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

921–930 of 985 posts

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#921

Post by wqaatwt »

speleding wrote: post #807
DrBazza wrote: post #752

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The American shopping experience is weird as well. There's a spectrum of supermarkets. Versus the UK, any US supermarket I've ever visited (I lived there for a couple of years) seemed to have far less fresh food, especially vegetables and fruit, but stuff in boxes was piled high. Then again, the UK vs. Spain or France is weird, by the same metric, they have even more fresh food than us in supermarkets, and much less…

The difference can be explained in large part by urban design: many US shoppers need a car to drive to the supermarket and only go there once a week or less. In Europe you live much closer to a supermarket, so you go more often and get more fresh food and less frozen or canned. Some Americans are surprised to learn that many supermarkets inside cities do not even provide parking, everyone walks or bikes there. People…

> In Europe

Isn’t a monolithic place. I don’t think there is a non micro-state country in Europe where the absolute majority of people don’t commute by car.

Living outside of dense urban areas without a car is still generally tricky. In quite a few cities there are no large supermarkets in the densest parts and you have to drive further from the center to find one. So not having a car might be tricky

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#922

Post by wqaatwt »

phil21 wrote: post #901
HeyLaughingBoy wrote: post #876

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes no sense. If the average American can drive to the supermarket, they're even more likely to go more often than if they had to walk.

Eh, this is just not proven true by observing what people do though. When I lived in Europe for a couple months, my first time there I grocery shopped like an American - filled up an entire cart with a week or two worth of groceries and then everyone stared at me when I checked out. It's absolutely true that Europeans who live in walkable cities go to the market to pick up groceries a few times a week. Americans simp…

You seem to be talking about a small subset of Europe. I’m sure people in New York have rather different lifestyles than many other Americans.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#923

Post by accidentallfact »

sfn42 wrote: post #813
accidentallfact wrote: post #804

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also cites a study which says that the average loss is 5%. That isn't what most people imagine as "highly effective". Weight also doesn't tell the whole story. The people don't get any better, they get (more) starved in addition to staying obese. It's a disease with another cause, hunger is only a symptom. Too much money has been wasted on proving and "educating" people that it's just overeating, while there is an…

This is a load of bullshit man. Even the article you linked describes lying to his friends' parents to get a second dinner, being unable to have just one cookie etc. The only way to get fat is to eat too much and anyone who really eats too much will get fat. There's a huge amount of people who simply lie or are ignorant about their food intake. Fat people falsely claiming they hardly eat anything but can't lose weigh…

Let's say there is a new discovery tomorrow - there is a virus that lives in your mitochondria, and makes them unable to produce energy. We can make a vaccine against it, and nobody will ever get fat.

Would you be against the vaccine?

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#924

Post by spiderfarmer »

rjdj377dhabsn wrote: post #685
SkyPuncher wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The options are there, but it can be exhausting to actually find them. There are far too many products that try to position themselves as "healthy", but are closer to the rest of the crap on the shelves than actual "healthy" food. Even more frustrating is the insane amount of food now using sugar replacements to masquerade as a healthy option. I personally, find it exhausting to shop at new stores because it can take…

That's fair. If one follows the path of least resistance, you'll end up eating crap.

...in the USA. On the path of least resistance in Europe, you can still eat healthy. And you don't have to take the car.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#925

Post by NoLinkToMe »

sgwizdak wrote: post #814
NoLinkToMe wrote: post #689

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wdym you were eating healthy for a decade and still obese? How does that work. A diet where you eat to obesity isn't healthy. And how did surpressing your hunger via GLP-1 drugs (a pure change to a more healthy diet for you) lead to big changes, if you apparently already had such a healthy diet. Seems to me your diet was unhealthy for a decade and now isn't.

Think of it this way - once you're in a state of obesity, resolving that situation is quite difficult. Eating healthy may not be enough, particularly if there are other metabolic issues going on. The imbalance of fat to muscle leads to insulin resistance. Insulin resistance gets in the way of weight loss. After a long time of trying other means, I decided to directly tackle the insulin resistance problem. And it's be…

Agreed, but thermodynamics (calorie in/out) still holds. If you actually eat healthy (say 2500 calories), you will lose weight if you're obese and need >3000 to maintain weight, period.

Sustaining that healthy diet is harder insulin resistance, agreed!

But you said you ate healthy for a decade. To me that's not eating obesity-maintenance level amounts of otherwise healthy foods, but rather eating healthy foods at a normal (say 2500 kcal daily) amount.

In other words, under your statement the behavioral impact of insulin resistance was already overcome, you were eating properly, and still didn't lose weight. And that's just not conform the science, which states that you lose weight even with high insulin resistance, as long as you're eating healthy (i.e. in a caloric deficit vis-a-vis obesity level maintenance).

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#926

Post by NoLinkToMe »

blell wrote: post #748
NoLinkToMe wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is the kind of thing that looks good on paper but then breaks down when you try it. If you are seriously comparing the attractiveness of “legumes” (what legume and recipe is that?) with the attractiveness of Doritos I don’t know what to tell you. If you cook something that is nearly as attractive as ultra processed foods, the price skyrockets.

Eh there was no comparison at all in attractiveness, but purely in price per calorie / nutrition. I don't see the issue in the comparison?

OP said processed foods are cheaper per calorie than healthy, i.e. eating healthy is more expensive and more difficult.

Nothing at all was said about 'processed foods are more tasty, thus eating healthy is more difficulty', so I didn't reply to it.

Then OP provided Doritos as an example. And I countered by showing that the worlds staple foods eaten by billions, non-processed, are much cheaper than eating processed foods like Doritos example OP gave. That's all.

Now as for your point on taste: try eating a nice daal at your local Indian restaurant and tell me you'd rather eat bags of doritos every day for breakfast, lunch or dinner. If you prefer Doritos then I don't know what to tell YOU.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#927

Post by NoLinkToMe »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #841
NoLinkToMe wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

> You are SO SO wrong if you think

I don't.

> Please actually go to east asia

I'm posting from east-Asia.

I know Asians also eat crap. That's why I said 1 billion, not 5 billion Asians eat nutritious staple foods.

> Also white rice

I didn't mention white rice. -- Not a great staple, but even if I had to play devil's advocate for rice, it's easy competition against doritos.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#928

Post by NoLinkToMe »

firstplacelast wrote: post #872
NoLinkToMe wrote: post #678

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

From a US perspective at least, you are right but also wrong. Like yes, it's cheaper to buy raw potatoes and dried beans and cook healthy food vs. ultra-processed "junk food." However, when most people attempt to eat healthy they do not opt for dried beans and potatoes every day. There is a huge time cost to preparing those ingredients. And anecdotally, when I am eating healthier I am opting for a larger range of ing…

I just want to clarify that I'm obviously not suggesting to eat 3500 calories of beans daily, and that's it. Just like I did not straw-man OP by claiming he was arguing that we should live on 100% doritos.

I just made a simple comparison between two food types, on the one had the example OP gave (doritos), and on the other hand the most common staple foods eaten in the world, like grains and legumes.

Again if I have to repeat that, the most common staple foods in the world.

That I hope does enough to dissuade you from making the argument that eating these ingredients is a ridiculous endeavor. It's actually what the majority of healthy humans eat on this planet for centuries, the standard, the norm.

It's for anyone obese to figure out why they don't apply this norm.

Take legumes for example, cooked as a Daal it is eaten by more than a billion people all the time. 20 to 30 different types of pulses are cooked, and hundreds of recipies exist. If you walk into your local Indian restaurant, you'll experience a wide range of intense flavors. To say these are the blandest ingredients is incorrect, virtually everyone would prefer to eat such food daily compared to doritos for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

The idea that ultra-processed foods are a staple in my diet, is insanity. I'd be disgusted. I love ultra-processed foods as an occasional snack, not as a diet. My diet is healthy, affordable and tasty. Google and youtube are full of examples of affordable, tasty meals.

Minimal processing is completely fine by the way. There's little wrong with a good canned bean for example, great shelf life, minimal salt, maximal convenience, good nutrition, good price. Thrown into a salad with a simple dressing of olive oil and lemon juice, with some cut vegetables, gives a complete meal. Not more expensive than doritos, healthy, full of vitamins, calories, low glycemic index, protein, and 'cooking' is a matter of throwing the ingredients in a bowl and mixing, childs' play.

Same with the daals I mentioned, mostly a matter of throwing ingredients into a pot. Cooks itself with no supervision in less than half an hour while you're on your phone. Stores 5 days in the fridge or months in the freezer. Can be a great breakfast or dinner multiple times a week.

There's just tons of these options that are delicious and easy, cheap and quick, enjoyed by billions. Obese people just need better education and mentorship in my opinion. I could never be fat because my parents and environment showed me normal food culture, without it I'd probably be fat. I truly believe in the power of mentorship here, which isn't properly institutionalised or commercialised, which is why so many people lack it.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#929

Post by sfn42 »

accidentallfact wrote: post #923
sfn42 wrote: post #813

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a load of bullshit man. Even the article you linked describes lying to his friends' parents to get a second dinner, being unable to have just one cookie etc. The only way to get fat is to eat too much and anyone who really eats too much will get fat. There's a huge amount of people who simply lie or are ignorant about their food intake. Fat people falsely claiming they hardly eat anything but can't lose weigh…

Let's say there is a new discovery tomorrow - there is a virus that lives in your mitochondria, and makes them unable to produce energy. We can make a vaccine against it, and nobody will ever get fat. Would you be against the vaccine?

Why would I be against that? I'm not against ozempic either.

I'm just against people who throw their hands in the air, say "my fatness is a disease" and continue eating 4000 calories a day while hardly moving at all. And just to be clear I'm not against the fatness - if you want to be fat that's fine, I don't care. It's your life. And if you want to say it's a mental disorder that's fine too, addiction is real and I know first hand that it's hard to resist good food and get off the couch.

Just don't claim there's nothing to be done about it. There is. I and many people I know have successfully lost weight by eating less and moving more. I've also gained weight by eating too much and moving too little. Because that's literally how it works, for everyone in the entire world. Sure it's possible to have some disease or disorder that prevents you from gaining weight by preventing you from utilizing the calories in your food. Or parasites can steal your calories. But if you aren't eating, your body still needs energy. It can't just choose to not use energy, energy is required to live. Without energy the heart doesn't beat, the lungs don't breathe, the brain doesn't brain, the muscles don't work. It's not like the body's just wasting energy, it uses as much as it has to. It's a fine tuned machine. So it can't just use less - the only way to use less energy is to spend less by moving less. Maybe the body can reduce it slightly by adjusting organ activity and such, but not much.

This is why we breathe oxygen and exhale CO2. Oxygen is literally used to burn calories, CO2 is the product of that combustion. Just like in a fire. When you exert yourself the body is spending more energy so it needs more oxygen and produces more CO2, that's why we need to breathe faster and our heart beats faster to get the oxygen to where it's needed and get rid of all the CO2. When you relax, your pulse and breathing lowers because you're burning very little.

Now, with this understanding of basic body functions it's obvious that moving more and eating less is how you lose weight. There is no question about it, it's just clear as day and absolutely indisputable.

Re: Ozempic is changing the foods Americans buy

#930

Post by majewsky »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #824
cbozeman wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For a site chock full of logic-worshippers, we do seem to forget Occam's Razor too frequently.

the tech bro demographic is terrible at self reflection or solving problems that involve their own biases very smart people can rationalize themselves into or out of anything position

That's true of any human. It's just particularly bad for tech bros because they base their entire personality on their supposed hyper-rationalism.
Post reply on HN