?

I'm a realist. All these comments were saying "oh this is good they're doing this for my personal health" and I thought "oh, no no no. That's not how this works..."

Re: Eat Real Food

#610

Post by hiQloIQ »

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…

No reason to believe their numbers either given the shenanigans they have engaged in.

We need to be smart and not knee jerk into feel good memes though. Local gardens and community gardens have higher resource use per acre than large farm ops. Commercial farm infrastructure is far more resilient and lasts longer while consumer gardening gear is cheap and disposable. Consumer gardening gear manufacturers factories burn tons of resources to crank out tons of low quality kit, consumers burn through piles of it. That's not sustainable either.

Plus you really want the average American dumping chemicals in community ground water to grow the biggest pumpkin in the zip code?

Americans need to find common ground on the path forward not fragment into tens of millions of little resource intensive potato farmers

Post reply on HN