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

901–910 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#901

Post by maerF0x0 »

The good are things we've known for a while. Most of them result in unintended decrease in calories consumed and resulting weight/fat loss.

- More protein (than the prior RDA of 0.39g/lb) can lead to inadvertent caloric restriction and weight loss, and obesity is driving a large number of negative health outcomes. Also improves lean mass (muscle) retention during weight loss.

- Processed foods have lower satiety per calorie, and hence can lead to the same outcomes described above.

- Most people can benefit from eating more fruit and veggies. (Lots of people who change to vegetarian inadvertently eat significantly fewer calories because the food is not calorie dense)

The one glaring part I have a hard time reconciling is:

- This new Real Food guide seems like it's going to increase people's saturated fat intake, which is not good. DASH/Mediterranean diet seems to be a better model than both the prior and new pyramids.

Re: Eat Real Food

#902

Post by eudamoniac »

This isn't perfect. It is superb though, compared to previous recommendations. Let's take the wins when we get them. This release is closely aligned with the literature.

Re: Eat Real Food

#903

Post by socalgal2 »

Few ingredients is code for white people’s ideas of food.

Example: Curry has and average of 10-15 ingredients. Malaysian 15-20. Thai: 15–20. China: 10–16. Indonesia: 20–25. Mexican Moles 20-30. Etc…..

note: I expect this is unintentional. The authors of the new recommendations think more ingredients = processed. But it still ends up being an accidental judgement against other cultures.

Indonesia — 20–25

Malaysia — 15–20

Thailand — 15–20

India — 12–18

Mexico — 12–18

Ethiopia — 14–18

China — 10–16

Vietnam — 10–16

Morocco — 10–15

South Korea — 10–15

Italy — 4–7

Japan — 5–8

France — 6–9

Spain — 5–9

Greece — 6–10

United Kingdom — 5–9

Germany — 5–9

Austria — 5–9

Switzerland — 5–9

Re: Eat Real Food

#904

Post by [deleted] »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #817
throwup238 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I appreciate the depth of your responses in this thread. I feel frustrated to see so many nitpicky comments on your responses, but I appreciate that you address them anyway.

[deleted]

Re: Eat Real Food

#905

Post by jollyllama »

nonethewiser wrote: post #887
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…

IDK man, this sounds pretty common sense: >Eating real food means choosing foods that are whole or minimally processed and recognizable as food. These foods are prepared with few ingredients and without added sugars, industrial oils, artificial flavors, or preservatives.

Meh, I would note that the Tyson-supported definition of "real chicken" is not one without antibiotics and growth hormones, let alone a free-range heritage breed. This would have been the standard for a "real chicken" a few human generations ago.

Re: Eat Real Food

#906

Post by shuntress »

imperio59 wrote: post #684
shuntress wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible The issue is that "Ultra-Processed" does not mean "candy and sugary drinks" and even "sugary drinks" is overly broad. Can SNAP pay for sugar-free Coke but not classic coke? What about Gatorade? SNAP already had reasonable restrictions. This very much feels like a "middle management style" project.…

Sugar free coke is not as bad as sugar-ful Coke but it's still bad. Many of the cheap sweeteners have been linked to cancer. They still fuck with the brain and hormones and make you want salty foods and/or more sweet tasting things. So yea, how about drinking water as your primary source of hydration? If you are poor, the last thing you need is Diabetes, Cancer, Hypertension, Cardiovascular disease, etc. The problem…

There is not a huge amount of fraud with SNAP and obviously what fraud does exist should be investigated, resolved, and prevented.

You are proposing eliminating fraud by eliminating the system. "You can't have failing tests if you have no tests"

Re: Eat Real Food

#907

Post by magicalhippo »

dml2135 wrote: post #886
tzs wrote: post #700

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Here's some things you won't find in any of the documents, including the PDFs at the bottom: community gardens, local food, farmers markets, grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make money with those. Are those relevant to addressing America's national diet deficiencies? None of them are currently anywhere big enough to make a practical difference to most people. Also most of the health problems wi…

I think it's less about that farmer's market produce being healthier, and more about it being tastier. I've encountered plenty of people saying things like "I don't like tomatoes" when it turns out all they've eaten are pale, out-of-season tomatoes from the supermarket. A big part of getting people to eat better is educating them about seasonality and what good produce should taste like, so that they end up actually…

A farm by our cottage had a sign out last year, selling vegetables. We bought some cauliflower and had it for dinner. It was supposed to be a side dish but it was so darn good I don't even remember the main dish.

Later I got some vegetables from a friend who had grown them at a local allotment garden. Made some vegetable soup with them and I swear it's one of the best meals I've had, and I've had some real nice meals.

Flavor in each case was so far beyond what I can get in the grocery stores here it's hardly comparable.

Re: Eat Real Food

#908

Post by gradientsrneat »

I've seen ultra-processed food mentioned in other countries as well. It's a buzzword with no meaning.

Pasteurization saves lives. Flash-frozen foods retain more nutrition in transit, while freezing seafood kills parasites. And even the best bread and butter are as processed as food can get.

I'm reading the "chemical additives" list and it's a mix of obviously harmful things with known safe things added in trace concentrations - there's no intellectual rigor and a lot of fearmomgering.

Re: Eat Real Food

#909

Post by HelloMcFly »

Hnrobert42 wrote: post #817
throwup238 wrote: post #647

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I appreciate the depth of your responses in this thread. I feel frustrated to see so many nitpicky comments on your responses, but I appreciate that you address them anyway.

One non-nitpicky critique of the parent you replied to: under USDA labeling rules, a product may only be labeled “grass-fed” if the producer can substantiate that cattle were fed a 100% forage diet after weaning. Feeding grain, including corn during finishing, disqualifies the claim. While there is no standalone statute banning grain feeding, labeling grain-fed beef as “grass-fed” would be considered false or misleading and is not permitted by USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service.

Re: Eat Real Food

#910

Post by aziaziazi »

reissbaker wrote: post #133
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 has ~3x more protein per gram than legumes. It is much more protein-dense than vegetables or legumes. Similarly, it's a "complete" protein, whereas most vegetables and legumes are missing necessary amino acids. The downside of beef isn't the "density" of nutrients: the downside is high saturated fat. Chicken breast, though, is similarly high in protein without the saturated fat downside.

> Beef has ~3x more protein per gram than legumes

   - Chicken: 27/100g
   - Beef: 31g/100g
   - Hemp: 32g/100g
   - Pumpkin: 33g/100g
   - Soy: 36g/100g
   - Seitan: 75g/100g
Missing amino acids isn't a problem IRL as people tends to eat different stuff.

Eating only one type of food is not good for your health, whether it is a plant or animal product.

Post reply on HN