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

891–900 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#891

Post by overgard »

throwup238 wrote: post #647
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…

> grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those. Agribusiness absolutely makes money off of those. In fact they had a hilariously easy time adapting to the consumer trend because all they had to do to label a cow “free range” or “grass fed” was change the finishing stage to a lower density configuration instead of those abominable feed lots you see along highways. The first two stages, r…

Thanks for the interesting perspective! I'm curious, is the metallic tang because of iron content or somethig else?

Re: Eat Real Food

#892

Post by richwater »

sneak wrote: post #874
jamesnights wrote: post #870

I question the premise. Why would you ask a government what's healthy to eat? That's a question for your doctor, your community, or medical institutions and universities, people who study that kind of thing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Healthy_diet

Nobody asked them. The people who produce certain types of food paid them to shout loudly about it, because many people are used to paying attention to the government when they make loud noises (due to their ability to imprison you or steal your home or outlaw your profession). This is entirely top-down totalitarian shit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gleichschaltung > [T]he secret of propaganda [is to] permeate the…

> This is entirely top-down totalitarian shit.

So since the beginning of time when the government introduced the food pyramid, we've been in a totalitarian regime? This entire comment is so over the top I question if it's meant to be satire.

Re: Eat Real Food

#893

Post by nradov »

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…

That is misinformation. Very few developed nations have socialized healthcare. Many of them do better in terms of universal coverage and cost control but they don't have a single-payer system or force healthcare providers to be government employees. For examples see Germany, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, Israel, etc.

Re: Eat Real Food

#894

Post by KellyCriterion »

doctaj wrote: post #819
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…

When I saw that protein target, I knew there must be shenanigans… 0.5-0.7g per pound is within the range that BODY BUILDERS target for maximum hypertrophy (1g/lb is a myth that wastes peoples money). Eating 4-5 chicken breasts per day is ridiculous for a normal person.

quite off!

You need at least 0.8g / kilo (referring to 0.4g / pound) if you are doing nothing heavy, like walking to the office.

If you do moderate sports, you are hitting 1.0g / kilo immediately.

If you do some more extensive sports, like 3 - 4 days / week in gym, you jumü to 1.2 - 1.4g / kilo.

Bodybuilders are quite above :-))

Regarding the number of chicken breasts - scary for me, Im enough with a half one every second or third day.

There was a great movie about vegan & bodybuilding with known sports people: The Gamechangers - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Game_Changers

Re: Eat Real Food

#895

Post by crat3r »

cies wrote: post #814
lopis wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Milk is very unhealthy, in any quantity. Meat is as well. Maybe organic in small quantities, not too often can help. Fish is problematic as much is contaminated with mercury and other heavy metals (we poisoned the ocean).

So what then do you believe is a healthy diet? Surely eating animal protein on a regular basis is better than having to take a variety of unregulated supplements to stay within a healthy range of essential vitamins and minerals? Animal protein also has the upside of offering a tremendous amount of, well, protein, alongside the necessary vitamins.

Dairy (in certain forms) offers the same benefits.

Re: Eat Real Food

#896

Post by watwut »

woodruffw wrote: post #485
watwut wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

USA is actually healthier then in 1909. Life expectancy was going up the whole time. A whole bunch of malnutritiom related issues and diseases just disappeared. You need to go to much more recent times to get worsening results/predictions.

I wasn't making a claim about the US being either healthier or unhealthier as a whole; I was only observing that annual per capita meat consumption does not trivially track with the benefits claimed on the site. It might, but the evidence is not presented.

> I was only observing that annual per capita meat consumption does not trivially track with the benefits claimed on the site

There was no such observation, just claim going contra observed data. The period you picked does correlate meat consumption going up with health getting better.

You said that meat consumption went up for last century. Then you claimed that "our already positive trend in meat consumption isn't yielding positive outcomes" - except that majority of that period did yielded positive outcomes.

Re: Eat Real Food

#897

Post by davidmurdoch »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #838
xnx wrote: post #835

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range How are these connected to nutrition? The difference in nutrition between a local banana and a non-local banana is ... zero?

because they're a source of local, sustainable, seasonal, and healthy food that isn't peddled by agribusiness lobbies — grassfed beef specifically is leaner, lower in calories, and richer in beneficial nutrients

And costs significantly more money.

Re: Eat Real Food

#898

Post by maerF0x0 »

frutiger wrote: post #650
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…

People who complain about “processed foods” generally have a basic misunderstanding of chemical/biochemical processes and energy gradients or activation energies. Ultimately, everything is highly processed or we’d be eating rocks. The magnificent manufacturing line in animal or even plant cells is one of the most processed things at the finest molecular level that we know!

And yet we find that the foods that most people can intuitively label as "processed" come with lower satiety per calorie, unfavorable effects on blood sugar, and lower micro nutrient density per calorie. There are definitely outliers, but obvious ones are Wonderbread vs Whole grain high fiber breads (like Daves 21 grain or ezekiel bread), American cheese vs Sliced medium cheddar, even things like Sweetened apple sauce vs an Apple, White rice versus brown or "wild rice"

Re: Eat Real Food

#899

Post by boca_honey »

bluerooibos wrote: post #339
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:…

It's a nice website, sure. But what is this administration actually doing to change American diets? It's going to take a little more than throwing up a marketing landing page with a well produced video and nice photos.

You need to read the news, man. The landing page is just a press release. This is a summary of government mandated institutional changes to how food is selected and distributed. This will actually change how millions eat. It is good news.

Re: Eat Real Food

#900

Post by dangus »

Here's the problem: the Republican government is against almost everything that is proven to improve health outcomes.

They are against transit funding, urbanism, bike lanes, etc, and are pro-automobile and pro-car-dependency. Remember when Republicans literally killed high speed rail in Ohio?

They are essentially anti-city almost as a base concept. See all their political jabs at cities like New York, Chicago, and San Francisco. One of the healthiest states in terms of obesity rates, California, is the party's punching bag.

The party is trying to end ACA subsidies and is against universal healthcare and access to preventative care. How will Americans access dieticians and nutritionists if they can't afford private health insurance?

How will Americans eat real food if Republicans decide to hold food stamps hostage every time there is a budget dispute?

Trump himself is known to be anti-exercise on a personal level. [1]

[1] https://nypost.com/2026/01/01/us-news/president-trump-explai...

Post reply on HN