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

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#631

Post by erulabs »

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…

The people who got offended at the 2011 campaign are not the same people who are offended at this 2025 campaign. In the united states, if you do anything, someone, somewhere, will be offended. That's kind of our whole shtick.

Re: Eat Real Food

#634

Post by staticassertion »

This site is infuriating. The information seems banal and better than the previous pyramid, though flawed.

It is quite stupid to say that the US is sick because of processed food while ignoring poverty, education, and insurance. The messaging should not include that but what can you expect?

Re: Eat Real Food

#635

Post by tylervigen »

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.

Better than which one? I don't think it's really an improvement over either the exercise slice pyramid nor the "choose my plate" recommendation. It is better than the popular one from the 90s though, sure.

https://www.familyconsumersciences.com/2011/06/usda-food-pyr...

Re: Eat Real Food

#637

Post by 2001zhaozhao »

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…

I think "highly processed foods are bad" is best seen as a general rule and no more than that. However, it is a good general rule and following it is probably the easiest way for people to eat healthy.

In general, the more processing steps involved, the more things companies can do to make the food more delicious, cheaper to produce, etc., at the expense of customers' health. There is also a significant correlation between "highly processed food" and "contains way too much refined grains and oil".

However, it's absolutely possible to process the food heavily and add lots of ingredients and still maintain a healthy food if you actually care about the customer's wellbeing. It would just result in a product that is less competitive in the short term, so companies have little to no incentive to do it.

Re: Eat Real Food

#638

Post by zarzavat »

staticassertion wrote: post #636
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 is framing this as "most americans are sick" and blaming it on diet.

40% of the population is obese. The framing seems on point to me. The actual advice is less so. Even more red meat is not the solution.

Re: Eat Real Food

#639

Post by stubish »

weslleyskah wrote: post #265
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?

This can be an outrageous amount for a normal individual. These proportions are used for bodybuilders and powerlifters. And even then this rule is not perfect because of individual genetics, metabolism rates, activity level, percentage of lean mass, etc. Americans (US citizens) really do eat a lot. What the hell

And here I am thinking that 50-100g of protein per day for an elderly person was way too low.

But here we have the problems with the numbers and why they should only be guidelines. Consumption of protein needs to increase as you get old (into the range we consider for athletes). And basing consumption on body weight is stupid, because telling an obese person they need to eat twice as much protein as a non-obese person is probably wrong.

Post reply on HN