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

761–770 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#761

Post by NPC82 »

hiQloIQ wrote: post #610
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 bur…

The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce harvested but the knowledge sowed. Many are federally funded at schools, community centers, or local libraries to serve as outdoor classrooms.

Re: Eat Real Food

#762

Post by bryanrasmussen »

telmo wrote: post #713
stef25 wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.

If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it. We are not amoral automata with grocery-list style utility functions. I have people in my personal sphere that make this sort of argument and it honestly feels like gaslighting. The undercurrent is: "Look, you don't like this guy, I get it. But…

>If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me,

sure, although if tribal differences are always experienced as fundamentally morally repugnant one might think the moral calibration is screwed a bit too tight.

>I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it.

Sure, I do think it is possible that some groups are so morally repugnant that they have absolutely nothing to offer whatsoever. For example that tribe of cave dwelling cannibals in the film The 13th Warrior, man those guys sucked! But the comment seemed more to be about how it is weird that when you find some group does some things that you find morally repugnant then they have nothing they do that can ever be good.

I have lived in places in which I find much of the surrounding culture to have behaviors that I found morally repugnant, or intellectually repugnant for that matter, but even at my most contemptuous of a culture and a people I will at times be forced to admit, honestly, that they have behaviors that can also be considered admirable (in many cultures the repugnant bits are so tightly bound to the admirable bits though I can see how it is difficult not to condemn everything)

Re: Eat Real Food

#763

Post by RagAlgo »

Coffee might be bitter and unpleasant at first, but like vegetables, you'll get used to it over time. Don't just seek out what suits your taste. You can't live like an elementary school student, right? Why not try eating vegetables first before judging what's good or bad? I'm not advocating vegetarianism, though.

Re: Eat Real Food

#764

Post by ap99 »

stef25 wrote: post #692
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…

It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.

This 1000%.

A lot of people in this post need to do some self reflection.

Re: Eat Real Food

#765

Post by pelf »

adaszko wrote: post #751

Just compare this with actual scientific findings and see for yourself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03570-5

For the lazier folk:

> Higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, unsaturated fats, nuts, legumes and low-fat dairy products were linked to greater odds of healthy aging, whereas higher intakes of trans fats, sodium, sugary beverages and red or processed meats (or both) were inversely associated.

Re: Eat Real Food

#766

Post by Knufen »

a3w wrote: post #753
nihakue wrote: post #55

How is it possible that beef, dairy, and chicken are front and center while Lentils, Tofu (or even just soy), Chickpeas, Nutritional Yeast, Broccoli, etc are all left off? Why do they arbitrarily split "protein" and "fruit/veg" given that most/all of the most protein dense foods are vegetables/legumes? Steak is a terrible source of protein (in terms of nutrient density). Immediately pretty suspicious.

Beef and chicken cause cancer. Milk can help in regions with dietary low calories, but is mediocre or bad for fat US citizens. I also found the food shown very misleading.

Beef and chicken does not cause cancer anymore than anything else does. It is an insane take that regular food causes cancer in any level that should be worrisome. Don't cite the studies where they grouped frozen pizza in the same category as beef.

Re: Eat Real Food

#767

Post by WackyFighter »

telmo wrote: post #713
stef25 wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.

If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it. We are not amoral automata with grocery-list style utility functions. I have people in my personal sphere that make this sort of argument and it honestly feels like gaslighting. The undercurrent is: "Look, you don't like this guy, I get it. But…

> If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally morally repugnant to me, I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able to find "something positive" in it.

No it isn't reasonable. In fact it is one of the stupidest things you can do. If you read any history, you will see that failures in military, politics, science etc. (really pick anything) are often due to key people simply refusing to learn from their opponents and/or refusing to adjust to the new reality. Often this is done because they find their opponents morally repugnant, or lacking in some virtue they happen to hold as important.

It is fine if you don't like the current US Administration. However if they do something that happens to be good, it is fine to acknowledge it as such, while still pointing out what else they are doing wrong. Otherwise you just come off as a sore loser and people will stop taking any notice of you.

Re: Eat Real Food

#768

Post by lopis »

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…

The moment I saw whole milk and a huge steak in the intro, I knew this website was not to be trusted.

Re: Eat Real Food

#769

Post by lopis »

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 -…

This is not consistent with multiple doctors over the years recommending eating less meat (specially beef), less cheese. The only part that is consistent with most doctors is the base thesis of eating more whole foods.

Re: Eat Real Food

#770

Post by [deleted] »

ASinclair wrote: post #263
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 the massive emphasis on eating as a part of health. As if eating right is the only thing you need to do to avoid all disease. That putting other substances (e.g. vaccines) in your body will make you unhealthy.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN