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

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Eat Real Food

#931

Post by iterance »

wtcactus wrote: post #871
iterance wrote: post #532

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Restrictions on SNAP are tricky business. You can't ask someone on SNAP to spend time preparing food. Prepared meals are expensive, often not accessible, and sometimes difficult to prepare for people with certain disabilities. It might seem strange, but I have known people, very poor people, who rely on "foods in bar and drink form" out of necessity. I have known poor people for whom eating fruit is physically challe…

> Prepared meals are expensive I'm not sure if you mean buying pre-prepared meals is expensive. If that's what you are saying, I agree. But if you're stating that preparing meals (at your own place from raw ingredients) is expensive. That's simply not true, at all.

I would hope that it is clear from context that I mean purchasing pre-prepared meals is expensive.

Re: Eat Real Food

#932

Post by resters »

As someone who eats whole fruits and vegetables, some meat and fish, etc. already, I would like to feel more confident in the following:

- there is no way that any of the fish I am eating was from polluted water or contains any harmful chemicals.

- there is no way that any of the meat I am eating was sick, raised in horrible conditions, had cancer, had significant wounds or puss-producing sores, was fed the feces of other animals, was fed chemicals or hormones, etc.

- there is no way that any of the vegetables I am eating were watered with dirty water or fertilized or exposed to pesticides that are not 100% safe.

Re: Eat Real Food

#933

Post by bromuro »

sejje wrote: post #913
gradientsrneat wrote: post #908

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 conce…

When I hear "ultra-processed," here's what comes to mind: - little Debbie snack cakes - cereals - white breads - hot dogs - chips - pizza rolls - Velveeta - pop tarts So I guess you're right, it has no meaning. But you're way off, I don't think anyone is talking about frozen raw fish as "ultra processed", or pasteurized milk.

How can be something simple as bread be ultra processed? We can prepare it at home.

Re: Eat Real Food

#934

Post by captnFwiffo »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #901

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…

[dead]

Re: Eat Real Food

#935

Post by kvuj »

spiderfarmer wrote: post #712
deathanatos wrote: post #710

… eggs are $6.50/dz at my local grocer, this week. Hand-printed sign on the door apologizing for the shortage. Tyson bought a more local company, and the prices of the product I had bought from the local producer went up like 50%. We bought a soft drink for holiday game watching — Dr. Pepper with berries or something — and despite a shrink-flated can, it had something like 71% DV of sugar in it. That seemed excessive…

Move to Europe.

And get a salary that is 1/3 my current with lower purchasing power? No thank you, I'm able to select healthy food from a grocery store.

Re: Eat Real Food

#937

Post by sonar_un »

woodruffw wrote: post #271
givemeethekeys wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I bet the number of vegans and vegetarians in the US are also at their highest (and growing).

That's probably true, but I don't think vegans and vegetarians as a demographic overlap closely with demographics that tend to have heart disease. (Note that I am neither a vegetarian nor a vegan.)

There is a massive amount of research that shows that Vegans are healthier as a population than Vegetarians and definitely meat eaters. Lower risks of nearly every preventable food related illnesses, including cancer. Having this new government health pyramid flies in the face of nearly all current research.

Re: Eat Real Food

#938

Post by mud_dauber »

I'd almost pay attention to the message, but Kennedy has no credibility with me. Giving up 90% of animal protein has made me leaner with vastly lower cholesterol.

Re: Eat Real Food

#939

Post by zuminator »

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 is really just bothsidesism. In reality there are fundamental differences between groups in the way that people evaluate events, evidence, even their own party's questionable actions. Papering it over with by claiming criticism is all just mindless tribalism just serves to excuse those with the worst behavior. In this specific case, government food policy has been drastically changed to suit the peculiar ideology of one man, with no public hearings, no debate, and no scientific consensus. Is it not appropriate to be skeptical, regardless of one's "tribe"??

Re: Eat Real Food

#940

Post by scotty79 »

capital_guy wrote: post #916
Gareth321 wrote: post #852

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This new pyramid is obviously FAR healthier than the previous one. The reason it's being opposed is partisan politics.

the reason it's being _changed_ is obviously partisan politics.

Nah, probably just shifting fronts of lobbying. That said new recommendations match way closer what I consider to be a good diet for myself (more calories from fats, less from carbs). Of course everything in moderation.
Post reply on HN