Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

news.cornell.edu

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

841–850 of 985 posts

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#841

Post by Der_Einzige »

NoLinkToMe wrote: post #678
SkyPuncher wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Processed foods are much cheaper per calorie than "healthy" options. GLP-1 helped me kick my cravings for junk food, but that just meant I was eating more of the "expensive" stuff. Instead of $0.50 worth of Doritos as a snack, I'm eating $1.50 worth of Greek yogurt and $1.50 worth of fruit.

No this is the most repeated and most incorrect thing in the whole debate about food. More than a billion asians eat nutritious, cheap and calorie-balanced meals every day, unprocessed. Staples like legumes and rice don't cost much and are very nutritious. And supplementing with moderate amounts of seasonal fruits and vegetables and moderate animal protein is still very affordable and healthy. A kilo of (dry) legumes…

You are SO SO wrong if you think ASIANS are not eating processed garbage slop food too.

Please actually go to east asia, go into their markets, and look on their shelves. They have SO much processed crap. Most Asians will gleefully tell you their love of the worst possible instant noodle (i.e. Mama brand) along with American cheese or other slop on top. Asians have the highest food standards when they want to, but their lows are as low as ours are. They love love LOVE spam for gosh sakes!

Also white rice has terrible macros and is why they have crazy rates of Diabetes despite low obesity rates.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#842

Post by amrocha »

cthalupa wrote: post #735
amrocha wrote: post #695

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s how you should live if you want to be healthy. If the place where you live doesn’t allow that, then you’re sacrificing your health to live there. That’s your choice at the end of the day, but don’t make excuses for why you choose to eat garbage all day.

Being able to just up and move to a place that makes it more viable to grocery shop multiple times a week involves a certain level of affluence that a lot of people don't have. It is not a generalizable answer to this problem.

Reality doesn’t care about whether it’s generalizable or not, it only cares about the truth. And the truth is that your suburbs are killing you.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#844

Post by cthalupa »

hare2eternity wrote: post #787
roel_v wrote: post #764

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Kind of tired of people taking anabolic steroids and then claiming it's a smaller part of their success" Sounds like you've never taken steroids brother, and with that mindset you shouldn't, because I'll tell you that no matter how much you shoot into your muscles, if you don't put in the work in the gym, there's no way you're going to get jacked.

That position does not appear to be supported by clinical evidence. [This study]( https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dar.12433 ) references several studies that show that taking low (in the context of gym users) doses of steriods and not exercising is more effective at building muscle mass than strength training and not taking steroids.

Steroids significantly increase glycogen/water retention in-muscle while on them and for a period of time while coming off of them. This would increase muscle size by the measures noted in Bhasin's study (the big one people reference here), but not increase the amount of actual contractile tissue. There's also a cap there - going up in dosage, going for longer, etc., is not going to continually increase overall muscle size at that rate because you've saturated the stores in the muscle for the glycogen and water.

You will gain some additional contractile tissue doing nothing on gear. The average person, if faced with the two options, will gain more actual contractile tissue opting to lift weights without gear.

You can find huge quantities of people in gyms that are on gear and look like they barely lift.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#845

Post by cthalupa »

danielscrubs wrote: post #765
cthalupa wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drugs were a precondition to them being successful in the changes or seeing the level of impact be significantly increased doesn't make it 100% the drugs. Since you brought up steroids, plenty of people take a gram of gear and look like they don't even lift. I'm not saying that someone taking anabolic steroids should act like they've worked just as hard as someone who is natural and at the same level of musculatu…

There are studies on that that showed: Steroids WITHOUT training produced more muscle mass and strength than training without steroids. Bhasin et al., 1996 – New England Journal of Medicine Belgian Blues dont really need to go to the gym, so it’s not really that hard to phantom.

Bhasin's study is fundamentally flawed in that it sampled muscle size while they would still have inflated muscle size from increased glycogen and water retention from the steroid use and didn't use a method of measurement that compensates for it. It is not a direct comparison of contractile tissue, which is presumably what we would care about.

Belgian Blues grow that large because of a mutation with their myostatin gene. This is hardly the same method of action.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#846

Post by cthalupa »

roel_v wrote: post #777
vladvasiliu wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There are valid counterarguments to the overweight values, a lot of women who might be overweight are healthy because different % of fat are acceptable depending on the structure of the body But the BMI takes into account the mass, not the size. Usually women have less lean muscle mass than men, which would mean that for a given size and weight, they'd have more fat, without influencing the BMI. I also think there'…

"a dude like Schwarzenegger is probably well in the overweight category" For illustration, Arnold was 107 kg at 1m88 at his prime, giving him a BMI of 30.3, which is clinically obese. But yeah, LOL at all these people with 130 cm waists going 'BMI is useless'.

BMI still isn't great for fat people. An active fat person is going to have a significant amount of muscle compared to a sedentary fat person at the same body weight - just doing things carrying around that weight will build muscle. Some health markers, this won't matter for - your heart doesn't like pumping blood to a 300lb body, whether that's at 50% BF or 8% - but for a lot it does. Lipids, insulin resistance, etc. are going to be quite different in someone at 40% BF vs. 20% BF at similar weights with similar genetics.

Unfortunately it's not so easy to get a good BF%. BIA scales are probably what most people have access to, either at home or at their local gym, or calipers, but both are very inaccurate at getting totals and at best can help you understand trend directions. There are places to get cheap DEXAs in a lot of cities these days, but not everywhere, and $30 each time you go is still expensive for some people.

BF% and FFMI are both a lot more useful for everyone than BMI.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#847

Post by cthalupa »

amrocha wrote: post #842
cthalupa wrote: post #735

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being able to just up and move to a place that makes it more viable to grocery shop multiple times a week involves a certain level of affluence that a lot of people don't have. It is not a generalizable answer to this problem.

Reality doesn’t care about whether it’s generalizable or not, it only cares about the truth. And the truth is that your suburbs are killing you.

Reality also doesn't care about an answer if it is impractical for a huge number of people. There are a variety of different answers to the problem and you pick the ones that are applicable to you and work from there

Telling someone who can't afford to move to the city that they just need to move the city to solve their health problem is a waste of time for you and them.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#849

Post by t-3 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #817
t-3 wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In Europe you don’t expect your bread to have added sugar, for instance. Were you eating sweet bread meant for coffee or desserts and thinking it was for making a sandwich? Most breads use just enough sugar to rise the yeast. > You also don’t normally expect sweeteners in your meat. Were you eating barbecue, where the sauce is whole point? There is plenty of unsauced meat in the US. Any steakhouse will give you as…

America hides sugar in everything. Plain old white sandwich bread often has loads of added sugar. https://www.businessinsider.com/breads-high-in-sugar-2018-11 Sugar isn’t necessary for bread making. Yeast can break down the starch. That’s what it evolved to do. Flour, water, yeast, salt, done.

> America hides sugar in everything. Plain old white sandwich bread often has loads of added sugar.

It's not hidden, it's on the label, and expected. I just don't buy garbage bread.

> Sugar isn’t necessary for bread making. Yeast can break down the starch. That’s what it evolved to do. Flour, water, yeast, salt, done.

That usually means that malt is added to the flour (most bread flour). You can get breads without added sugar or malt, but you're going to have to go to a bakery that makes their own dough and buys flour without additives, which is getting rarer and rarer.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#850

Post by acuozzo »

bigfishrunning wrote: post #818
acuozzo wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wish I could see you try to tell this to my father when he was working manual labor. I'd pay money. Manual labor which was so grueling that he had sue his company in order to retire early because he could literally no longer walk and required surgery to remove the extreme bowing in his legs. You could come in, look at the latest Creosote burns on his skin, and tell him that something-- anything! --would be better t…

Another commenter twisting my words -- I'm not saying your father shouldn't be allowed to watch football. I'm saying he has other options, and he's not railroaded into only watching football. Also, he should probably quit smoking (unclear if it's too late for that, if so I'm sorry)

> Another commenter twisting my words

Sorry! I wasn't in a great place when I wrote my reply last night. I'd delete it if I could.

Post reply on HN