[HN Gopher] Eat Real Food
___________________________________________________________________
Eat Real Food
Author : atestu
Score : 1097 points
Date : 2026-01-07 17:22 UTC (1 days ago)
(HTM) web link (realfood.gov)
(TXT) w3m dump (realfood.gov)
| jostmey wrote:
| Makes sense to me! And poor diet is probably one of the biggest
| problems in the United States
| timeon wrote:
| Hand in hand with car dependency.
| jzkdroid wrote:
| Are we going to subsidize a broad array fruits/vegetables
| instead of corn to the point they become cheaper than processed
| foods? If not I think many americans will ignore this pyramid
| and do as they currently do.
| throwfaraway4 wrote:
| Makes sense. Now make protein affordable.
| dewfaced wrote:
| Soylent Green is people!
| the__alchemist wrote:
| Mmm.. IMO we have the opposite problem: Meat is _too_ cheap due
| to subsidies , compared to its environmental and ethical
| impact.
| observationist wrote:
| The disparity between prices in blue states and red states is
| bonkers - a 10-15% difference in costs. Under $2.00 per dozen
| eggs (on sale, ~$3.00 normally, seems to be trending down too?)
| where I'm at contrasted to $4.00 or higher in big cities. The
| closer you live to ranches and farms, the cheaper the meat, as
| well.
|
| If you go to farmers and ranchers directly, source your protein
| well, make a monthly trip out to the boonies, cross state
| lines, etc, you can get some serious savings. Hopefully things
| trend down this year, things have been rough over the last
| several years.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Ironically, since the pandemic junk foods have gone up in
| price much higher relative to meat and eggs.
| Alupis wrote:
| Beef may be crazy prices right now, but chicken is still very
| cheap and very healthy. Chicken breast here in a moderate HCOL
| area can be found for around $2.50/lb.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Similarly, we usually buy several Turkeys for the deep
| freezer when they're on sale, I also find pork close to $1/lb
| a few times a year. Eggs are usually pretty well priced but I
| tend to prefer pasture raised.
| lanyard-textile wrote:
| And 100 years from now, will we still call it the New Pyramid? :)
|
| I guess we still call it New York...
| samrus wrote:
| And the New Deal
| jhbadger wrote:
| There is a similar problem with genomic sequencing - when new
| twchnologies began to replace traditional Sanger sequencing
| about twenty years ago, it was (and still is) called "next
| generation sequencing" (NGS). But the field is still advancing.
| jjkaczor wrote:
| Great! How will the reductions in consumer protection, health,
| FDA, etc. - by this current administration impact that?
|
| https://www.food-safety.com/articles/11004-a-2025-timeline-o...
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| I see how the article is framed, but I see a lot of good things
| in that timeline: MAHA Commission assessing
| health risks from food ingredients and chemicals and developing
| a strategy to combat childhood chronic disease Closing
| the GRAS loophole Phasing out synthetic food dyes
| $235 million specifically aimed at improving nutrition,
| controlling food additives and addressing food safety $15
| million specifically for modernizing infant formula oversight
| $7 million to support critical laboratory operations
| russdill wrote:
| Anything with money amounts, my next question is how much
| money were we previously spending on that thing.
| websiteapi wrote:
| If simply spending money worked USA would be the most
| healthy.
| russdill wrote:
| Look, we could spend a fraction of what we do, but then
| there would be people who get things for free or even
| fraudulently. You can see just how bad that would be from
| an American mindset.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Roughly $20-30 million/year specifically aimed at
| nutrition, additives and diet-related food safety. So this
| is a 8-10x increase.
| russdill wrote:
| I'm not seeing numbers supporting that
| https://www.fda.gov/media/166050/download
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| > $235 million specifically aimed at improving nutrition,
| controlling food additives and addressing food safety
|
| Musk's disastrous months with the admin defunded and ended a
| program bringing local farmers' produce et al to public
| schools around my state so I'm a little bitter seeing this
| one.
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| Even then, 95% of it is probably already earmarked /
| targeted for some friend's grift.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| Without a doubt
| derbOac wrote:
| What they see as necessary to combat childhood chronic
| disease is not necessarily what most scientists would say is
| necessary to combat childhood chronic disease, and might even
| be detrimental. Also if the new dietary recommendations are
| any clue, what they see as "improving nutrition" might be
| questionable.
|
| The devil is in the details.
| fluidcruft wrote:
| You asking how reductions in protections related to processed
| food (that already allow ultra processed foods) will affect
| safety when the new advice is to eat "real food" and seems to
| emphasize items that are pretty easy to confirm visually?
|
| (I mean besides the fact that the FDA came into existence due
| to things like selling watered down white paint as "milk")
| pimlottc wrote:
| This website is far too complicated, just show a clear, labeled
| image of the new pyramid. This is designed to scare people, not
| inform them.
| knollimar wrote:
| I don't think they have a visually representative pyramid. The
| guidelines seem at ends with their half baked image imo
| pimlottc wrote:
| There is a pyramid that you can see entirely only at two
| precise scroll points, but it's not labeled with any
| recommended amounts.
| knollimar wrote:
| My point is that its a triangle filled from 3 sides; it's
| not vertically tiered.
|
| Edit: I really set up that conjoined triangle joke
| black_puppydog wrote:
| Lol good one. Anything matching . _real_.\\.gov$ can be discarded
| as BS these days...
|
| Edit:
|
| Actually make that simply .*\\.gov$
|
| It's unbelievable to which point this clown show has permanently
| dismantled US soft power. Guess they think they have enough hard
| power to compensate. What with all that good raw milk and meat
| they're eating...
| galoisscobi wrote:
| Ironic that a steak is one of the three things showing up on the
| landing page. Is that the beef lobby money coming in?
|
| I enjoy an occasional steak but if the goal is to improve diet of
| masses, it's not the food I'd put at the center.
| _dark_matter_ wrote:
| Whole milk, cheese, and steak are not the usual foods I
| associate with health. Unfortunately this is not backed by
| scientific evidence.
| badc0ffee wrote:
| Red meat has a link to colorectal cancer.
| CompoundEyes wrote:
| I visited a heart doctor at Duke research medical center a
| few years back. His comments then were that dairy products
| were the most inflammatory foods for humans and a major
| contributor to heart disease by gunking up our bloodstreams.
| Finnucane wrote:
| RFKjr, the guy who feeds roadkill to his brain worm, thinks
| more saturated fat = good, 'seed oil' = bad.
| overgard wrote:
| RFKjr is generally an idiot, but saturated fat = good, seed
| oil = bad is actually correct. For instance:
| https://health.clevelandclinic.org/seed-oils-are-they-
| actual...
|
| Saturated fats are good because they're more stable than
| poly-unsaturated fats for instance.
|
| If you do consume a seed oil (which you really shouldn't --
| there's no benefit), you should get a cold-pressed one. But
| that would be more expensive, so if you're paying more you
| might as well just get something good like avacado oil or
| coconut oil.
| Finnucane wrote:
| "inflammation"! It's always "inflammation". What a crock.
| overgard wrote:
| You want more inflammation?
|
| Inflammation is a real thing you can measure in the body,
| you know. (C Reactive Protein for instance). It's behind
| a lot of diseases.
|
| The reason WHY it's "always" inflammation is because the
| standard american diet CREATES a lot of inflammation.
| You'll probably have to worry about hearing that buzzword
| a lot less if people ate better..
| everdrive wrote:
| This is a great example of how harming your own credibility
| can damage an otherwise correct and uncontroversial
| message. RFK Jr. has surrounded himself in controversy, and
| that controversy is really dominating a lot of this
| conversation and drowning out the message. Given how he's
| acted, I don't blame anyone for being skeptical of him,
| even if this particular food pyramid seems to be a good
| move that would itself be uncontroversial if provided by a
| different messenger.
| overgard wrote:
| True, but, I think this is also an important lesson in
| considering the arguments not just a source. Nobody is
| ever 100% right or 100% wrong, and just leaning on
| arguments of authority is lazy thinking.
| BeetleB wrote:
| Just Google "seed oils health" and look at the reputable
| results (Cleveland Clinic, various universities, Mayo
| Clinic, etc), and you'll see opinions across the board.
| Some say "Bad". Some say "Not bad". Some say "Unsure".
|
| Jury is still out on this one.
|
| And I think lumping all seed oils into one category isn't
| helping. Maybe canola oil is OK and sesame oil is not. Or
| vice versa.
| overgard wrote:
| I think it's generally fair to lump them together,
| because the types of fats you get in them are similar.
|
| The history of cotton seed oil is interesting. After
| reading that, I would challenge people to think if that's
| really something they'd want in their body. Other than
| cost, I see no downside to avoiding seed oils and a lot
| of upside: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottonseed_oil#E
| conomic_histor...
| BeetleB wrote:
| Looking at the article, I'm not sure I see the problem.
|
| > Other than cost, I see no downside to avoiding seed
| oils and a lot of upside
|
| The taste of food in certain recipes (that don't involve
| cooking the oil) varies widely with the oil used. In some
| recipes, canola oil tastes better than olive oil (by a
| significant margin - no one would eat it with olive oil).
|
| Cost was never a factor for me (even as a student). Oil
| is amongst the least expensive things in the food I cook.
| overgard wrote:
| I mean, what you want to put in your body is up to you,
| but an industrial byproduct that involves a lot of
| chemistry seems like something I'm not a fan of. Also if
| you go past the history a bit: "The FDA released its
| final determination that Partially Hydrogenated Oils
| (PHOs), which include partially hydrogenated cottonseed
| oil, are not Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS) in
| 2015."
|
| Olive oil definitely has a flavor, but other oils are
| pretty neutral (I cook with avacado oil because of the
| high smoke point and I don't notice it really effecting
| anything). Also you have to keep in mind that those seed
| oils have a neutral flavor because they've been through a
| deodorizing chemical process, otherwise they'd
| taste/smell rancid.
| WA wrote:
| Exactly this. Rapeseed oil is obviously a seed oil. You
| can have a chemically extracted version or a cold-pressed
| version. "Seed oil is bad for you" is a typical
| simplistic Twitter/Reddit conspiracy theory.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| The link you gave doesn't support your claim that saturated
| fat is good.
|
| In fact, from the very same site, here's another article
| saying it's not:
| https://health.clevelandclinic.org/saturated-fats-
| finding-a-...
|
| Saturated fat is OK in moderate amounts, but if you eat too
| much, it drives up your cholesterol because your body
| converts saturated fat into cholesterol[1][2].
|
| The issue I have with this new food pyramid is the guidance
| ignores the danger of saturated fat. It lists "meats" and
| "full-fat dairy" among sources of "healthy fats", and
| that's just not true. In the picture that shows sources of
| protein/fat, 11 out of 13 of the items are animal-based
| fats. With a giant ribeye steak, cheese, butter, and whole
| milk specifically (not just milk), they're simply not
| giving an accurate picture of healthy fat sources.
|
| I personally don't think seed oils are bad, but even if
| they were, it does not follow that saturated fat is good.
| The evidence shows otherwise, for one thing, plus it's not
| like seed oils and saturated fat are the only two kinds of
| fat. There are plenty of unsaturated fats which aren't seed
| oils.
|
| ---
|
| [1]
| https://medlineplus.gov/ency/patientinstructions/000838.htm
|
| [2] https://www.heart.org/en/healthy-living/healthy-
| eating/eat-s...
| margalabargala wrote:
| This isn't true, per your own link.
|
| The point the Cleveland Clinic page makes is that seed oils
| tend to be what's used in ultra-processed foods, and those
| are bad for you. So if you avoid seed oils, you wind up
| avoiding the bad things as a second order effect.
|
| Aside from that it's just hand-wavey "they use chemicals to
| make it! It doesn't have nutrients beyond the fat!".
| There's nothing to indicate that using sunflower or peanut
| oil is any worse for you than using walnut oil.
|
| The connection between omega-6 fats and inflammation is a
| whole lot more tenuous than the link between ultra-
| processed foods and inflammation.
| bobbylarrybobby wrote:
| Steak's not great for you, but in moderation is probably a
| better source of calories than refined grains, which should be
| treated more or less the same as candy.
| overgard wrote:
| High protein, nutrient dense. Definitely want to get grass-fed
| or pasture raised though. Shouldn't eat it all the time because
| it has a high calorie content, but steak isn't bad. They're
| probably showing a steak to indicate that eating meat is good,
| not just steak in general. Keto and carnivore diets have been
| shown to be pretty good for people with inflammatory
| conditions.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Worth noting that ruminants have less variance between "good
| diets" and "bad diets" for the animals than other animal
| protein sources. IE: you're better off with a grain fed steak
| than an unnaturally fed non-ruminant animal.
|
| As to the calories, yes calories count, but the fact that it
| is calorie dense doesn't necessarily mean you should avoid it
| so much as be aware if you are mixing sources and having
| excessive meals. I know a lot of people on carnivore diets
| for inflammatory and diabetic control and the total calorie
| intake is less of an issue in those cases. Even with a pound
| of steak and a dozen eggs a day, weight loss is still
| happening for overweight diabetics on carnivore diets.
|
| Just meat is very sating and impossible for most people to
| overeat in practice... at least from my own experience and
| exposure. The relative mono diet also helps with this.
| overgard wrote:
| Yeah, I agree, I'm not really a calorie counter. (I tend to
| get irritated by the "a calorie is a calorie" folk because
| nutrient quality is the most important thing). It's
| occasionally worth paying attention to calories with some
| foods though, like bacon or whatnot because it's very easy
| to eat a small volume but a lot of calories.
| tracker1 wrote:
| My advice in the various keto-carnivore and diabetic
| groups I'm in is to concentrate on getting used to the
| diet first and only start counting calories after a
| prolonged (months long) stall or gaining weight for
| multiple weeks.
|
| It's too easy to obsess, and I've experienced times where
| I'll stall when not eating enough more than eating too
| much when I'm eating clean. I have digestive issues from
| Trulicity/Ozempic and have a hard time eating enough, and
| my metabolism is highly dysfunctional... If I eat 1500
| calories a day, about my natural hunger level at this
| point, I won't lose anything, but if I eat closer to
| 3000-3400/day, I will lose weight. It seems counter-
| intuitive but it's true.
| WA wrote:
| > Keto and carnivore diets have been shown to be pretty good
| for people with inflammatory conditions
|
| No. The scientific evidence of a carnivore diet reducing
| inflammation is pretty weak. The scientific evidence of a
| vegan diet reducing inflammation is way stronger.
| sonar_un wrote:
| It's not just way stronger, it's basically conclusive.
| cactacea wrote:
| > Definitely want to get grass-fed or pasture raised though.
|
| Yeah I mean if you're going to maximize your impact just go
| all out right. Eating beef, particularly in the US, is one of
| the worst actions you can take environmentally speaking.
|
| More people need to understand how incredibly destructive
| cattle ranching has been around the world. In the US in
| particular pretty much _all_ BLM and Forest Service land that
| isn 't protected as wilderness or permitted for extraction
| (oil/forestry/etc) is used for ranching. That is an enormous
| area that has literally been turned to cow shit. Even where
| the cattle don't eat all vegetation in sight they trample
| habitat and entirely change the ecology of the area.
|
| Source: I spent three years traveling around the western US
| from 2019-2022 and camped almost exclusively on public lands
| during that time. The number of beautiful places I've seen
| completely covered in cow shit is utterly appalling. Why
| should we let agribusiness use OUR land this way? It is truly
| such a waste.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| "In over 24,000 participants from the NHANES study, high
| saturated fatty acid intake was associated with an 8% increase
| in all cause mortality risk. A meta-analysis with over
| 1,100,000 total participants showed that high intake of
| saturated fats was also correlated to a 10% increase in
| coronary heart disease mortality risk" (https://www.ahajournals
| .org/doi/10.1161/CIRCRESAHA.118.31403...)
|
| (there is an argument for why this shouldn't apply to grass-fed
| meat but that is an extremely small minority of meat sold)
| tracker1 wrote:
| survey based study, correlation is not causation, and
| correlated affects not separable from other biases.
| siliconc0w wrote:
| that is an impossible standard to apply to diet-based
| research which is incredibly expensive to otherwise study
| (e.g, you need a metabolic ward and at that point you'd
| complain about small N).
|
| We know saturated fat increases LDL, we know LDL
| contributes to CVD. This is still an area of active
| research and there are small populations of people that
| don't accept the consensus but it is still very much best-
| practice keep your LDL low.
| tracker1 wrote:
| See Minnesota asylum study... Come up with something
| resembling that quality that says otherwise.
| mcswell wrote:
| If Lysenko Jr wants us all to eat steaks, he should get to work
| on either eliminating ticks, or creating a cure for alphagal
| (alpha galactose) allergy transmitted by many ticks. I've had
| to stop eating beef (my wife gives me a little bite of her
| steak once in awhile), along with lamb and pork (pork seems to
| be less of a problem than beef, but I still have to eat it in
| moderation).
|
| In case you're not familiar with this allergy, it doesn't
| behave like other food allergies: instead of getting instant
| symptoms, it hits you hours later, making it hard to figure out
| why you suddenly have hives---unless you already know about
| alpha gal.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| I'm sure the government is trying. The government weaponized
| alpha-gal in the first place.
| tracker1 wrote:
| That's rough... I have issues when I eat legumes and wheat...
| I still like pasta and pretty much had peanut butter every
| day of my life up to a few years ago. When I manage to stick
| to a meat centered diet I do better... but it's easy to get
| off track in social circles.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >he should get to work on either eliminating ticks, or
| creating a cure for alphagal
|
| Or he should just lobby to make high quality, lean, grass-fed
| steaks cheaper so everyone who wants to consume them can
| consume them. It's not currently cheap.
| burkaman wrote:
| The "scientific foundation" PDF does disclose several financial
| relationships with the National Cattlemen's Beef Association
| and other cow-related lobbyists.
| rcpt wrote:
| Obviously the beef lobby is involved. They are masters of
| public opinion and extremely good at what they do.
| drstewart wrote:
| https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/food-guide-snapshot/
|
| What is the top thing shown on the plate here?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Depends if it's eye of round or rib eye. I think the usual
| steak emoji is a porter house. All 3 of them have very
| different protein/fat ratios (and thus calories)
| bwestergard wrote:
| "In February 2010, Michelle Obama launched "Let's Move!" with a
| wide-ranging plan to curb childhood obesity. The campaign took
| aim at processed foods, flagged concerns about sugary drinks, and
| called for children to spend more time playing outside and less
| time staring at screens. The campaign was roundly skewered by
| conservatives... But the strategy that Kennedy's HHS is using to
| address the problem so far--pressuring food companies to alter
| their products instead of introducing new regulations--is the
| same one that Obama relied on, and will likely fall short for the
| same reason hers did a decade ago."
|
| https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2025/09/maha-lets...
| bruceb wrote:
| Not just pressure. Stoping SNAP benefits from funding these
| sugar and oil peddlers is a good thing.
| EvanAnderson wrote:
| Meta comment: The design aesthetic gives me a real "Cards Against
| Humanity" feel.
| rout39574 wrote:
| That's what struck me, seems kind of apropos.
| pndy wrote:
| It reminds me of this kinetic style informative videos that
| were once popular, like https://youtu.be/4B2xOvKFFz4
| the__alchemist wrote:
| > Whole grains are encouraged. Refined carbohydrates are not.
| Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains and significantly reduce the
| consumption of highly processed, refined carbohydrates that
| displace real nourishment.
|
| I am consternated at the proliferation of refined grains. Here
| are my USA observations: - Grocery store or
| Amazon etc: Whole grain breads and flours are in the minority,
| but it's possible to get them - Restaurants and
| bakeries: Impossible to find whole grains; 100% refined
|
| IMO it's a no-brainer to eat the healthier stuff that has bran +
| endosperm intact instead of removing and attempting ton add back
| the micro-nutrients. (While still missing the fiber)
| opwieurposiu wrote:
| My understanding is that whole grain flour is not very shelf
| stable, ie. you have to grind it and use it within a few days
| or starts to taste bad. White flour lasts years.
|
| A small flour mill is not that expensive, I wonder why more
| places do not grind their own flour?
| samrus wrote:
| As someone with psoriotic arthritis, this is just my diet (plus
| avoiding gluten) and honestly following it has made me feel alot
| better even aside from preventing the psoriosis
|
| Good initiative from the government, i wouldnt have expected them
| to do something that messes with junk food corporations profits
| like this
| eloisius wrote:
| Yeah, I was expecting read something that made me mad, but this
| is basically how I've eaten my whole life. I've never
| subscribed to any special diet, but I like whole milk, I like
| eating meat and veggies, I don't enjoy sliced bread, and I
| avoid sugary things. I walk a lot every day. Probably thanks to
| genetics, but I've been thin my whole life and the only chronic
| issues I've had tend to be muscle-tendon things from bad
| posture while sitting at the computer, or overdoing it when I
| get into a hobby like bouldering. Near 40 and I hope I can keep
| my health and be active well into my 70s at least.
| kzrdude wrote:
| Exactly, if one eats like the top shelf of the pyramid (minus
| the milk products) this looks like autoimmune protocol diets.
| hahahahhaah wrote:
| I am not sure it messes with their profits at all.
|
| For comparison think about smoking. Imagine a government 70s ad
| that says "As a nation we are now not smoking and showed people
| enjoying themselves without a cigatette", but in addition
| cigatettes carry on being sold anyway. The addiction wins.
| Anonyneko wrote:
| I just refer to the official Finnish nutrition guidelines, they
| seem pretty reasonable.
|
| https://www.ruokavirasto.fi/en/foodstuffs/healthy-diet/nutri...
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Obesity among Finns is increasing. https://thl.fi/en/-/risk-
| factors-that-expose-finns-to-chroni...
| anttiharju wrote:
| Coincidentally, MAHA means stomach/tummy/belly in Finnish.
| clydethefrog wrote:
| I liked the Canada food guide.
|
| https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/
|
| Discussion in 2019:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18985017
| drstewart wrote:
| Half of the criticisms in here apply 100% to Canada's guide,
| yet somehow the discussion about Canada back in 2019 doesn't
| include them.
|
| Gee, I wonder why.
| jdoe1337halo wrote:
| I get having issues with RFK and the way the administrations
| handles health issues surrounding vaccines, but this seems pretty
| solid.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| let me first post a shallow, obligatory complaint about the
| unreadability of this submission due to egregious scrolljacking.
|
| for those interested without getting angered by weird scroll
| behavior, see below.
|
| too bad there's such a focus on animal protein/products, which
| isn't all that good if you want to design a world-wide society of
| billions of people that's going to last into the next 1000 years.
| seems like at least half of the pyramid was designed by Big Agro
| lobbyists. other than that, i guess anything's better than what
| the average american eats now.
|
| ----
|
| _Protein, Dairy, & Healthy Fats_: We are ending the war on
| protein. Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense
| protein from both animal and plant sources, paired with healthy
| fats from whole foods such as eggs, seafood, meats, full-fat
| dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and avocados.
|
| Protein target: 1.2-1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per
| day.
|
| _Vegetables & Fruits_: Vegetables and fruits are essential to
| real food nutrition. Eat a wide variety of whole, colorful,
| nutrient-dense vegetables and fruits in their original form,
| prioritizing freshness and minimal processing.
|
| Vegetables: 3 servings per day. Fruits: 2 servings per day.
|
| _Whole Grains_ : Whole grains are encouraged. Refined
| carbohydrates are not. Prioritize fiber-rich whole grains and
| significantly reduce the consumption of highly processed, refined
| carbohydrates that displace real nourishment.
|
| Target: 2-4 servings per day.
| cpursley wrote:
| Stick with this list and kick the refined carbs, limit even
| whole grains and no sugar (including most alcohol) and it's
| actually difficult to be over 15% body fat even if you overeat
| all the rest (assuming no hormonal issues, that can throw a
| wrench into things).
| alexjplant wrote:
| Alcohol is neither a carb nor sugar and weight is largely a
| function of calories in versus calories out. All of the hand-
| wringing about HFCS and seed oils and deep fried Crisco is
| misplaced; while these things are all unhealthy in their own
| way obesity is largely a function of sedentary lifestyles and
| overeating.
|
| Nobody wants to hear that they're a lazy glutton, however, so
| pop health media conflates various causes and effects. In
| other words eating foods with higher satiety and lower
| macronutrient density and walking more is harder than
| introducing a new dietary restriction to combat the "monster
| of the week" - inflammation, microbiome imbalance, etc.
| baubino wrote:
| > weight is largely a function of calories in versus
| calories out
|
| Yes, but calories are much easier to rack up in some foods
| compared to others. There's this great exhibit I took my
| kid to see in a science museum that showed that the number
| of calories in four twinkies was equivalent to something
| like 20 pounds of carrots. Not sure if those were the exact
| numbers (it was a long time ago) but the point is that in
| the modern world it is virtually impossible to become obese
| if you are eating even large amounts of, say, baked chicken
| and steamed veggies. No obese person is overeating healthy
| foods.
| cpursley wrote:
| Please don't steam veggies, it turned several generations
| off of them. But you are correct :)
| baubino wrote:
| Steamed veggies are excellent; veggies boiled into
| oblivion are not!
| anon291 wrote:
| Yes. As someone who's struggled with weight and finally
| approaching below 20% body fat as a man, I wish this had come
| out ten years ago. Nothing helped until I switched to this
| eating plan. It is impossible to overeat actual meat and
| veggies. (Note the actual meat part, eating processed meats
| loaded with carbs is not helpful)
| SomeHacker44 wrote:
| War on protein? Why does this comment belong in a
| recommendation list?
| brokensegue wrote:
| Because this is the language of the trump administration.
| Everything needs to be momentus. The good must always be
| beating an unknown and all powerful enemy
| rubyfan wrote:
| To signal validity to the in group constituents and
| lobbyists.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Because the current administration has an overriding focus on
| self-aggrandizement and the struggle against persecution by
| hidden forces. All communications and outputs of the
| administration must pay lip service to said focus, no matter
| how unprofessional or off-topic such virtue signaling may be.
| isoprophlex wrote:
| Are you not enjoying the tremendous amount of winning the
| current usa administration is doing? Can't win big without a
| nice war or two going on. War is peace, citizen.
| schmuckonwheels wrote:
| > egregious scrolljacking
|
| Meta but my first reaction was they hired laid off Apple.com
| developers to build this.
|
| Maybe they're trying to channel the excitement people get from
| a new iPhone rollout toward healthy foods.
| JohnMakin wrote:
| It is so fitting that this particular announcement was built
| with the worst website style to emerge since the 90's
| diath wrote:
| > too bad there's such a focus on animal protein/products,
|
| Non-animal protein sources (like soy and beans) have very poor
| bioavailability.
| Teever wrote:
| Why does that one particular facet matter the most?
|
| As I understand it diets with modest amounts of animal
| protein are cheaper, healthier, and ultimately more
| sustainable for the ecosphere.
| orwin wrote:
| But non-animal proteins bio-accumulate less harmfull stuff
| (like lead) and contain more useful minerals. I hate doing
| the "the truth is in the middle" guy, but here, the correct
| diet is clearly in the middle, no?
| deinonychus wrote:
| i agree that plant proteins usually contain more beneficial
| minerals than meat, but that also certainly includes lead.
| whole plants and especially plant-based protein products
| contain lots of lead, but it's unclear if this is a huge
| problem
|
| https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-91554-z#Sec5
| https://www.consumerreports.org/lead/protein-powders-and-
| sha...
| Alcor wrote:
| I've heard this claim repeated a lot, in the case of soy
| "very poor" just doesn't seem supported by the data and more
| importantly in a real world setting one particular protein
| source lacking a specific amino acid doesn't matter as much
| because it is mostly not consumed in isolation.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11171741/
| overgard wrote:
| 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://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-
| way/2016/09/13/493739074...
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/03/opinion/dyor-do-your-own-...
| overgard wrote:
| Unfortunately it's pay-walled so I can't read it, I can only
| react to the headline. But yes, of course with "do your own
| research" it's "not that simple", but any student of history
| should know that you should have a very healthy skepticism of
| any official or mainstream source. For some reason we think
| in modernity that we've gotten everything right, and it's
| only in the past that the official explanations were wrong.
| My money is on the experts being wrong about a lot of things
| in this era too.
| jonasdegendt wrote:
| https://archive.is/NhyjE
| sallveburrpi wrote:
| The biggest issue with sugar is that it makes stuff taste
| better which leads to overeating. Incidentally it's also the
| only downside of glutamate, it just makes stuff taste so good
| you'll eat much more than your appetite would guide you to
| sva_ wrote:
| The other downsides of both sugar and in particular glutamate
| are that you'll find other foods less sweet or having less
| depth of flavor (umami), so you'll be more likely to go for
| the processed options.
| mertd wrote:
| My personal anecdotal experience is that once you make a
| conscious effort to avoid added sugars, your taste buds
| eventually recalibrate over the course of a few months and
| you end up perceiving stuff with added sugar as way too
| sweet.
| _s wrote:
| Same with salt.
| meeq wrote:
| It's not just the better taste that causes the overeating.
| Sugar and refined carbs cause blood glucose levels to spike,
| giving you a surge of energy. That spike is very short-lived,
| resulting in a sharp drop that then causes cravings for more
| refined carbs/sugar. This blood glucose rollercoaster can
| cause all kinds of bad effects like mood swings and brain
| fog. The problem about refined carbs is that they never truly
| satiate your hunger. Once you add them to a meal, you get
| into the loop of chasing the glucose high which is horrible
| for your body and mind.
| bluerooibos wrote:
| 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.
| nelsondev wrote:
| This guidance will be taken in by government agencies that
| set rules, by schools choosing kids lunches , etc .
|
| Not all government action is in the form of a specific law
| with specific enforcement mechanism.
| boca_honey wrote:
| 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.
| elicash wrote:
| This is basically the same as the previous version, the "food
| plate" that Michelle Obama rolled out in 2011:
|
| https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/03/business/03plate.html
|
| It's amusing how outraged people were when Michelle Obama did
| her Let's Move campaign focused on eating healthy and exercise
| and now people are pretending it's all new.
|
| (There was also a version before that, in 2005. The
| "MyPyramid." That one emphasized exercise by having a person
| walking up a revised version of the pyramid. Though it had a
| whole giant category for "milk," admittedly as a knock against
| it. I'll grant today's did a good job in de-emphasizing dairy
| compared to 2005 and 2011.)
| tombert wrote:
| > It's amusing how outraged people were when Michelle Obama
| did her Let's Move campaign focused on eating healthy and
| exercise and now people are pretending it's all new.
|
| It's the same people who got offended because Obama asked for
| spicy mustard because they thought that was too fancy, but
| still actively voted for the guy who actively plates
| everything with gold so as to maximize how tacky everything
| looks.
|
| They've never been internally consistent and I'm not entirely
| convinced that they have _any_ principles outside of "own
| the libs".
| erulabs wrote:
| The people who got offended at the 2011 campaign are not the
| same people who are offended at this 2025 campaign. In the
| united states, if you do _anything_ , someone, somewhere,
| will be offended. That's kind of our whole shtick.
| spicyusername wrote:
| To be fair, it's everyone's shtick everywhere.
|
| I haven't thought of a word for it yet, but it has
| something to do with how many people participate in the
| discourse now. The numbers are large enough that someone
| somewhere will always have some opinion. Every time.
| ruszki wrote:
| Have you just called a 50 years old food pyramid as previous?
| This guideline has been released every 5 years.
| criddell wrote:
| I always wish they would include a sample menu for one week that
| hits the daily recommended dose for every vitamin, mineral, fat,
| etc... without going over some calorie limit.
| bruceb wrote:
| One of the dumbest, frustrating things during Obama's
| Administration was the partisan Republican attack on Michelle
| Obama's push for healthier school lunches.
|
| Democrats should not reflexive be against this just because they
| don't like the current president or HHS secetry. Same thing with
| the restrictions on buying soda and junk food with SNAP.
|
| The supermarket is filled with processed food. Black cat/White
| cat whatever catches the mouse. The push to eat real food is
| good. Embrace it even if you don't like people behind it.
| blargthorwars wrote:
| Our kids lived the change: school meals went from decently
| school-made food with lots of variety to prepackaged stuff from
| a distributor.
|
| The intent was good....perhaps... but the processed food
| manufacturers made bank.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| The current plan, as proposed, isn't even accurate or helpful.
| It has butter under healthy fats, which it is not. "meat" is
| thoroughly vague and red meat is very different from fish and
| poultry. Red meat of all types are filled with saturated fats
| associated with cvd and ldl-c levels.
|
| It's not scientific and that's exactly what you'd expect out of
| RFK and MAHA movement.
| schmuckonwheels wrote:
| Speaking from personal experience, this is consistent with
| multiple doctors over the years recommending high-protein, low
| carb diets. (Clarification: _low_ does not mean _no_ carb.)
|
| I don't understand people freaking out over this - outside of a
| purely political reflex - hell hath no fury like taking away
| nerds' Mountain Dew and Flamin' Hot Cheetos.
|
| Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new restrictions on
| SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer eligible.
| bruceb wrote:
| Pure partisan spite. The gov't not spending money on candy and
| sugary drinks is good. Just like when Michelle Obama pushed for
| better school lunches.
| ecshafer wrote:
| One of the best litmus tests for Democrat or Republican I
| have found is "Should people on food stamps be able to buy
| mountain dew / candy / etc with them?", very low false
| positive rate in either direction.
|
| But regardless I have it on very good authority that with the
| BBB some within the Republican party wanted to limit EBT to
| only be able to purchase healthy food. No soda, no candy, no
| chips, etc. A couple calls from Coke, Pepsi, etc lobbyists
| shot that down.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| > A couple calls from Coke, Pepsi, etc lobbyists shot that
| down.
|
| Fucking hell, if this is true, I don't know how those
| people sleep at night. Really, It's a failure if my
| imagination, but I don't imagine how people like this
| function. I'm sure I've done my share of indirect harm in
| this world, one way or the other, but being so on the nose
| about it would make me absolutely nauseous.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I agree, but: "individual freedom"
|
| It's a great umbrella.
|
| If they so choose to dissolve their teeth and decimate
| their guy bacteria, who am I to intervene?
|
| It's gross, but it works for gross people, and there's a
| high enough percentage of gross people for this to make
| sense.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| > If they so choose to dissolve their teeth and decimate
| their guy bacteria, who am I to intervene?
|
| In this case, I'm the American taxpayer who is paying for
| all of this food, and, perhaps more importantly, paying
| for all of the medical treatment they receive because of
| the consequences of these choices.
|
| When your consumption is being paid for by other people,
| it's perfectly reasonable for those people to put limits
| on your choices, especially when they're footing the bill
| for the consequences of any bad choices you make too.
| We're a wealthy country and shouldn't let people starve,
| but you don't need ice cream or Coke or Pringles not to
| starve.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Just to be clear, I wasn't agreeing with it. I was
| attempting to answer the question of 'how do they sleep
| at night?'.
|
| What they tell themselves is: liberty!
|
| Like I said: gross.
| NickC25 wrote:
| It is indeed true.
|
| The truth is that lobbyists have a ton of cards to play,
| including that if such a ban were to go through, there
| would be a lot less demand for High Fructose Corn Syrup,
| which might sound wonderful, except that HFCS is a
| byproduct of corn, which is a major export of some very
| competitive swing states.
|
| You fuck with that, your party gets trounced in the next
| election.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Half of the purpose of SNAP is to be yet more subsidy to
| American megafarms. That was literally how it was done by
| FDR, and why it is administered by the department of
| Agriculture. It intentionally drives food production that
| wouldn't necessarily be profitable on its own because
| most first world countries, including the US, found that
| letting Capitalism run free on your food supply would
| result in booms, busts, and cyclic famine.
|
| Soaking up grain and corn syrup supplies is intentional.
| Ethanol in our gas has a similar purpose.
|
| However, the primary reason you should not care about
| SNAP recipients spending money on soda or chips or junk
| is because it's usually a good price/calorie ratio, so
| for the half a percent of Americans that literally don't
| get enough to eat, it can be sustaining, if not healthy,
| but for the rest, the idea that people shouldn't be able
| to have a small luxury because it's socialized is just
| too much.
|
| Taking candy from children is probably just not worth the
| squeeze. The entire federal SNAP program is ~$80 billion.
|
| Lookup WIC. It is a very restricted program of food
| assistance, and spends immense effort and money of "only
| healthy" or "no junk" and parental education and
| supporting nutrition, and it really pays off, but it does
| that by relying on ENORMOUS free labor from parents and
| stores. A WIC checkout takes significantly longer than
| average, is more error prone, and is miserable for all
| involved, for like $30 of bread and cheese.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| Very informative post, and for background, I am not an us
| citizen. I have no issue with the idea of small luxury
| because it's socialized, but I do have the impression
| that obesity is a huge issue in the US and these kind of
| consumption patterns cause reinforcement and lead to
| worse outcomes. I have nothing against cheap food and
| cheap calories(actually I think they are super useful)
| but I do think healthier people are an aim we, as a
| species, should target.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| This is like saying your goal in life is to help people
| but somehow you ended up 50 rungs from the top and landed
| on becoming a cop.
| nathan_compton wrote:
| I'll bite. I think there is a difference between "should
| they" and "should they be _able_ to. "
|
| Most liberals I know think they shouldn't but that its
| stupid to _police_ this aspect of people 's behavior if
| they are on EBT. Most liberals might even feel more
| comfortable regulating _everyone 's_ behavior by taxing
| unhealthy foods than they would just bothering poor people
| with it.
| cr125rider wrote:
| Taxes like that seem all but required if you want to have
| a chance at a functioning single payer system. 0 chance
| single-payer will works with so much freedom to destroy
| yourself then make everyone pay for it.
| phantom784 wrote:
| I don't see why this would be the case - it's not like
| the private system in the US today has different premiums
| based on how much junk food you eat (the closest to that
| I've seen is higher premiums for tobacco users).
| throwway120385 wrote:
| You have all of that freedom in countries with single-
| payer but somehow they're able to make it work.
| phantom784 wrote:
| EBT is already money with strings attached - you can only
| spend it on food. I don't see narrowing the definition of
| "food" here to exclude soda to be a huge problem.
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Easily sidestepped, however, there is a thriving economy
| in poor neighborhoods around converting EBT to cash.
| neutronicus wrote:
| Soda, I agree.
|
| Chips ... I think you should probably allow parents to
| spend EBT to buy a bag of chips for a hungry/picky kid in
| a pinch.
| shuntress wrote:
| Why shouldn't EBT money be allowed to purchase sugar free
| soda?
| loire280 wrote:
| Since it has no calories, it's not "food" by even a very
| loose definition.
|
| As someone who lives in a neighborhood where most
| tapwater is still delivered by lead service lines, I'm
| sympathetic to the argument that it provides hydration.
| I'd prefer that my tax dollars went to solving that
| problem more directly, however.
| shuntress wrote:
| Are you saying you shouldn't be able to buy water with
| SNAP money?
| phantom784 wrote:
| I think it could be argued either way. There's plenty of
| non-food necessities (toilet paper, feminine hygiene
| products, etc.) that aren't covered by SNAP.
| xp84 wrote:
| RFK and his type think sugar free soda gives you cancer,
| or whatever.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| If we want healthy food we have to regulate the food-
| makers. Everything else is skirting the edges of the
| problem. Taxes, EBT restrictions, none of that will make
| a dent.
| zahlman wrote:
| I would say that a _short_ answer that _implicitly accepts
| the framing_ of the question is a flag for someone without
| well-considered political views.
| RavingGoat wrote:
| A poor kid on food stamps should be able to get a birthday
| cake on their birthday. Anyone that believes otherwise
| definitely should never have kids or work with kids.
| brainwad wrote:
| For exceptional items, can't the parent pay for them from
| non-SNAP money? For instance from the child tax credits
| they also get? SNAP's stated purpose is nutrition, not
| making birthdays fun.
| throwway120385 wrote:
| Who cares? It's $5.00 to buy a box of cake mix and a can
| of frosting. Let poor people have fun sometimes instead
| of trying to use the welfare as a leash to harry them
| constantly about their choices.
| brainwad wrote:
| If they want total freedom, they don't have to spend food
| stamps. They can always provide for themselves.
|
| You are right, a single box of cake mix once a year is
| fine. But between banning processed foods, or allowing
| everything, the former is far closer to the "just cake
| once a year" scenario. Allowing unlimited spend on junk
| food will in most cases lead to worse outcomes.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| "Let them eat cake"
| kayamon wrote:
| I saw a homeless guy in the park eating a block of raw
| cake mix.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Oh good, you have demonstrated how money is somewhat
| fungible and therefore any moralizing about what welfare
| is spent on is a little odd
|
| >SNAP's stated purpose is nutrition
|
| SNAPS purpose is dual, and it was always also about
| ensuring american farmers had more demand, including for
| corn syrup. Horrifically, EBT being spent on soda is
| intentional.
|
| If that bothers you, we can reduce corn subsidies without
| taking candy from literal children, or keeping poor
| parents from buying chips.
| hairofadog wrote:
| In my experience the reason Republicans are so interested
| in what people can buy with food stamps is that they want
| very much to punish people who are on food stamps. If they
| truly cared about the health of needy Americans there are a
| lot of other things they could do, or even a lot of things
| they could _stop doing_ like making it more difficult to
| access health care, quackifying vaccine recommendations,
| holding press conferences in which they say nobody should
| take Tylenol under any circumstances, making dubious
| assertions about AIDS; the list goes on and on.
| moduspol wrote:
| What if we just don't want to subsidize giving people
| lifelong obesity and metabolic disorders? Why does that
| necessarily imply we have to agree with you on other
| issues? Do we need to make it tribal and ascribe ulterior
| motives?
| acoustics wrote:
| People should be able to get cash transfers to buy goods on
| the general market. There shouldn't be food stamps.
|
| The success of SNAP comes despite its inherent
| inefficiency, friction, and the indignity of its
| limitations. We structure the program the way we do in
| order to mollify voters who twitch at the idea of the poor
| ever enjoying anything.
|
| Inequality isn't just about healthcare costs, biological
| metrics, etc. It is also deeply corrosive socially and
| psychologically, and this side of things is systemically
| underappreciated in policy circles.
|
| To be sure, our food and diets are bad. Americans broadly
| should eat healthier. But are society's interests really
| better served by insisting that a poor child not be allowed
| to have a cake and blow out the candles on his birthday,
| the way all of his friends do?
| moduspol wrote:
| It seems unnecessarily reductive to insist that we must
| choose between endlessly subsidizing Mountain Dew and
| Twinkies or that poor children should never be allowed to
| have cake.
| xp84 wrote:
| Honestly when it comes to SNAP there's no good answer
| that achieves all of the reasonable policy goals ('make
| sure the kids have something to eat', and 'avoid wasting
| benefit money on crap')
|
| You can replace it with cash aid, and there's a good
| chance a good chunk of recipients will spend most of it
| on drugs, lottery tickets, or alcohol while the kids go
| hungry.
|
| On the other hand, you can have the way it is now, where
| the same kind of person who would do the above, sells
| $200 worth of SNAP benefits to whatever corrupt bodega
| owner in exchange for $100 to spend on drugs, lottery
| tickets, or alcohol while the kids go hungry.
|
| In both situations the government is spending $200 to buy
| the poor harmful vices. We're just choosing between
| fraudster shop owners getting a cut, or the addict being
| able to buy twice as much malt liquor.
|
| And in case it isn't clear, I don't think the _majority_
| of SNAP recipients sell their benefits or don 't feed
| their kids. But the responsible group, well, it makes
| little difference to them whether they have EBT or cash
| aid as they're going to buy food anyway.
| kingstnap wrote:
| > We're just choosing between fraudster shop owners
| getting a cut, or the addict being able to buy twice as
| much malt liquor.
|
| I don't agree with these zero friction in a vacuum takes.
| Difficulty in access does shape choices, a lot in fact.
|
| If you make it easier for people to use handouts to
| gamble or do drugs or whatever then more people will do
| it and ones doing it will do more of it. This isn't even
| a take its the null hypothesis.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| The null hypothesis could just as easily be if they get a
| 1:1 dollar exchange rate versus a 1:2 rate on their food
| stamps, they can afford to buy drugs AND food instead of
| just drugs. Guess which one they buy if they can only buy
| one? Guess what they are incentivized to do if they have
| less cash than they need on hand to do both? I'll give
| you a hint, it rhymes with teal.
| 999900000999 wrote:
| In California you can use food stamps for fast food.
|
| I haven't been there in a while so it might be different
| now.
|
| Let's think about it.
|
| Your homeless or in an unstable living situation. You
| don't have access to a kitchen, where are you going to
| make a home cooked meal.
|
| How are you going to prepare raw chicken without a stove.
| Some homeless encampments do have people trying to cook,
| which sounds neat until a fire starts.
|
| Let someone down on there luck buy a sandwich with SNAP.
| Maybe a shake too. Keeps the fastfood franchise in
| business, keeps people employed there.
|
| The money is going to flow right into the local economy.
| I'd rather my tax dollars stay here than funding military
| bases all over planet earth.
|
| I agree with you though. Just give people money. I feel
| like a UBI is the way to go. A single Flat tax rate for
| everyone. Everyone gets 1000$ a month( just off the top
| of my head, could be higher or lower).
|
| The bizzaro welfare cliff... If you and your partner have
| kids it can be smart to not get married and have the kids
| live with whoever makes less.
|
| They get free healthcare with the less affluent parent
| and you just hope you don't get sick.
| MaysonL wrote:
| In California you can also use food stamps at farmer's
| markets with a 50% discount.
| 303uru wrote:
| Why should they not, what is with this parental-ism? Should
| Social Security recipients be able to buy candy? Should my
| employer get to choose what food I can purchase?
| brainwad wrote:
| Food stamps are an inherently paternalistic program. The
| whole point is to ensure people get enough to eat, even
| when they can't or won't provide for themselves. Same
| with other voucher or in-kind welfare programs in
| housing, healthcare, education, etc.
| dmschulman wrote:
| When Michelle Obama pushed for better school lunches she was
| excoriated for trying to get healthier foods into the hands
| of children. Glenn Beck's response was "Get your damn hands
| off my fries, lady. If I want to be a fat, fat, fatty and
| shovel French fries all day long, that is my choice!". Seems
| partisan spite cuts both ways.
|
| I'm glad to see this announcement and despite the leadership
| in Washington right now I don't think these adjustment will
| be seen as too controversial by the American public. The
| recommendations are based on a lot of good nutritional
| science that's been out there for years, but the buck seems
| to stop at the conversation around fat.
|
| They went to great lengths to remove the debate around good
| fat vs bad fat from this discussion. Even reading the report,
| emphasis is put on the discussion of why we use so many
| pressed oils in the food chain, but not why we phased lard
| and shortening out of the American diet.
|
| "Eat real butter" is ostensibly a recommendation presented at
| the bottom of the webpage, but butter is not a healthy fat.
| Same with some people's obsession with frying in beef tallow,
| but the report doesn't want to dig into this distinction for
| obvious self interested reasons. They even recommend:
|
| > When cooking with or adding fats to meals, prioritize oils
| with essential fatty acids, such as olive oil. Other options
| can include butter or beef tallow.
|
| Which is a good recommendation. But no, you don't want to
| replace olive oil with butter or beef tallow. There's a lot
| of good nutrition science to back this up, but the report
| would prefer to not go there. Maybe "eat some butter" is
| appropriate, but unless the FDA wants to have an honest
| conversation around HDL and LDL cholesterol and saturated
| fats, I don't see this inverted pyramid doing too much good
| for overall population health (besides raising awareness)
| lithocarpus wrote:
| Partisan spite does cut both ways and should be seen as
| such and ignored on either side.
|
| Regarding fat I think "eat real whole unprocessed food" is
| a simple way to cover it. These guideliness recommend using
| less added fat including avoiding deep frying, and if one
| must use fat to use a minimally processed (i.e. pressed or
| rendered) form like olive oil or coconut oil or butter or
| animal fat. Though they failed to mention the distinction
| between refined and unrefined olive oil - today much of it
| is refined i.e. highly processed.
| theLegionWithin wrote:
| Lol I forgot about that. What was it? Pizza is a vegetable?
| lkbm wrote:
| Pizza as a vegetable (because of tomato sauce) was
| California under Reagan. Michelle Obama said to eat healthy
| and exercise more, though "eat healthy" still used the
| MyPlate guidelines.
| jibal wrote:
| Reagan said that catsup is a vegetable, not pizza.
| onetimeusename wrote:
| I go on HN to read thoughtful non-partisan commentary but the
| general mood seems to be "everything is bad" in certain
| threads even if that contradicts a previous popular HN
| consensus.
| api wrote:
| I think this is at least better than the old food pyramid,
| though not perfect. It's a step in the right direction.
|
| What I hate, and react against, is the package deal. We get a
| better food pyramid, but we also get antivax imbeciles and a
| resurgence in easily preventable diseases. We get an official
| nod of approval given to idiots who think you can treat cancer
| with "alternative" treatments. We get blaming autism on Tylenol
| with incomplete and inadequate data or, wait, maybe not, or
| maybe, or whatever that was.
|
| I think it reflects a deeper problem though. The "crunchy"
| "natural" alt-med orbits have _usually_ had better ideas about
| nutrition. They 've historically been right about whole vs.
| processed foods, more protein and fats and less simple carbs,
| sugar being bad, etc. Unfortunately they've historically been
| wrong about most other things. They're wrong about vaccines,
| wrong about just how powerful and effective diets can be,
| mostly wrong about psych meds, and wrong about giving the nod
| to unmitigated quackery like homeopathy.
|
| I also think that tends to be a common problem with any and all
| populism, whether left or right. The present establishment may
| be corrupt or broken, but replacing it is hard, especially when
| it tends to have a talent monopoly. "Serious" people who go
| into medicine go to college, then grad school / med school,
| then get licensed, etc., and pick up establishment views. The
| people who want to do medicine but don't take this path tend to
| be amateurs and quacks and weird ideologues.
|
| Venezuela's been in the news lately. My understanding of what
| happened to their oil industry is: they had it working okay
| with professionals doing it, and then there was a populist
| revolution. Then they kicked out all the professionals. Then
| they had no idea how to run an oil industry. The professionals
| were linked to a foreign power and probably taking too much
| profit at the expense of the Venezuelan people, yes, but they
| also knew how to extract petrol.
|
| Edit: You see more sympathy here than many other educated
| places for this stuff, and there's a reason for that.
|
| I think CS people are extremely open to autodidactism, probably
| too open, and I think that's because CS and programming is one
| of the few serious fields where it is actually common for an
| autodidact to equal or exceed a trained professional.
|
| The zero capital cost near-zero real world implication nature
| of computational experimentation facilitates this. You can just
| read open literature and sit and play until you get good and it
| harms nobody and costs almost nothing. Math is another field
| where there have been genius autodidacts that have made huge
| discoveries. The arts are obviously mostly like this, excluding
| those that are very hard to learn alone or have capital costs.
|
| Medicine is definitely not a field like this. I don't think you
| can autodidact medicine. As a result, doctors outside the
| establishment are _usually_ not good. There have been
| historical examples, but few, and most of them came up through
| the ranks of real medicine before pushing a radical idea that
| turned out to be right.
|
| Also note that even in CS and math, most outsider ideas are
| wrong. Outsider ideas are kind of like high risk / high reward
| investments. It's very hard for anyone, insider-trained or not,
| to formulate a deeply contrarian or wholly original idea that
| is correct, but when someone does it makes the news because
| it's both rare and often high impact. The hundreds of thousands
| to millions of deeply contrarian or original ideas that were
| worthless or wrong don't make the news.
| koolba wrote:
| > What I hate, and react against, is the package deal. We get
| a better food pyramid, but we also get antivax imbeciles and
| a resurgence in easily preventable diseases.
|
| Clearly if you eat a T-bone steak and half a dozen eggs daily
| combined with 25 pull-ups, you don't need any vaccines.
| api wrote:
| You're getting downvoted for snark, but that's exactly what
| a lot of layperson MAHA people think.
| overgard wrote:
| I think you're worried too much about specific tribes and
| groups, and less about what information is good or bad. End
| of the day almost any source is going to tell you some things
| that are useful, some things that are useless, and some
| things that are actively harmful. I'm not trying to say all
| sources are equal, but mainstream medicine has a lot to
| answer for in terms of giving bad advice for decades (both
| now and historically). For a long time mainstream medicine
| also thought smoking was healthy and bloodletting was a way
| to treat infections. I don't say that to mean "don't see
| doctors" or "get your nutritional advice from chiropractors",
| I just think it's worth pointing out that with ANY source you
| need to wary. Autodidactism is a very good thing IF you use
| critical thinking when evaluating your sources.
| shafoshaf wrote:
| I think the point being made is that the challenge is when
| it comes to medicine, lay people can't even begin to
| understand the research and can't form their own opinion.
| So for those of us without MD's, we HAVE to trust someone
| to tell us what works and what doesn't. Giving mixed
| signals really screws that up as I can't personally assess
| what is good medicine and what isn't.
|
| Regarding, smoking and bloodletting, the former was bought
| and paid for by industry, that is just fraud. For the
| latter, there are cases where bloodletting actually works.
| Medieval medicine isn't the backward thinking we often
| ascribe to it and many would argue that it wasn't a "Dark"
| ages at all. There are even modern instances where maggots
| are the best solution for cleaning wounds. Even given that
| history, the recent advances by people whose jobs I can't
| even begin to understand, can nuke my entire immune system
| to treat a cancer and bring me back to full health. That is
| not something an autodidactic can do.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| Just for anyone reading - the food pyramid was canned over 15
| years ago. MAHA promotes it as absurd in order to criticize
| it even though food guidelines have been evidence-based and
| extremely reasonable since the early Obama years. Their
| entire grift is built on deceit.
| overgard wrote:
| Yep. I switched to this sort of diet a few months back and
| there's been no downsides. I've gotten needed weight loss, more
| energy, better skin, and better mood.
|
| There was a temporary period where I had some GI issues from
| changing what I ate very abruptly, but that wore off as my gut
| bacteria adapted
| nemomarx wrote:
| If the current government gave me 500 dollars and told me the
| sky was blue I'd start checking to be sure it wasn't a scam,
| yeah? Even if they say something that sounds true you want to
| look for the trick.
| criddell wrote:
| I think the zeitgeist is starting to turn on the high-protein
| diet recommendations:
|
| https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/11/looking-to-bu...
|
| There was a story about this in the NYT recently (can't find
| it) and IIRC, it basically said protein is out and fiber is in.
| It wasn't that simple, but that was my takeaway.
| overgard wrote:
| Honestly, you can find studies to prove just about anything
| when it comes to nutrition. Too much money involved.
| Sometimes you have to use common sense or try different diets
| to see how your body reacts. I find "high fiber" and "low
| protein" to be a suspicious suggestion though. Protein
| generally has a small insulin response, your body actually
| needs protein, and if things like the "protein leverage
| hypothesis" are correct it can also help with satiety. Fiber,
| on the other hand, is literally food stuff that can't be
| digested. It can be helpful for your colon bacteria, but
| that's about it.
|
| Just because an article comes from Harvard doesn't mean it's
| correct -- Harvard scientists were also behind the original
| food pyramid, and were likely paid off by the sugar industry.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Beyond the protein insulin response... when you have
| protein with sufficient fat, the insulin effect is much,
| much lower still. I tend to suggest that people try to get
| about 0.5g fat to 1g protein (which is slightly more
| calories from fat than protein). I think the aversion to
| fat is problematic and likely a lack of sufficient well
| rounded fat intake is likely a factor in the fertility and
| other hormonal issues in western society today.
| BizarroLand wrote:
| Fiber also gives your colon material to push against, adds
| volume to poop, and helps clean and clear you out when you
| poop.
|
| If you're on a low-carb diet you should supplement fiber.
| criddell wrote:
| The recommendation wasn't for high fiber, low protein. It
| was moderate protein and higher fiber.
| overgard wrote:
| I still find it suspicious. "Moderate" protein sounds
| great, because "moderate" anything sounds great. The
| question is what "moderate" actually means. I think the
| people that encourage more protein are generally
| suggesting that the guidelines for "moderate" are
| actually too low.
|
| Tangent, but it reminds me of how people consider a
| "balanced" diet to be 1/3rd protein, 1/3rd fat, 1/3rd
| carbs. It sounds good, until you consider the purpose of
| carbs. Carb's aren't inherently bad of course, but they
| have glucose which stimulates an insulin response,
| resulting in storing more food as fat. And considering
| how many obese people we have, the "balanced" diet seems
| to be very unbalanced. The thing with carbs is, you
| really only need to take them in if you're very actively
| doing anaerobic exercise. If you're doing that, great!
| Then you should eat carbs. If you're sitting at a desk 8
| hours a day and not exercising at all, then you really
| don't need much in the way of carbs at all.
|
| Higher fiber seems, at best, to not move the needle much
| at all. At worst you could irritate various gut linings.
| Fiber in things like fruit can be good because it
| moderates the absorption of fructose, but I generally
| don't think you need to supplement fiber at all.
| array_key_first wrote:
| Fiber greatly lowers your blood sugar response because you
| can't digest it. It also lowers your blood cholesterol for
| the same reason, so it's often recommended for those with a
| risk of CVD to eat more fruits and vegetables. It also
| protects against colorectal cancer for similar reasons.
|
| Turns out just slowing down digestion can have a lot of
| benefits.
|
| Also, most Americans eat very, very little fiber. Anything
| is an improvement. I believe the FDA recommendation is 30
| grams a day, and most Americans eat, like, 2.
|
| However, most Americans are not deficient in protein. They
| eat lots of meat, and very little veggies.
| overgard wrote:
| Well, true on the blood sugar response, but you can also
| lower the blood sugar response by not eating high-
| glycemic-index foods in the first place. Or, you could
| eat resistant starches if you really want a starch. So I
| don't necessarily disagree with you, but unless you're
| living a very active lifestyle I think it'd be better to
| remove carbs than add fiber.
| array_key_first wrote:
| The thing is basically nobody eats enough fiber, so
| that's one big ticket optimization you can make. And the
| trouble with "eat less carbs" is that people take that
| and run with it, and cut out fruits and veggies, which is
| not going to help them.
|
| I agree people should eat less carbs in general, but we
| need to be careful. Ultimately, replacing kale or
| something with bacon, which is basically tobacco in meat
| form, isn't going to improve their health. Eat less
| carbs, eat more protein, but eat the right protein, and
| the right carbs.
| RealityVoid wrote:
| > Sometimes you have to use common sense or try different
| diets to see how your body reacts.
|
| I sometimes wonder if the complexity of the human body
| doesn't stop us from seeing things that can have great
| positive effect on a set of people because it's
| counteracted by the effect on another set of people so the
| result in the whole is cancelled out. I now wonder if the
| statistic methods used in these studies take this into
| account.
|
| All this to say that I approve of controlled self-
| experimentation, but you need to be very rigorous and
| brutally honest. Most people are not.
| deinonychus wrote:
| i think about this a lot and i genuinely believe that for
| every fringe diet or supplementation regimen, there
| exists a population it would genuinely benefit, for at
| least some point in their lives
|
| but it's tricky to figure out and i assume the consensus
| rules are good enough for most people
| jdietrich wrote:
| Unless you're doing something _blatantly_ wrong or have a
| very specific disorder like coeliac, diet just doesn 't
| have very much influence on health. There are a very wide
| range of diets that are more-or-less equally healthy,
| within a margin of error. Humans are highly adaptable
| omnivores that have evolved to survive and thrive on a
| broader range of foods than pretty much any other species.
| The data seems so mixed because the effect sizes of
| reasonable interventions are so small - a tiny signal
| drowned out by noise.
|
| The entire problem is that most people in high- and middle-
| income countries are in fact doing something _blatantly_
| wrong - they are consistently eating vastly more calories
| than they use. Some of those people are ignorant of what
| 2000 to 2500 calories actually looks like, some are
| deluded, but a very large proportion know damned well that
| they 're eating far too much and do it anyway.
|
| The obesogenic environment that we now live in is partly
| due to the influence of the processed foods industry, but
| in large part it's simply a product of abundance. Before
| the late 20th century, it was simply inconceivable that
| poor people could _afford_ to become morbidly obese.
| Agricultural productivity has improved beyond all
| recognition and the world is flooded with incredibly cheap
| food of all kinds.
|
| We've spent the last few decades trying to push back
| against that with all manner of initiatives intended to
| endgender behavioural change, with very little success. It
| doesn't really matter what guidance we give people when
| they have shown a consistent inability or unwillingness to
| follow it.
|
| If we're actually serious about the effects of diet on
| public health, I think there are only two credible options
| - extremely heavy-handed regulation, or the mass
| prescribing of GLP-1 receptor agonists. All of the other
| options are just permutations of "let's do more of the
| thing that hasn't worked".
| WA wrote:
| Too much protein is bad for your kidneys.
| delichon wrote:
| For healthy people kidney damage starts at around 2.5
| g/kg/day, which is about 5.5 pounds of steak before
| cooking for a 160 pound man.
| criddell wrote:
| How are you calculating that?
|
| Google tells me that 2 lbs of steak contains between 225
| and 270 grams of protein. That would be well over the
| threshold that the article I linked to a couple of posts
| up mentions:
|
| > Your kidneys process all the extra nitrogen from the
| protein, and when you're eating 200 grams a day,
| sometimes they just can't keep up and they get stressed.
| kace91 wrote:
| Fiber is stupidly easy to supplement, something that's not
| talked about enough.
|
| A glass of water with psylium husk a day and you solve _a
| lot_ of modern diet problems.its also super cheap,a $20 bag
| can last you a year.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Supplements don't seem to work as well as getting fibre
| from your diet.
| 303uru wrote:
| Supplemental fiber is mostly worthless.
| mitchell_h wrote:
| I agree. This is nearly the exact diet anyone with credibility
| has suggested for a long long time. If you get into the bro-
| science(which I believe tends to front run mainstream by a long
| ways), this is the diet every athlete and gym rat has been
| doing for years and years, with AMAZING results.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| The bro science would tell you the protein target is still
| too low too :)
| tracker1 wrote:
| That's starting to change... mostly in that exceeding
| 14g:1kg ratio mentioned in TFA is being shown to have worse
| results, so some more recent recommendations are that you
| need to get enough protein, but not too much.
|
| My own opinion is that you should also get at least 0.5g
| fat to 1g protein as a baseline... more would be for energy
| in lieu of carbs.
| brodouevencode wrote:
| > you should also get at least 0.5g fat to 1g protein as
| a baseline
|
| And hormonal health
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| That sounds more like the fad Atkin's weight loss diet that
| said you could eat unlimited meat/fat/protein, but no carbs.
|
| This new JFK Jr diet has something in common with the Paleo
| "cave man" diet, which at least makes some sense in the
| argument ("this is what our bodies have evolved to eat") if not
| the specifics. I'm not sure where the emphasis on milk/cheese
| and eggs comes from since this all modern, not hunter-gatherer,
| and largely unhealthy, and putting red-meat at the top (more
| cholesterol, together with the eggs), and whole grain at the
| bottom makes zero sense - a recipe for heart attacks and colon
| cancer.
|
| https://www.cnbc.com/2026/01/07/rfk-jr-nutrition-guidelines-...
| tracker1 wrote:
| Dietary cholesterol does not affect blood serum cholesterol
| and recommendations to limit cholesterol intake were removed
| from AHA and ADA guidelines in 2011 and 2013 respectively...
| the fact that this "common knowledge" still persists is
| disappointing.
| overgard wrote:
| Eggs are _very_ healthy. There 's a lot of nutrients that are
| hard to get from other sources that eggs have in abundance.
| And it makes sense in just a common-sense sort of way -- if
| you're a chicken you want to surround your offspring with the
| best possible food you can as they grow.
|
| With regards to dairy, it's more about a person's individual
| reaction to it. It's a similar argument with nutrient density
| (since milk is intended for growing offspring, obviously it's
| going to be very nutrient dense). The downside is potential
| inflammation or not having the enzymes to process it.
|
| I would definitely not lump eggs and dairy as "bad" in any
| way though.
|
| Also, the "cholesterol" thing is a very bad thing to focus
| on. Cholesterol is not bad! You need cholesterol. (What do
| you think cell membranes are partially composed of?
|
| Whole grains are not as good as you think. Often, they're
| made from strains that are optimized for growing and
| robustness not nutrition. Also, unless you're exercising a
| lot you really don't need much in the way of carbs.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| There's certainly a difference between modern and ancient
| grain varieties, but OTOH whole grain bread is basically
| what fed at least the western world for the last 2000 years
| - bread was the center of the roman diet and also of the
| medieval diet, which seems more than long enough (~100
| generations - evolution is fast) for this to be the natural
| "our bodies evolved for this" diet that we should be
| targeting!
|
| As far as eggs and dairy go, sure they are healthy for who
| is meant to be consuming them - baby chickens and baby
| mammals, but that doesn't mean they are good for us in
| excess.
|
| There have been, and continue to be, so may flip flops in
| dietary recommendations and what is good/bad for you, that
| it seems common sense is a better approach. All things in
| moderation, and indeed look to what our relatively recent
| ancestors have been eating to get an idea of what our
| bodies are evolved to eat - whole foods and not processed
| ones and chemical additives.
| overgard wrote:
| Ancient grains are great! But frankly, you're probably
| not going to be finding Einkhorn grains in you're grocery
| store. It's not just the way whole grains are processed,
| it's also about the plants they grow from. Also, the way
| ancient grains are processed is not particularly
| profitable (they need to sit and ferment, for instance,
| and the grain itself is a lot lower yield).
|
| If you want to eat ancient grains I'd say go for it, but
| when I talk about whole grains I talk about what you're
| going to find in an average grocery store, and even what
| you find at a place like Whole Foods is pretty bad.
|
| I highly suspect that nobody other than body builders are
| eating eggs in excess (if that's even possible -- what
| bad nutrients are in eggs?). Eggs are kind of a pain in
| the ass to cook (other than hard boiling), and most
| processing is about convenience.. In any case, things
| like choline are hard to get from other sources, and I
| think it's not that wild to assume our ancestors loved to
| raid birds nests for nutrient dense eggs.
|
| Agreed on a lot of flip flops in dietary recommendations,
| but that definitely doesn't mean that the classic food
| pyramid was anywhere close to correct.
| tony_cannistra wrote:
| If you're looking for an excellent supplier of einkhorn,
| I'd suggest Bluebird Grain Farms. (They're local to me,
| so I'm a bit biased of course. But they are a great
| group, and their flours and grains are excellent).
|
| https://bluebirdgrainfarms.com/
| SoftTalker wrote:
| I don't think 2,000 years is enough, but am not an
| expert. The main thing that grains and bread did was make
| it a lot easier for more people to get through lean times
| without starving. It also allowed people to specialize:
| not everyone needed to be a hunter/gatherer.
|
| 20,000 years maybe yes. But we have not been agricultural
| for that long. And that's why grain-based food still is
| not something we're well adapted to.
| cpursley wrote:
| Humans have been eating eggs for approximately 6 million
| years, a few years more than bonbons...
| zahlman wrote:
| > Also, the "cholesterol" thing is a very bad thing to
| focus on. Cholesterol is not bad! You need cholesterol.
| (What do you think cell membranes are partially composed
| of?
|
| There is also not a very strong connection between dietary
| cholesterol and serum levels, anyway.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Common sense says that adults are not embryos and humans
| are not chickens, so if eggs are nutritious for adult
| humans, it's more of a happy coincidence.
| cpursley wrote:
| Our hunter gather ancestors ate eggs when they could find
| them, probably often uncooked. What they generally didn't
| come across were trees full of snickers bars, coke and
| Wonder Bread.
| hellcow wrote:
| > You need cholesterol.
|
| Your body produces cholesterol naturally, without any meat
| or dairy. In my case it actually produces way more than I
| need, even on a vegan diet, because of genetic factors.
| People should test their LDL and evaluate whether eating
| cholesterol is healthy _for themselves_ as it's different
| for everyone.
| tensor wrote:
| The Paleo diet is utter nonsense. Human gut biome and ability
| to process different foods evolves far far far faster than
| that. We are nothing like our paleo ancestors.
| caycep wrote:
| mostly because of the destruction of American science, public
| health and public safety the admin pushed through in order to
| publish this set of guidelines, instead of just hiring a
| professionally trained RD to write it up.
| rayiner wrote:
| Didn't those professionals give us the original food pyramid
| that told us to stuff our faces with bread? Weren't they the
| same people that told us not to eat eggs because of
| cholesterol? And tell us to limit our fish consumption?
|
| Maybe different areas of expertise aren't equally valid, and
| even good experts often can't see the forest for the trees in
| terms of developing actionable advice.
| jdlshore wrote:
| The food pyramid was the result of intense lobbying and
| political processes, not scientists and doctors.
| salutis wrote:
| This is incorrect reasoning. Science is advancing. It is
| like saying we should not listen to physicists because
| "Didn't those physicists gave us the original heliocentric
| system?"
| caycep wrote:
| also misleading. Nutrition science did not give the "food
| pyramid" quoted above, historically, it was Dept of
| Agriculture and associated lobbyists.
| rayiner wrote:
| The Department of Agriculture employs 2,000 scientists:
| https://www.ars.usda.gov/docs/aboutus/
|
| Who was lobbied? The lobbyists can't publish things in
| the Federal Register. How it works is they try to
| influence the experts at the agencies to support their
| position. That's what lobbying _is_. It's all laundered
| through experts both in the private sector and the
| government.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >How it works is they try to influence the experts at the
| agencies to support their position
|
| The real winning move if you can afford it to pay for a
| bunch of academic labs who won't at the margin publish
| stuff that's bad for their sugardaddy. This way the
| lawmakers, the bureaucrats and the public discourse is
| all built upon numbers and information that is favorable
| to you. So then when those officials you bought make the
| "right" decisions they can do so in comfort knowing that
| their decisions are backed by the numbers.
| rayiner wrote:
| > The real winning move if you can afford it to pay for a
| bunch of academic labs who won't at the margin publish
| stuff that's bad for their sugardaddy.
|
| Yup. Scientists have bills to pay too.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| This is an incorrect response in that this isn't about
| reasoning, this is about feels.
| philipkglass wrote:
| _And tell us to limit our fish consumption?_
|
| The only recommendations to limit fish that I have seen are
| due to mercury exposure risks:
|
| https://www.fda.gov/food/consumers/advice-about-eating-fish
|
| Coal burning and incidental industrial releases drastically
| increased the amount of mercury in surface waters over the
| past century. The released mercury gets transformed by
| bacteria into organomercury compounds which are lipophilic
| and concentrate up the food chain, meaning that predator
| fish like tuna and swordfish can contain orders of
| magnitude more mercury than the water they live in.
|
| There are plenty of fish with much lower mercury levels
| (like salmon, trout, and sardines):
|
| https://www.fda.gov/food/environmental-contaminants-
| food/mer...
|
| You can eat all the salmon you want without worrying about
| mercury, and I haven't seen government advice to the
| contrary.
| rayiner wrote:
| Your first link recommends limiting fish for children to
| 2 servings _per week_ , even from the "best choices"
| list. By contrast it recommends kids 1-5 have two
| servings _a day_ of other meat and poultry:
| https://www.parkchildcare.ie/food-pyramid-for-1-5-year-
| old-c...
|
| Thats tantamount to a recommendation that fish should
| comprise a minority of your protein, which is backwards.
| It's almost certainly healthier overall for fish to be
| your primary protein source and to eat red meat, chicken,
| and pork sparingly. How many servings a week of fish do
| you think Japanese kids eat?
| caycep wrote:
| No, that was the US Dept of Agriculture. You need to talk
| to an actual RD.
| ericfr11 wrote:
| It was pushed by food lobbies, like a lot of topics in
| current admin
| potato3732842 wrote:
| "The professionals" produced 2.5-3 laughably bad food
| pyramids depending on how you count. Of all the things this
| administration has done to "run around" the system on this or
| that issue, this is not gonna be one I'm gonna get pissed off
| about.
| caycep wrote:
| Food pyramid is a US Dept of Agriculture thing, not from
| any professional RD
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Is the department of agriculture not "the professionals"?
|
| And even if they weren't not a day goes by that
| government doesn't do things based on
| research/influence/numbers from academia that was
| produced with funding from a) the government b) the
| industry. So it's not like anything other option for
| deriving a food pyramid is free of questionable influence
| either.
| wtcactus wrote:
| Are you talking about "professionally trained nutritionists"?
|
| Those people are worse than Astrologers.
|
| At least astrologers stick to their fantasy, while, since I
| remember being old enough to count, I already lost track of
| how many times they've told us that "eggs are bad" and then
| "eggs are good" again, and then bad, and good, and... I've
| lost track.
|
| Then they told us to eat cereal at breakfast, and that bread
| and potatoes are the basis of a good diet, then that fat is
| the killer and then that we should replace butter with plant
| based alternatives and the list goes on.
|
| Nutritionists aren't scientists. They aren't even good at
| basic logic and coherence. So, no, I don't want them in
| charge of dictating policies.
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| Frankly I just don't trust federal health info while RFK jr. Is
| at the helm. 2 days ago they reduced the recommended scheduled
| vaccines from 19->11 with absolutely no evidence or process.
| All vibes and conspiracies.
|
| Why should I trust them with the food pyramid? How do I know if
| anyone who actually has expertise was consulted when his
| signature move has been axe experts and bring in "skeptics"
| with no actual background since day 1?
|
| I'm supposed to play ball and accept health advice from _the_
| antivaxxer who has led to countless unnecessary deaths? Who
| walked up with the president and said "Tylenol is linked to
| autism" with no evidence?
|
| No way.
|
| Edit: it's worth mentioning that he and a bunch of "MAHA"
| proponents cite the natural and healthy food in Europe but
| never want to use the dirty word that makes it happen:
| _regulation_. If we are serious about unhealthy additives and
| other food concerns, then we need robust regulations. They
| aren't serious about change. It's easy to go "we're gonna have
| everyone eat healthy and natural stuff" but when it counts they
| won't do what is necessary. [also toned down my heated
| language]
| VLM wrote:
| "hell hath no fury like taking away nerds' Mountain Dew and
| Flamin' Hot Cheetos"
|
| Its an addiction. Try taking away an alcoholic's alcohol and
| sit back and enjoy the infinite rationalizations about how its
| heart healthy and lowers stress and its just a couple a night,
| etc etc.
| wat10000 wrote:
| This department is led by an insane person who constantly says
| ridiculous things. It's not a "purely political reflex" to have
| an initial bad reaction to anything he puts out. The fact that
| this is fairly sensible is quite surprising. I'm sure it won't
| last, and we'll soon be back to saying Advil causes
| schizophrenia or whatever the next round of madness is.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| A lot of red meat is probably one angle I can't get behind.
| They are very high in cholesterol and triglycerides which are
| deadly for the heart over the long haul.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| Is pretty clear that eating cholesterol doesn't lead to
| higher blood cholesterol. It just doesn't matter.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| From ://nutritionfacts.org/video/dietary-guidelines-eat-as-
| little-dietary-cholesterol-as-possible/
|
| _" Most studies regarding cholesterol are bought and paid
| for by the egg industry. "_
| addisonl wrote:
| Its actually not "pretty clear"--about 25-30% of people are
| hyper responders who are impacted by dietary cholesterol.
| stevenwoo wrote:
| You wouldn't happen to know the specific genetic markers
| for this, it's the only thing I'd like to know about
| myself so I could eat eggs guilt free. A cursory search
| keeps giving me not the results I want to see.
| azakai wrote:
| No, doctors still recommend limiting the intake of
| cholesterol in food, and also saturated fat. See:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Medical_guideline
| s...
|
| https://www.heart.org/en/news/2023/08/25/heres-the-latest-
| on...
| djeastm wrote:
| One of those Egg Council creeps got to you, too, huh?
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuojmEoI51w
| bsder wrote:
| The problem is that when people say "red meat" they're almost
| always referring to the modern "hamburger-like substance"
| which almost certainly high on the ultra-processed scale.
|
| An actual steak or hamburger ground at a butcher would be a
| pretty gigantic step up for most people.
| 303uru wrote:
| Your colon doesn't care how expensive the beef was.
| bsder wrote:
| The whole thrust of modern nutritional research is to
| prove that your statement is wrong.
|
| For example, a steak is better than pastrami. This is the
| point of not eating "ultra-processed" food.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| No it's just the contents of regular red meat. But there's
| also a genetic component to it. Some people are more
| negatively affected than others.
| baggachipz wrote:
| > Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new
| restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer
| eligible.
|
| I can think of one issue here. Ultra-processed foods, candy,
| and sugary drinks are _cheap_ and shelf-stable. They 're cheap
| because they're subsidized. Fruits and vegetables are more
| expensive, and they don't last very long. So a person on a very
| limited SNAP budget will get less food under the new
| restrictions.
|
| The answer, of course, is to make it so that fresh produce and
| other healthy options are cheaper than the junk food. I have a
| hard time seeing that happening, given how susceptible the
| administration is to being "lobbied".
| shuntress wrote:
| The actual issue is that "Ultra-Processed" is EXTREMELY broad
| and vague.
|
| For example, hot dogs are ultra-processed. Obviously hot dogs
| are not the healthiest food but also obviously "franks and
| beans" is a pretty good meal for a tight budget and is
| something you should be able to get with SNAP.
| sublinear wrote:
| Franks and beans are not the best meal on the cheap. Sounds
| more expensive than cooking fresh and you're missing out on
| better nutrition.
|
| For the most bang for your buck you want to be eating less
| expensive real protein like chicken and pork and filling up
| on salads. Limit carb intake from beans and other starches.
| Prefer fruit for carbs because it has fiber and vitamins
| you can't get anywhere else.
| brokencode wrote:
| Hotdogs are obviously bad, but beans are good. They are
| packed with fiber and protein.
|
| Of course, your typical can of Bush's baked beans is
| loaded with added sugar. Gotta get the kind that doesn't
| have added sugar.
| shuntress wrote:
| You are preposterously out-of-touch with reality here.
| "Filling up on salads" is healthy but it is FAR from the
| most "bang for your buck". And are seriously trying to
| say that beans aren't a good source of fiber and
| vitamins?
|
| Sure you shouldn't eat hot dogs and baked beans three
| meals a day every day but you are absolutely out of your
| mind if you think cheap sausage and canned beans are bad
| to have in the house when you are struggling.
| sublinear wrote:
| Oh well I guess I must have dreamed when I was broke and
| hungry.
|
| In all seriousness, canned food is way more expensive
| than buying a pork butt and chicken. I don't think you
| read what I originally wrote.
| shuntress wrote:
| I am reading what you wrote and disputing it but you
| don't seem to want to hear it.
|
| I am saying that denying the sale of all "ULTRA
| PROCESSED" foods to people receiving food assistance is
| NOT helpful because deciding what counts as "ultra-
| processed" is too messy and imprecise.
|
| You are trying to split hairs over the most cost-
| effective struggle meals.
|
| I can indulge you.
|
| ---
|
| Perdue Young Whole Chicken Fresh (~5lb) = $12.49
|
| Oscar Mayer Original Uncured Turkey Chicken & Pork
| Wieners (10 count) $4.49 + 3x Bush's Best Original Baked
| Beans (16 oz.) $7.47 ($2.49 ea.) = 11.96 total
|
| You eat half a can of beans and one hot dog per meal.
| That's six meals and four extra hot dogs you can do
| whatever else you want with.
|
| You can definitely get six meals out of a whole chicken
| but it's going to be _a lot_ more work plus the
| additional 50c cost (and that 's ignoring the value of
| the four extra hot dogs). 1 hot dog + 8oz of beans is
| going to be a fairly similar portion to 1/6th the
| recoverable meat from a 5lb bird.
|
| It should obviously go without saying but, since you seem
| to be a stickler, I should point out that there is
| nothing stopping you from eating chicken one week then
| frank & beans the next. Variety is the biggest part of a
| healthy diet.
| sublinear wrote:
| Your body doesn't care about the weight of the food nor
| the quantity of items in the package.
|
| You eat calories and process nutrients. You can make a
| lot more meals and a wider variety of recipes with a
| whole chicken than a pack of hot dogs.
|
| Anyone who shops like you described is not being
| efficient with their money as long as they have their own
| kitchen. Poverty is a lot of possible scenarios. I'm not
| saying they're dumb or anything.
|
| Nutrition is hard to think about when tempted by the
| modern convenient grocery store with limited money. Unit
| price has a way of messing with your head. I also get the
| practicality of having packaged and shelf stable food
| when you lack access to a freezer and can't stay
| somewhere for too long. It is what it is.
| Sparkle-san wrote:
| Beans are legitimately one of the most balanced foods out
| there. Yes, they have carbs (but they're more complex
| than the simple sugars in fruit), they also have a lot of
| fiber, protein and several key micro-nutrients. Not to
| mention, most people on SNAP have kids and good luck
| getting them to eat salads.
| nelsondev wrote:
| I think you answered your own question with the last
| sentence. Have cattle ranchers, chicken farmers, vegetable
| and fruit farmers lobby for same or higher subsidies than
| grains.
| baggachipz wrote:
| For what it's worth, meat is insanely cheap in the US due
| to lobbied subsidies as well. The produce is what we really
| need to subsidize.
| sublinear wrote:
| > a person on a very limited SNAP budget will get less food
| under the new restrictions ... make it so that fresh produce
| and other healthy options are cheaper than the junk food
|
| I'm confused by these statements. How are you deciding to
| measure the quantity of "food"? If you see food as a means to
| deliver nutrients, fresh produce is already far cheaper than
| junk food.
|
| From the perspective of your body, you can sustain yourself
| much better on a smaller amount of nutrient dense calories
| than a larger amount of empty ones. Obesity is not merely an
| overconsumption of calories or a measure of food or body
| mass.
| Blackthorn wrote:
| > Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new
| restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer
| eligible.
|
| Because poor people should be allowed to enjoy some of life's
| pleasures as well.
| shuntress wrote:
| > 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. Dedicating resources
| to a nebulously defined BIG project regardless of whether or
| not it actually improves outcomes.
| imperio59 wrote:
| 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 also is there is a huge amount of fraud with SNAP
| with people claiming benefits for multiple people and then
| reselling their SNAP cards to just make cash. The people
| buying the endless cases of Mountain Dew often have just
| bought a 50% discounted SNAP card off some other person who
| isn't starving at all.
| shuntress wrote:
| 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"
| qingcharles wrote:
| You're going to get very bored just drinking water all day
| every day. Why can I buy coffee to make my water more
| interesting? Why can I buy Kool-Aid and pour 12 tablespoons
| into a glass, but I can't buy a Coke? What about a diabetic
| who is out and needs a quick sugar fix?
|
| Might as well tell people they also just need to eat plain
| rice for every meal too.
|
| I get there is some fraud on SNAP. I know people on SNAP.
| Most of them use every single cent on decent food. I've
| seen fraud, though. In Chicago I would place a bet that
| most non-chain convenience stores will sell you cigarettes
| on SNAP. Some of them absolutely sell weed on SNAP.
| voxl wrote:
| The mythical "doctors" recommending high protein.. Yeah okay
| bud.
| fasterik wrote:
| Nutrition science has come up with acceptable macronutrient
| distribution ranges (AMDR). The recommendation for adults is
| 45-65% of total calories from carbohydrates, 20-35% from fat,
| and 10-35% from protein. That is definitely not low carb.
|
| The sources of those macronutrients also matter. The ideal
| range for saturated fat is 5-10% of total calories. Meat
| consumption, especially red meat, is associated with higher
| risk of colorectal cancer. Dairy consumption is associated with
| higher risk of prostate cancer.
|
| I haven't read the new guidelines in detail but if they're
| recommending red meat and whole milk as primary foods, then
| they are not consistent with the research on cancer and
| cardiovascular disease risk and I doubt that people following
| them would meet the AMDRs or ideal saturated fat intake.
| hansvm wrote:
| To be fair, those macronutrient guidelines were established
| not because of any special properties of those macros (give
| or take the nitrogen load from protein) but because when
| applied as a population-level intervention they encourage
| sufficient fiber, magnesium, potassium, etc. You can have 50%
| of your calories be from fats and still live a long, healthy
| life, and you can do so as a population (see, e.g. Crete and
| some other Mediterranean sub-regions in the early/mid-1900s).
| You can have a much higher protein intake and have beneficial
| outcomes too.
|
| Your point about the sources mattering isn't tangential; it's
| the entire point. The reason the AMDR exists is to encourage
| good sources. A diet of 65% white sugar and 25% butter isn't
| exactly what it had in mind though, and it's those sources
| you want to scrutinize more heavily.
|
| Even for red meat though, when you control for cohort
| effects, income, and whatnot, and examine just plain red meat
| without added nitrites or anything, the effect size and study
| power diminishes to almost nothing. It's probably real, but
| it's not something I'm especially concerned about (I still
| don't eat much red meat, but that's for unrelated reasons).
|
| To put the issue to scale, if you take the 18% increased risk
| in colorectal cancer from red meats as gospel (ignoring my
| assertions that it's more important to avoid hot dogs than
| lean steaks), or, hell, let's double that to 36%, your
| increased risk of death from the intervention of adding a
| significant portion of red meat to your diet is only half as
| impactful as the intervention of adding driving to your daily
| activities.
|
| The new guidelines seem to be better than just recommending
| more steaks anyway. They're not perfect, but I've seen worse
| health advice.
| fasterik wrote:
| Well, there are two factors that go into the
| recommendations. As you mentioned, one is adequate
| micronutrients. The other is chronic disease risk
| reduction. The 5-10% of total calories from saturated fat
| recommendation falls into the latter category. The risk of
| meat and dairy is not just cancer, but saturated fat.
|
| I would agree that with proper knowledge and planning, it's
| possible to reduce carbs and increase protein/unsaturated
| fats while maintaining adequate fiber and micronutrients.
| But in practice, I think it's much more common to see
| people taking low-carb diet recommendations as a license to
| eat a pound or more of meat per day, drink gallons of milk
| per week, and completely ignore fiber intake, which is
| objectively not healthy.
| iterance wrote:
| 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 challenging.
|
| SNAP changes like this may be better on a population health
| level, to be sure. On this I have no evidence. But each
| restriction placed on food for people living in destitution may
| mean some people go hungry. (And this excludes issues of
| caloric density.) I would like to see better data, but sadly,
| there is none.
| MSKJ wrote:
| Sounds farfetched. Especially if restriction is on candy and
| sodas
| saghm wrote:
| As others have pointed out, that's not what the restriction
| seems to be limited to. The distinction isn't based on
| sugar content but the amount of "processing", which rules
| out quite a lot of things beyond just candy and soda.
| danpalmer wrote:
| +1 - it's all well and good for me to buy just some
| vegetables this week, because I have a pantry full of
| hundreds of dollars worth of basics, spices, a herb garden,
| bulk (more expensive) rice/pasta, etc. I also have a single
| 9-5 job so can spend an hour each day cooking.
|
| But if I had an empty kitchen, lacked the funds to invest in
| bulk purchases, and had 30 minutes to cook and eat, I'd be
| eating very differently.
| wtcactus wrote:
| > 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.
| iterance wrote:
| I would hope that it is clear from context that I mean
| purchasing pre-prepared meals is expensive.
| epolanski wrote:
| > I don't understand people freaking out over this
|
| Personally I'm not a fan of any diet that recommends high meat
| consumption and I say that as someone who eats everything.
|
| Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10 to
| 1 factor.
|
| While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment, they
| seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the environment and
| pollution caused by cattle. Even focusing on CO2 emissions by
| industry avoids the elephant of the room of the insane levels
| of methane produced by cows, a gas that's 200 times more
| harmful.
|
| There is little evidence that a meat heavy diet is good for
| people, but there's plenty of evidence of the contrary.
|
| So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for
| freedom, there has to be also some kind of consciousness into
| how do we use the resources on this planet, and diet is by far
| more impactful than the transport of choice.
| rascul wrote:
| > Cattle outweighs the total livestock on this planet by a 10
| to 1 factor.
|
| It seems odd not to include cattle in total livestock.
| epolanski wrote:
| The point is to emphasize that there's more cows on this
| planet using more resources than all of the other animals
| combined (excluding fish and water mammals).
|
| You could add all the squirrels, elephants, lions, cats,
| birds, all of those, and you're not even at a fraction of
| mass of the cows we grow.
| collinmanderson wrote:
| Yeah that seems phrased wrong, but here's xkcd visual:
| https://xkcd.com/1338/
| Playboi_Carti wrote:
| Very reasonable but it could not be more unpopular right now
| to tell people to stop eating meat
| ruszki wrote:
| It's maybe unpopular, but people should feel bad about it,
| especially they should feel shame. I don't feel it either,
| who knows this for decades, and even tried a few times. But
| I should. There is exactly zero pressure regarding this.
| epolanski wrote:
| I don't think people should feel bad about it, but at
| least informed.
|
| A better thing would he to have a carbon tax, so you have
| higher vat on beef than poultry and higher for poultry
| than eggs.
| DangitBobby wrote:
| Why don't you think people should feel bad about it? My
| moral system generally dictates that I don't economically
| support immoral behavior, or at least seek alternatives
| where practical.
|
| Don't expect a carbon tax to save us, a carbon tax is not
| coming.
| crat3r wrote:
| Because it is not even a remote exaggeration to say that
| in order to truly make the morally "correct" choices
| everyday, you would need to not participate in any part
| of society.
|
| Telling people to feel bad about eating animal protein
| but to keep driving their cars that destroy the
| environment, shopping at stores that underpay their
| employees, purchasing items that are made with
| diminishing resources in countries that pay close to
| nothing to their labor force is picking an arbitrary
| battle in a war of existence.
|
| Promoting making better choices will always be more
| effective than asking people to feel guilty over existing
| at all.
|
| Source your food locally if you can, cook and eat only
| what you need, etc.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| It's a natural response to feel bad about your behavior
| not aligning with your values.
|
| So much so that we prefer to not think about it to prop
| up cognitive dissonance.
|
| I think "wanting people to feel bad" is more an urge that
| people at least acknowledge the dissonance. Many people
| don't even get that far because it's so uncomfortable.
| jamilton wrote:
| Because people would just feel bad about it and keep
| doing it. I don't care about people feeling bad about
| immoral behavior, I care about them not doing it in the
| first place.
| gs17 wrote:
| Based on how people react to me simply being a vegetarian
| in their presence, without me commenting on what either
| of us are eating, people _do_ feel shame. It 's just that
| the shame is outweighed by the pleasure of eating
| whatever.
| Cornbilly wrote:
| Yeah, the meat industry has successfully tied meat
| consumption to the American ideal of masculinity and there
| is an endless supply of insecure men that buy into the
| world of bro-science.
| collinmanderson wrote:
| > it could not be more unpopular right now to tell people
| to stop eating meat
|
| If we phrased it from a carbon perspective that would
| probably help it be more popular, at least for beef which
| is a huge methane emitter.
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/food-choice-vs-eating-local
|
| https://ourworldindata.org/less-meat-or-sustainable-meat
| hmry wrote:
| > While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment,
|
| Not the one that put out that statement
| itsyonas wrote:
| The livestock industry is an ecological disaster of
| unimaginable proportions. 50% of all habitable land is used
| for agriculture. Of that land, 83% is used for livestock,
| despite the fact that it only provides 18% of the calories
| consumed worldwide.
|
| > While governments pretend to do stuff for the environment,
| they seem to always ignore the extreme cost on the
| environment and pollution caused by cattle.
|
| While governments and politicians generally like to portray
| themselves as being driven by morals, they are actually
| driven almost entirely by economic interests.
|
| > So, to be honest, while I don't freak out and I'm all for
| freedom, [...]
|
| Well, I would like the freedom to live on a planet with an
| intact ecosystem. I also think that animals would like the
| freedom to live a life free from unnecessary exploitation.
|
| > [...] and diet is by far more impactful than the transport
| of choice.
|
| Both are high-impact areas, but changing your diet is much
| easier than changing your choice of transport - in some
| countries. Transport emissions account for about 25% of all
| emissions, 60% of which are caused by individuals' use of
| cars.
|
| And after all of this, we haven't even touched on what
| fishing is doing to our oceans.
| runako wrote:
| > Nor do I understand the negative reactions to new
| restrictions on SNAP - candy and sugary drinks are no longer
| eligible
|
| My understanding is that it adds a complex layer of regulation
| where one did not previously exist. Large retailers and grocers
| have the systems that can accurately track this. (Essentially:
| does your POS have the ability to sync with the Federally
| Approved Foods For Poors list or not.)
|
| Smaller convenience stores (more common in places where poor
| people live) are less likely to have the resources be able to
| comply. Rather than get sanctioned for accidentally selling a
| Gatorade on SNAP, they will simply pull out of SNAP altogether.
| This means that even the non-sugary foods they have will no
| longer be available to people on SNAP.
|
| The net effect is expected to be to remove SNAP purchasing
| ability from entire geographies. I understand the effect is
| expected to be most pronounced in rural and dense urban areas.
| theturtlemoves wrote:
| I freaked out when I realized I had to change my diet. "What do
| I eat then?" was my constant mantra for six months. Looking
| back, it wasn't that bad but something in me really freaked out
| at having to change a habit (that I _wanted_ to change...)
| tzs wrote:
| The negative reactions to the new SNAP restrictions are because
| much of it make no sense. In the states that have implemented
| there has been mass confusion at many stores as people can't
| figure out what is eligible and what is not.
|
| For example at one store there was confusion as to why a ready
| to eat cup of cut fruit packaged with a plastic spoon from the
| store's deli department was ineligible, but a slice of cake
| packaged with a plastic fork from the store's bakery was
| eligible. Apparently the cake being made with flour makes it
| OK, regardless of how much sugar is in the cake and the icing.
| fermentation wrote:
| While I despise this administration, as a celiac I'm very
| hopeful for any cultural shift away from grains. People truly
| do not realize how often they will reach for some processed
| bread for nearly every single meal.
| derbOac wrote:
| There is no public health consensus advocating for widesoread
| adoption of the diet RFK Jr is pushing here. There are
| significant parts of this that if anything the consensus
| suggests is unhealthy.
|
| It's a fad diet being recommended, and parts of the advice
| being good don't make it good overall.
| lopis wrote:
| This is not consistent with multiple doctors over the years
| recommending eating less meat (specially beef), less cheese.
| The only part that is consistent with most doctors is the base
| thesis of eating more whole foods.
| NPC82 wrote:
| Based on the science appendix it seems like the inclusion of a
| "low carb diet" is more toward disease treatment and not health
| promotion. This would be antithetical to the DGA in years past
| and is kind of useless. The appendix itself acknowledges that
| the long term effects of a "low carb diet" are muted in the
| long term, which is probably why you would never hear it hawked
| by a nutrition professional as a healthy eating pattern.
|
| The restrictions on SNAP are insidious because SNAP is supposed
| to enable one to live a _normal_ life -- and that includes
| occasionally buying things that are not "healthy" in a bubble.
| The mantra that many health professionals will use is "there
| are no unhealthy foods, only unhealthy diets". Combine all that
| background with traditional stigma associated with SNAP/food
| stamp benefits and a picture starts to emerge of why policy was
| to embrace more foods and how this administration is often
| called the "administration of harm".
| blitzar wrote:
| > I don't understand people freaking out over this
|
| Its not like it is a tan suit.
| Gareth321 wrote:
| This new pyramid is obviously FAR healthier than the previous
| one. The reason it's being opposed is partisan politics.
| capital_guy wrote:
| the reason it's being _changed_ is obviously partisan
| politics.
| scotty79 wrote:
| 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.
| shrubby wrote:
| Protein intale seems crazy.
|
| 0,9 grams per kg of LEAN weight is more than enough for normal
| activity.
|
| You don't need to feed the fat any protein as it will only
| accumulate more fat.
|
| And food produces a third of the emissions of humankind out of
| which full vegan would obliterate two thirds as in total of 25%
| of our emissions. Add the land use rewilding effect of 50-100
| gigaton and we'd be net neutral with this one change.
|
| Considering the iconic burning Macdonalds video and this
| recommendation we seem to be doomed.
|
| I'm lovin it.
| drakythe wrote:
| Disregarding comments on the proposed diet (as I am not qualified
| to comment and it all feels relatively like what I have passively
| absorbed over the past decade anyway):
|
| Why, WHY, does this page act like an Apple marketing page and
| require so much scrolling??? Thanks. I hate it.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Yeah, I hate the progressive scrolling crap myself too.
| FumblingBear wrote:
| Moderately amused at the quote "We are ending the war on
| protein." In my experience, every single brand in recent years
| has been coalescing around the idea of making protein bars,
| drinks, prominently labeling the amount of grams of protein are
| in items, etc.
|
| I'm not opposed, as protein seems to be a good target to
| prioritize, but claiming there's a war on protein just seems so
| out of touch to the point of absurdity. It's practically the only
| thing that people care about right now.
| schmuckonwheels wrote:
| > protein bars, drinks, prominently labeling the amount of
| grams of protein
|
| Most of which are loaded with crazy amounts of sugar to make
| them taste good.
|
| Have you ever looked at the label on a cup of non-plain "Greek"
| yogurt? (Which is 90% of the yogurt aisle.)
| tracker1 wrote:
| Not to mention, that refined proteins don't have well
| balanced amino acid profiles and the lack of well balanced
| essential fatty acids to go with them is also a serious issue
| IMO.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Your comment applies almost exclusively to plant-based
| protein (as opposed to milk, egg or other animal protein)
| tracker1 wrote:
| Milk, egg and other animal proteins are mostly consumed
| whole, and not refined, which does tend to reduce the
| completeness.
|
| ex: Whey protein isolate is less complete than actual
| milk... though milk has sugars and enzymes that you may
| not want to consume.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Yeah I misread your comment. I was thinking just about
| amino acid profile not fats
| loeg wrote:
| They're mostly loaded with non-nutritive sweeteners, not
| sugar.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Disagree...collegen bars are pretty low on sugar, and they
| taste awesome. There is no "war on protein".
| loeg wrote:
| The establishment guidelines on protein intake for decades
| (since the 80s) have been very minimalist, only looking to
| balance nitrogen -- leading to guidelines in the 0.8g/kg range.
| This is what they're referring to. Yes, it's still hyperbolic.
| But they're not talking about a relatively recent
| popularity/marketing swing. The new guidance of 1.2-1.6g/kg is
| 50-100% higher.
| drcongo wrote:
| UK supermarkets these days have a high protein version of just
| about every single product on the shelves. It's bizarre, and
| I'm guessing something to do with more protein being the advice
| when you're on GLP-1 drugs. The one that makes me laugh the
| most is "high protein" peanut butter.
| hexbin010 wrote:
| Definitely related to GLP-1 drugs. I've seen people on the
| Mounjaro sub Reddit advising 1g per POUND of weight. Wtaf
| lm28469 wrote:
| Whey used to be a waste product of the dairy industry, now
| you sprinkle 20gr of it on anything and you can sell the
| product with a 50% markup as "high protein XYZ"
|
| It's genius really.
| pengaru wrote:
| The irony is everyone already seems obsessed with protein these
| days, which I guess plays nicely with meat lovers / producers.
| The last thing Americans need is more encouragement on the
| protein front IMO. Suddenly everyone thinks they're a body
| builder when it comes to food.
|
| The few friends I've known were attempting ketogenic diets over
| the years kept focusing on the protein side when the actual
| diet is supposed to be dominated by fat. They've all
| experienced kidney problems of one sort or another, surprise
| surprise!
| SirMaster wrote:
| I mean protein does fill you up faster and better with fewer
| calories which is good for weight loss or management.
| IAmBroom wrote:
| Not than fat. Fat fills you up fastest, per calorie.
| Rooster61 wrote:
| Hmm, how do you figure? Just about every source I can
| find shows slow burning carbs, fiber, and protein rich
| foods blow fatty foods out of water in terms of satiety.
| (if you are using a metric other than satiety to
| represent "fills you up", feel free to correct me)
| pengaru wrote:
| > I mean protein does fill you up faster and better with
| fewer calories which is good for weight loss or management.
|
| Thank you for exemplifying the problem so clearly -
| conflating protein with fat when we're really talking about
| a simple carbohydrates issue of high energy density with
| negative satiety.
|
| Excess protein is excreted renally, it's easy to overdo and
| can cause serious problems.
| overgard wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_leverage_hypothesis
|
| Protein is actually pretty hard to overdo naturally. If
| you've ever tried to follow the high protein guidelines
| and you're a taller or broader shouldered person you'll
| find that getting that amount of protein requires
| supplementation or a lot of focus on lean meats. I'm not
| saying everyone needs to go "high" protein, I'm just
| saying that worrying about the amount of protein you're
| eating is probably not worth doing. You'll feel pretty
| full if you eat a lot of protein.
|
| Keto is not just "high fat" though. Keto is about
| producing ketones, and going too high fat can actually be
| counterproductive there, at least for weight loss. (You
| want to be liberating fat from your storage, not getting
| it from external sources)
| mrguyorama wrote:
| A hypothesis with zero supporting data and primarily
| argued in a couple pop culture books is not something you
| should give any weight.
|
| Scientists do not write books when they have actual,
| meaningful findings.
|
| You've made this claim all over this comment section, so
| it's pretty frustrating to find it comes from a pretty
| awful source.
|
| I promise you, it is trivial to overeat protein.
| Americans love their 16oz steaks, and yet one pound of
| steak in a single meal is almost certainly "Too much" for
| a non-athelete diet.
|
| Meanwhile, simply look to every eating competition which
| uses a meat. There does not seem to be any natural
| limitation to overconsuming meat.
| midldei wrote:
| > protein does fill you up faster
|
| You are being pretty fast and loose with your language here
| so I will alight what I _think_ you are trying to say.
|
| "Fill you up" I must assume means that you are implying the
| state of feeling "full" or satiated.
|
| There is really only one study in the field of broad food
| source satiety: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7498104/
|
| Potatoes are the most satiating food at 323% that of white
| bread.
|
| The second is Ling fish which is a source of protein, but
| another one of my assumptions is that when you say
| 'protein' I am doubtful you mean 'ling fish'. So assuming
| you mean a 2026 American definition of 'protein' you're
| probably referring to cow flesh (beef) which is only 176%
| of white bread, almost half of potatoes.
|
| So, in the future I would suggest spreading the word and
| correcting your comment by saying "I mean potatoes do fill
| you up faster"
| bccdee wrote:
| Yeah, (1) there is no "war on protein," (2) you do not need to
| eat very much protein unless you are trying to build muscle and
| you already work out a lot.
|
| The normal recommended daily intake for protein is 0.8 g/kg.
| 1.2-1.6 is silly; that's a recommendation for athletes.1
|
| Starches have been a dietary staple in pretty much every
| society forever. _Sugars_ have not. It 's silly that they treat
| grains as a "sometimes" food.
|
| There's also the weird boogeyman of "processed food." Almost
| all food is processed to some degree & always has been. We've
| been cooking, baking, juicing, fermenting, chopping, grinding,
| mashing, etc. long enough that it influenced the shape of our
| teeth. Certainly we haven't been making Pizza Pockets that
| long, but the issue there isn't processing, it's ingredients.
| And the reason people buy Pizza Pockets isn't that they think
| they're healthy--it's that Pizza Pockets only need to be
| microwaved, and cooking a real meal takes time that a lot of
| people just don't have.
|
| [1]: https://www.strongerbyscience.com/athlete-protein-intake/
| ahazred8ta wrote:
| 'Processed' generally means 'chemically modified', a la
| hydrogenated vegetable oil.
| bryanlarsen wrote:
| Generally the definition for ultra-processed foods includes
| a _lot_ more than that. Some definitions even include
| "wrapping in plastic".
| bccdee wrote:
| Assuming that "chemical modification" is when you modify
| something by adding a chemical reagent to it, milk is
| chemically modified to create cheese curds, sugars are
| chemically modified to create vinegar and alcohol, and
| breads & cakes are chemically modified when they rise.
|
| However, this definition of chemical modification doesn't
| really include hydrogenated vegetable oil. Industrial
| hydrogenation is done by raising oil to very high
| temperatures in the presence of a nickel catalyst & then
| adding hydrogen. We modify it on a chemical level, but
| primarily by heating it, not by adding reactive substances.
| And if that counts as chemical modification, then so does
| cooking!
|
| Anyway, no--people generally used "processed" to describe a
| particular vibe they get from certain foodstuffs whose
| production seems too industrialized. There's no rigorous
| basis for determining what is and isn't "processed" because
| people use it to describe their feelings about food, not
| any underlying property of food.
|
| If you search a simple question like "is bread processed,"
| you get a bunch of articles saying "well, since there's no
| agreed-upon definition for processing and the definitions
| we do have aren't particularly clear, there's really no
| answer to the question. But don't worry, because (given the
| overwhelming vagueness of the category), it's also
| impossible to say whether processed foods as a category
| have any health implications, so you shouldn't worry about
| it."
| overgard wrote:
| Starches are basically glucose. They have a massive insulin
| response -- often even worse than sugar (because you eat
| starches in a much higher volume since they don't usually
| taste sweet).
|
| It's very hard to overeat protein naturally. It's very easy
| to overeat starches and other carbohydrates naturally.
|
| With regard to "processed" food, it's not a great label. I
| would use this metric: could you conceivably produce this in
| an average kitchen with the raw materials? If you can, it's
| probably safe, if you can't, it's probably something you
| shouldn't eat. For instance, processing often means
| "partially hydrogenating" a fat, or milling grains into a
| fine dust and bleaching them. Sometimes chemically produced
| oils are deodorized, because they would otherwise smell very
| unpalatable. You generally should not want your food to be
| bleached or deodorized..
| anon291 wrote:
| The market has clearly moved on, as you've identified,
| primarily due to bro science. Meanwhile, the medical
| establishment still thinks protein is going to kill you.
| croisillon wrote:
| the current protein hype was litterally in the news today
| https://www.axios.com/2026/01/07/restaurant-menu-high-protei...
| fuddle wrote:
| They always need to make up a war on something. Its pretty
| standard template in American discourse e.g war on Christmas
| sudobash1 wrote:
| > Protein target: 1.2-1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per
| day.
|
| I was amused to see (kilo)grams used for the weights. I'll admit
| that as an American, I have no idea what my weight is in
| kilograms. Body weight is something that I always think of in
| pounds. I do use grams sometimes in food prep, but I think even
| that makes me a bit of an abnormality around here.
|
| Not that I am complaining about their unit choice. I think
| American's would do well to be a bit more "bilingual" in our
| measurement systems. Also, the measurements they give are a lot
| easier to parse than 3/128 oz per 1lb bodyweight.
| CGMthrowaway wrote:
| Nutrition labels are already in grams. I agree g/lb would be
| more readable, somebody probably raised their hand though and
| said "we're mixing system"
| NewJazz wrote:
| More like all the research uses g/kg
| tracker1 wrote:
| There are 2.2lb in 1jg... practically, just cut the amount in
| half (0.6-0.8g per lb of lean body weight). I say lean body
| weight as if you are overweight the target isn't the same.
| kzrdude wrote:
| I think it's really slow, but youtube & internet has me hopeful
| that metric units are coming through slowly, for example for
| cooking.
| neversettles wrote:
| I also feel there's a role that cooking equipment plays in weight
| loss. I've found that having newer, higher quality non stick pans
| helps me recognize I don't need to oil my pans with as much
| butter.
| tayo42 wrote:
| More bro science, doesn't this have issues with plastics?
| tracker1 wrote:
| s/1.2 to 1.4g of protein per kg of body weight/... lean body
| weight/
|
| If you're overweight, your protein target should be based on your
| lean mass, not your excess mass. While you can have more, you're
| likely better off conserving the calories.
|
| Also, personally, I tend to recommend at least 0.5g fat to 1g
| protein. This seems to be pretty close to what you get from a lot
| of healthy protein sources and given that you actually need a
| certain amount of essential fatty acids for your body to
| function, I find this helps from digestion, glucose control,
| satiety and even weight loss.
| qgin wrote:
| Is there any evidence that what people actually eat is influenced
| by government guidelines? I have a hard time imagining someone
| seeing this and making an actual changing to their life in any
| way.
| bradfa wrote:
| It may affect school lunch menus as much of the funding for
| school lunch programs is guided by the USDA. So, yes, lots of
| kids' diets may be affected by this during the school year.
| eYrKEC2 wrote:
| Government Orthodoxy is what is taught to your children.
|
| You won't believe or accept the new Orthodoxy.
|
| But your children will.
| jordanpg wrote:
| FTFY: Eat Real Food -- if you can afford it and have time to.
|
| But I'm sure the Administration will accompany this release with
| various programs to boost access for the bottom 50% to fresh
| produce, meat, etc. right?
| dooglius wrote:
| The actual PDF here: https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf once you
| wade through the atrocious scroll-jacking
| ks2048 wrote:
| Is an upside-down Pyramid still a Pyramid?
|
| I thought the analogy was supposed to be a stable (wide) base
| forms the foundation of your diet.
| nihakue wrote:
| 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.
| samiv wrote:
| Steak is actually an excellent source of protein (and fat, if
| you get the fattier steak as you should).
|
| Just because vegetables, lentils or nuts contain protein it
| doesn't mean it's the same/equivalent to the protein in an
| animal product.
|
| Meat is actually super easy for humans to digest and it has no
| downsides to it. All vegetables on the other side contain
| plenty of anti-nutrients such as folate and oxalates.
|
| Everything in human body, skin, connective tissues, tendons,
| hair, nails, muscles is essentially built out of protein and
| collagen. Fats are essential for hormone function.
| nihakue wrote:
| It's a good point, and maybe Broccoli isn't then as
| compelling as something like tofu, which contains nearly as
| much (and nearly as bio available) protein/calorie as lean
| steak.
|
| I guess I'd challenge the 'no downsides' claim. Few people
| stick to super lean grass-fed cuts, and the picture on the
| site is even a ribeye steak :P
|
| The protein density (g/kcal) of a ribeye steak is basically
| the same as tofu (I think like 14g/100kcal vs 11g/100kcal in
| tofu)
|
| I know I'm moving the goal posts slightly (I admit I didn't
| know about bio availability, and see now that I have more to
| read up on e.g. Broccoli), but am learning as I discuss
| rather than arguing a fixed point.
| treis wrote:
| The bigger problem is nutritional density. I tried meeting
| the 1-1.5 g/kg protein level through a vegetarian whole
| grains diet and it's a lot of flipping food. Equivalent of
| like 3kg of chickpeas a day to make it.
|
| It was definitely eye opening on the sort of ancient
| benefit of meat. It's really hard to reach your muscular
| potential without it.
| rafram wrote:
| An adult who weighs 75 kg, so is targeting about 75 grams
| of protein intake per day, would only need to eat 833
| grams of cooked chickpeas (which are 9% protein by
| weight) to get there. That is indeed a lot of chickpeas!
| But a lot less than you claimed, and you probably
| shouldn't be getting all your protein from chickpeas
| anyway.
| treis wrote:
| You're probably talking about dry weight. My can says 6g
| protein / 130 g. I'm about 100kg and to hit the 1.6 g
| protein/kg I need 160g of protein. 6g/130g * 3500 g is
| 161 g of protein.
| rafram wrote:
| Two numbers from the USDA:
|
| - Canned, drained and rinsed: 7g protein / 100g [1]
|
| - Boiled: 9g protein / 100g [2]
|
| Not sure what explains the discrepancy (though the second
| number is much older), but both are considerably higher
| than what your can says. Sure you aren't reading a per-
| serving amount?
|
| [1]: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-
| details/2644288/nutrients
|
| [2]: https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-
| details/173757/nutrients
| treis wrote:
| Nope, here's the can:
|
| https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-garbanzo-
| beans/0001111010648
| rafram wrote:
| Net weight (3.5 * 130g = 455g) includes the liquid, which
| you'd normally drain before cooking. The beans themselves
| are much more nutrient-dense.
| themk wrote:
| Bioavailabilty is a bit of a non-issue. It's measured as if
| the food you are measuring is the only food you eat. So if
| it is slightly low on one amino acid, the "bioavailabilty"
| drops, but noone eats like that. Once combined with other
| foods, the total "bioavailabilty" tends to increase.
| jandrese wrote:
| > Meat is actually super easy for humans to digest and it has
| no downsides to it.
|
| The sound you are hearing is vegan heads exploding.
| p_j_w wrote:
| And anyone who knows even basic facts about nutrition.
| advisedwang wrote:
| > Meat is ... has no downsides
|
| Red meat has been linked to cardiovascular disease https://ac
| ademic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/44/28/2626/718873... https:/
| /www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10408398.2021.1... etc
| samiv wrote:
| I really take issue with studies like this that put meat
| and meat products together.
|
| Unprocessed meat is what humans what have been eating for
| hundreds of thousand of years.
|
| Meat products are commercial new inventions and contain
| stuff like preservatives, volume expanders, flavor
| enhancers and coloring agents. They also typically contain
| added sugars, sodium, malto dextrin, corn syrup.
|
| One can't seriously put these together and call them the
| same, make a study where participants might be eating SPAM
| and then conclude that "red meat is bad".
|
| Given the choice between "Domino's vegetarian pizza",
| "IKEAs meatballs" and "steak that is fried,salted and
| peppered" which one do you think will be the healthiest
| option?
| p_j_w wrote:
| >Unprocessed meat is what humans what have been eating
| for hundreds of thousand of years.
|
| Not in the quantities we eat of unprocessed meat these
| days.
| rafram wrote:
| > Meat is actually super easy for humans to digest and it has
| no downsides to it.
|
| In moderate amounts, sure. But frequently eating red meat
| (more than two or three servings a week) is terrible for you.
| There's "a clear link between high intake of red and
| processed meats and a higher risk for heart disease, cancer,
| diabetes, and premature death":
| https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/whats-the-
| bee...
| kelseydh wrote:
| Not to mention how high heat cooking of meat, which is
| common for a steak via frying, brings health risks from
| Advanced Glycation End products (AGEs).
|
| AGEs are also present in vegetables and legumes, but
| certain meats like bacon contain unbelievable amounts
| relative to other foods. (Interestingly: Rice contains
| almost no AGE's.)
|
| Full guide:
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3704564/
| Knufen wrote:
| Are these the same studies where they grouped frozen pizza
| with regular beef?
| samiv wrote:
| That's exactly what they always are.
|
| "We put a bunch of meat derived products with high
| amounts of artificial additives together with actual meat
| and then concluded that meat is the problem"
| DetectDefect wrote:
| All of the false statements are loosely based on industry
| propaganda and are completely disjoined from any modern
| scientific consensus on nutrition.
| schmuckonwheels wrote:
| There's a giant head of broccoli at the very top of the new
| pyramid? They emphasize protein AND fresh produce.
| nihakue wrote:
| I guess what I'm lamenting is the missed opportunity to
| highlight that many vegetables e.g. broccoli are an excellent
| protein source as well as other important nutrients. It gives
| you additional flexibility when meal planning. There's a
| common misconception (at least in my circles) that protein =>
| animal protein which isn't always useful for planning a
| balanced meal.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Most protein rich vegetables are legumes and beyond this
| are also rich in complex carbs. Legumes are in the top 10
| food allergies. Not to mention the amino profile of
| vegetable sources isn't very good.
| reissbaker wrote:
| Broccoli has 2.8g of protein per 100g. Beef has 26g per
| 100g, and chicken has 27g. If you're trying to get protein,
| broccoli isn't going to do much, and I think it's good that
| the government is being honest about that. A chart that
| listed broccoli as a major source of protein would be
| misleading. Broccoli is a good source of many nutrients,
| and the chart calls it out as such, but it is not an
| effective source of protein.
| scaredginger wrote:
| Normalising by mass is a poor way to assess food's
| protein content since different foods have greatly
| different water contents. E.g. beef jerky has much higher
| protein per 100g than beef largely because it's dried
| (admittedly, probably also because they use leaner cuts)
| djusk wrote:
| If you compare protein per kJ instead, broccoli has
| 0.021g protein per kJ whereas lean beef mince has 0.028g
| per kJ. Much more similar. Although of course you would
| need food that is higher density protein as well so you
| don't have too much volume to eat.
| aboodman wrote:
| But that is a kind of silly way to compare. Broccoli
| isn't very filling _and_ it doesn't have very much
| protein in it. That doesn't change the fact that it lack
| protein.
|
| The question is if I'm preparing a meal that I want to be
| filling, healthy, and energizing, how should I do it.
| Broccoli isn't a good answer to the protein part of that
| question.
| beejiu wrote:
| Protein may be associated with satiety, but so is fibre,
| of which beef has none.
| roflmaostc wrote:
| Have fun eating 2kg of broccoli to get 50g of protein.
| mertd wrote:
| Good luck getting Americans eat sufficient broccoli to
| source their protein without also adding a ton of cheese
| or fat/sugar based sauces.
| ricardobeat wrote:
| It's harder to get the target 1-1.6g protein per kg from
| vegetables, unless you're consuming beans/pulses which are
| also high in carbohydrates. Broccoli is not a great protein
| source, an entire head will give you 10g at most - the
| average adult would have to eat a dozen+ per day.
| beejiu wrote:
| Beans and pulses are mostly long chain carbohydrates,
| which are not a problem.
| layer8 wrote:
| I like broccoli, but you'd have to eat around six pounds of
| broccoli to cover the recommended daily intake of essential
| amino acids.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| You have to consume a very large amount of lentils to make
| up a healthy amount of protein per day. It's something like
| 6 cans of chickpeas vs two chicken breasts per day. I
| believe you also don't get a complete amino acids panel
| like you would with meat which is complete on its own.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| > I believe you also don't get a complete amino acids
| panel like you would with meat which is complete on its
| own.
|
| You can challenge beliefs and do a modicum of research,
| which would easily disprove this false and frankly
| ridiculous notion, which defies even a rudimentary
| understanding of plant biology.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I mean I have. There are almost no vegetables that are
| considered amino acid complete though there are (well
| known) combinations like legumes (beans/lentils) + rice.
| But this goes back to my original point of needing a lot
| of beans to get your protein requirement for the day. In
| places like India where there are a lot of vegetarians,
| diary products are heavily used to make up the deficit.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| > There are almost no vegetables that are considered
| amino acid complete
|
| This is just blatantly and hilariously false.
|
| They are literally called "essential amino acids".
|
| A plant would not survive if it lacked amino acids which
| are essential.
|
| It it shocking anyone would deny this obvious and
| extremely basic fact about biology.
| tomp wrote:
| you need to educate yourself better about "basic facts
| about biology"
|
| they're called _essential_ because _humans_ cannot
| produce them internally, so we have to consume them
| (though you could in principle make the same assessment
| for other animal species, but that 's less relevant,
| unless you're, I don't know, raising cows?)
|
| plants don't eat, but produce organic molecules from raw
| ingredients (or almost raw, in case of nitrogen), and can
| produce _all_ amino acids - but in different quantities,
| so maybe the (parts of) plants you eat don 't have all
| the necessary amino acids.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| Now they do produce all the essential amino acids, but in
| insufficient amounts? Weird how the narrative keeps
| changing in this thread. A serious lack of scientific
| knowledge is apparent from people who insist on eating
| animals. And as always, it is devoid of any backing
| evidence or credibility other than "trust me, bro, I
| lift".
| snophey wrote:
| From your tone and the fact that you're quoting things
| nobody in this thread has said, I'm not sure that you are
| actually interested in hearing any scientific argument.
| You certainly aren't trying to make one. But I'll try:
|
| The quality of a protein is measured using PDCAAS
| (Protein digestibility corrected amino acid score). It's
| a score between 0 and 1 that measures the quality of a
| protein as a function of digestibility and how well it
| meets the human amino acid requirements.
|
| It is indeed correct that both lentils and chickpeas
| (which the original comment you replied to was talking
| about) have a much lower PDCAAS value of around 0.70.
| Data on beef varies, but it is generally considered to be
| a complete protein with a PDCAAS score above 0.90.
|
| Instead of accusing "people who insist on eating animals"
| of lacking scientific knowledge, it would have been much
| more helpful to point out that the highest quality
| proteins on the PDCAAS scale are almost universally
| vegetarian or vegan: eggs, milk, soy, and mycoprotein all
| have higher scores than beef, chicken, or pork.
| dyauspitr wrote:
| I believe the person you're responding to is a vegan
| (from other comments) so the "amino complete" alternative
| of eggs and dairy you're suggesting don't fit the bill of
| requirements for his arguments either which leaves soy.
| Mycoprotein has plenty of controversy around it regarding
| heavy metals and health issues from the fact that it's
| highly processed. Soy has a lot of phytoestrogens so it's
| not a great candidate to consume large amounts of.
| postoplust wrote:
| Indeed, chickpeas don't supply sufficient essential amino
| acids[1]. But sesame is[2] and goes well with chickpea!
| See falafel or hummus.
|
| [1]: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007114512000797
|
| [2]: https://doi.org/10.3390/nu14194079
| margalabargala wrote:
| > I guess what I'm lamenting is the missed opportunity to
| highlight that many vegetables e.g. broccoli are an
| excellent protein source as well as other important
| nutrients
|
| I can see why you would expect something like that from
| this administration, but surprisingly the linked webpage
| seems to be based in fact.
|
| Broccoli are not an excellent protein source from a dietary
| perspective.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| those are terrible sources of protein.
| tracker1 wrote:
| No vegetable is as protein dense as actual meat in its natural
| form.
|
| Ruminant meat is absolutely one of the best bioavailable forms
| of a mostly complete amino acid profile, though eggs and dairy
| is more complete with differing ratios depending on form/feed.
|
| As to lentils, tofu, chickpeas etc. They're fine for most
| people in moderation, but they are also relatively inflammatory
| and plenty of people have digestive issues and allergies to
| legumes (I do), soy is one of the top 10 allergens that people
| face. While almost nobody is allergic to ruminant meat.
| dachris wrote:
| As you say, in moderation. That also applies to red meat,
| considering the adverse effects listed on
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_meat
| eweise wrote:
| AI says legumes are anti-inflammatory.
| deinonychus wrote:
| my AI says they aren't
| eweise wrote:
| Try Google
| a3w wrote:
| WHO says meat gives you cancer.
| reissbaker wrote:
| 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.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Worth noting that like amino acids there are essential fatty
| acids as well, and most people have poor nutrition there...
| red meat isn't "only" saturated fat, but a fairly balanced
| fatty acid profile. You can have too much, but in moderate
| cuts it isn't too bad.
|
| I usually suggest around 0.5g fat to 1g protein as a minimal,
| higher if keto/carnivore.
| reissbaker wrote:
| That's true, although fish has a better balance of
| essential fatty acids than red meat. Although, oddly
| enough, wagyu has a (much) better fatty acids profile than
| other types of beef, so you can justify the occasional
| wallet splurge on health grounds!
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > The downside of beef isn't the "density" of nutrients: the
| downside is high saturated fat.
|
| There are other downsides to beef .. such as the batshit
| crazy use of ecosystems and resources required to produce it
| at industrial scale.
|
| Got a (beef) cow roaming in your yard, somehow getting by on
| whatever grows out of the ground? Enjoy your steak!
| Generating 6x the calories via a water-intensive cover crop
| to feed the cow so you can eat it later? Just say no.
| reissbaker wrote:
| This is orthogonal to nutritious eating habits; I don't
| think the food pyramid should lie about nutrition due to
| ecological concerns. (I _do_ think the food pyramid should
| be a little more concerned about saturated fat than it is,
| though -- which is why I called out chicken as an
| alternative, and elsewhere also mentioned fish.)
| samiv wrote:
| The fat is an excellent source of energy though and it's very
| hard to get fat by eating fat because it's essentially
| hormonally inert. I.e. eating fat doesn't precipitate insulin
| which is the hormone that enables body fat accumulation.
|
| So the problem with steak isn't the steak itself it's the
| "steak dinner" where the meat comes with sides such as french
| fries and drinks such as beer.
| efskap wrote:
| > most vegetables and legumes are missing necessary amino
| acids
|
| In practice, there's no evidence of amino acid deficiency in
| vegans/vegetarians except ones that restrict even further
| (potato diet, fruitarians, etc)
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6893534/
|
| Besides the ever-popular soybean being a complete protein, if
| you have normal variety in your diet, it's just not something
| you have to worry about.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| >In practice, there's no evidence of amino acid deficiency
| in vegans/vegetarians
|
| That is not what your linked article says. It says there is
| not evidence of protein deficiency, and the deficiency of
| amino acids is overstated. Not that there is no deficiency.
|
| And vegan/vegetarian health is really a 2nd order variable
| here. Vegans and vegetarians could have massive amino acid
| surpluses and it remains a fact that vegetable proteins
| lack useful amino acids that meat has. Maybe the
| vegetarians are eating lots of eggs. Maybe they are taking
| lots of supplements. Maybe they are actually eating meat
| despite calling themselves vegans and vegetarians. It
| doesn't matter. There really is no disputing the fact about
| the composition of meat/vegetable protein.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > a fact that vegetable proteins lack useful amino acids
| that meat has.
|
| This isn't a problem since you only _need_ nine essential
| amino acids and they are present in adequate quantity in
| various vegetables and shrooms. The others are
| synthesized by ones body.
| daddylongstroke wrote:
| Only if those vegetables or shrooms were grown in natural
| sunlight (no greenhouse plastic/glass involved) and in a
| soil with abundant minerals, macronutrients, and high
| brix value.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| > 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.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| As a flexitarian, I've had to think quite a lot about how to
| get enough bioavailable protein while moderating my carb
| consumption and digestive upset due to beans, and to do so in a
| sustainable manner factoring in convenience and lack of
| leisure. I certainly won't recommend anything but lean meat and
| dairy as protein staples to people who aren't used to watching
| what they eat.
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| I also didn't do very well with most beans, but for some
| reason chickpeas don't bother me, if you haven't tried them.
| jhanschoo wrote:
| Yep, I now have a lentil-based staple that also has grams,
| but that's of course after planning and adaptation.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| > _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?_
|
| To quote famed businessman and philosopher Eugene Krabs:
| "Money."
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| Big Broccoli need to step up.
| nozzlegear wrote:
| I agree, but sadly it stands no chance against the lobbying
| powers of industrial pork producers, cattle ranchers or
| poultry giants like Tyson.
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| So true thanks for saying this. Seems like a missed
| opportunity, and definitely suspect of lobbying by the meat
| industry.
|
| And of course broccoli and legumes doesn't have a lobby group,
| do they?
| a3w wrote:
| Big Broccoli even rolls off the tongue, time to start it!
| trashface wrote:
| And bananas and oatmeal at the bottom.
|
| I guess one way to solve the elderly entitlement crisis is if
| we all just start dropping dead from heart attacks.
| dqv wrote:
| There are nuts and legumes there in the bottom left.
|
| So funny to see people reflexively defend those things being
| left off because it confirms their own beliefs. A deeper
| inspection of the actual guidelines has them being very fair to
| plant proteins:
|
| > Consume a variety of protein foods from animal sources,
| including eggs, poultry, seafood, and red meat, as well as a
| variety of plant-sourced protein foods, including beans, peas,
| lentils, legumes, nuts, seeds, and soy.
|
| The thing is... the pyramid is just a graphic, the actual words
| give more context.
|
| https://cdn.realfood.gov/DGA.pdf
| hallole wrote:
| It's not just a personal belief that plant sources are, on
| the whole, better from a health perspective.
|
| Since we're talking about the actual wording of the report,
| it admitted the significance of previous reports deciding to
| order plant foods before animal products. That is reversed in
| this most recent report, and very intentionally, which they
| make clear. They also pretend that the health effects of
| saturated fat intake are still fuzzy, as if the evidence
| doesn't heavily point towards it being detrimental.
|
| If anyone is holding to unshakeable beliefs and unwilling to
| consider evidence, it's the shoddy scientists (many with
| meat-industry related conflicting interests) that wrote the
| report.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Focus on what he is saying.
|
| The original commenter is simply misinformed about them
| excluding plant based protein. That is what his comment was
| shows.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Kinda of wild that Dairy got its own section in that document
| as a proscribed thing to eat.
|
| There are plenty of lactose intolerant people. These people
| can meet their nutritional needs without dairy. (For Calcium:
| via Sardines, leafy greens, Tofu, etc.)
| parliament32 wrote:
| > most/all of the most protein dense foods are
| vegetables/legumes
|
| Are you abusing "dense" to mean calories over calories, rather
| than the expected calories over weight measure? Even a cursory
| search shows the latter to be untrue. The former is
| disingenuous, because despite "density", people do not eat
| kilograms of broccoli daily to hit minimum-viable protein
| targets.
| nihakue wrote:
| I do regret mentioning Broccoli because it seems to have
| become a bit of a distraction from my original point, which
| was that getting enough protein from a varied diet actually
| isn't that hard once you start to notice how much protein is
| in certain common veg. I'm not totally sure I understand
| where the mentality that all your protein has to come from a
| single source in isolation comes from, but suspect
| representations like this pyramid are at least partly to
| blame.
|
| Agree that g/kcal isn't perfect but g/g has its own corner
| cases like water content skewing things badly (e.g. dried
| spirulina is 57% protein by weight but you'd never eat more
| than like a gram in a serving). I never meant to suggest that
| people should be eating broccoli _in place of_ turkey, only
| that by _de-emphasising_ the protein content of many
| vegetables in favor of animal proteins, the graphic
| encourages meal planning that must always contain an animal
| protein. More insidiously, in my experience at least, it
| blurs the line between the nutrition content of different
| animal proteins ("I have my veg I just need 'a protein' now")
| which leads to more consumption of red meat regardless of
| quality.
|
| The graphic that I wish someone would make is the 'periodic
| table of macro nutrients' that positions foods along multiple
| dimensions at once but I don't know how you would actually do
| it in just two dimensions.
| cryptoegorophy wrote:
| Can you back up this claim? " Steak is a terrible source of
| protein (in terms of nutrient density)"
|
| In terms of value meat is far more important than vegetables
| unless I am missing something?
| themk wrote:
| Not the poster, but, usually what people are referring to is
| all the other stuff that comes along.
|
| Per calorie beef and broccoli are actually surprisingly
| similar, but broccoli comes with fiber, calcium and vitamin
| C, while beef comes with saturated fat.
|
| Of course, broccoli is not very calorie dense, so you would
| need to eat a lot.
|
| More realistically, tofu, which has about as much protein per
| calorie (and almost as much per gram) as middling lean beef.
| But has half the saturated fat, more iron, more calcium, and
| fibre.
|
| You just get more good stuff, and less bad stuff with veg.
| feifan wrote:
| Cultural reflex probably; lentils and tofu are displeasurable
| to most Americans
| tills13 wrote:
| Tofu being displeasurable is funny to me because it literally
| has no taste and texture by default. It becomes whatever you
| put it in or how you cook it. You want crunchy? You got it.
| Puree? Sure. Sweet? Fine. Salty? Spicy? Tangy? Easy.
|
| People just don't want to actually put in the effort to
| prepare it.
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| I used to be a tofu hater. Once I learned how to actually
| cook it though, it became one of my favorite protein
| sources.
| Anamon wrote:
| My problem is that I just can't get it to take up any of
| the flavour. I can marinate it for days, and the marinade
| will still just be a superficial layer on top of a piece of
| tofu which, itself, always remains completely unfazed and
| tasteless.
|
| It's not a problem for saucy dishes like a curry, but even
| experimenting with friends and borderline "molecular
| cuisine" techniques I have never once managed to flavour
| tofu itself :(
| globular-toast wrote:
| Lots of people trying to explain it logically but let's just be
| honest here, it's because it's made by "real men".
| a3w wrote:
| Beef and chicken cause cancer.
|
| Milk can help in regions with dietary low calories, but is
| mediocre or bad for fat US citizens.
|
| I also found the food shown very misleading.
| Knufen wrote:
| Beef and chicken does not cause cancer anymore than anything
| else does. It is an insane take that regular food causes
| cancer in any level that should be worrisome. Don't cite the
| studies where they grouped frozen pizza in the same category
| as beef.
| roflmaostc wrote:
| Beef (red meat) is classified as a probable carcinogen, while
| chicken (white meat) is safe according to current research.
| bean469 wrote:
| > 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?
|
| Possibly because those foods are culturally un-American or
| something silly like that
| nihakue wrote:
| Replying to my own comment because I've had some more time to
| look through the scientific foundation document. In particular,
| this was an illuminating section (and maybe hinting at where
| the 'war on protein' language comes from)
|
| > The DGAs recommend a variety of animal source protein foods
| (ASPFs) and plant source protein foods (PSPFs) to provide
| enough total protein to satisfy the minimum requirements set at
| the Recommended Dietary Allowance (RDA) of 0.8 g/kg body weight
| for adults and to ensure the dietary patterns meet most
| nutrient needs [3, 4]. However, over the past 20 years, an
| extensive body of research has underscored the unique and
| diverse metabolic roles of protein, and now there is compelling
| evidence that consuming additional foods that provide protein
| at quantities above the RDA may be a key dietary strategy to
| combat obesity in the U.S (while staying within calorie limits
| by reducing nutrient-poor carbohydrate foods). Instead of
| incorporating this approach, the past iterations of the DGAs
| have eroded daily protein quantity by shifting protein
| recommendations to PSPFs, including beans, peas, and lentils,
| while reducing and/or de-emphasizing intakes of ASPFs,
| including meats, poultry, and eggs. The shift towards PSPFs was
| intended to reduce adiposity and risks of chronic diseases but
| was primarily informed by epidemiological evidence on The
| Scientific Foundation for the Dietary Guidelines for Americans,
| 2025-2030: Appendices | 350 dietary patterns, even in some
| cases when experimental evidence from randomized controlled
| trials (RCTs) was available to more specifically inform this
| recommendation. Another key aspect that DGA committees have
| inadequately considered are the nutrient consequences when
| shifting from ASPFs to PSPFs. ASPFs not only provide EAAs, they
| also provide a substantial amount of highly bioavailable
| essential micronutrients that are under-consumed. Encouraging
| Americans to move away from these foods may further compromise
| the nutrient inadequacies already impacting many in the U.S.,
| especially our young people. Compounding this is the recent
| evidence highlighting the fallacies of using the
| unsubstantiated concept of protein ounce equivalents within
| food pattern (substitution) modeling, leading to recommended
| reductions in daily protein intakes and protein quality since
| ASPFs and PSPFs are not equivalent in terms of total protein or
| EAA density. Given that 1) there is no Tolerable Upper Intake
| Level (UL) for dietary protein established by the Dietary
| Reference Intakes (DRIs) and 2) consuming high quality ASPFs
| above current recommendations has shown no negative health
| risks in high quality RCTs, it's unclear as to why previous
| DGAs encouraged shifts in protein intake towards limiting high
| quality, nutrient dense ASPFs. It's essential to evaluate the
| evidence to establish a healthy range of protein intake and to
| substantiate whether or not limiting ASPFs is warranted and/or
| has unintended consequences. An alternative approach that may
| be more strongly supported by the totality of evidence is the
| replacement of refined grains with PSPFs like beans, peas, and
| lentils. Given their nutrient dense profile (e.g., excellent
| source of fiber, complex carbohydrates, & folate, etc.; good
| source of protein) nutrient dense PSPFs complement but do not
| replace the nutrients provided in ASPFs (i.e., excellent source
| of protein, vit B12, zinc, good source of heme iron, etc.). By
| including high quality, nutrient dense ASPFs as the primary
| source of protein, followed by nutrient dense PSPFs as a
| replacement for nutrient-poor refined grains, a higher-protein,
| lower-carbohydrate dietary pattern can be achieved which likely
| improves nutrient adequacy, weight management, and overall
| health. --
| https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report%20Appendices.pd...
| Appendix 4.9
| Gareth321 wrote:
| > Steak is a terrible source of protein (in terms of nutrient
| density).
|
| At 23g/100g, lean beef has a very high protein/weight ratio.
| Similar to chicken and turkey breast and exceeded only by
| canned tuna and processed protein isolates like soy protein
| isolate, whey protein isolate, and wheat gluten. For
| comparison, protein content of firm tofu, lentils, and
| chickpeas is much lower, at 14g/100g, 9g/100g, and 8.5g/100g,
| respectively. They all contain a lot more carbs per 100g than
| lean beef.
|
| Further, lean beef contains a full and balanced amino acid
| profile, which lentils, tofu, chickpeas, soy protein isolate,
| and wheat gluten does not. It's an excellent food. However
| there is evidence that charred red meat and red meat containing
| nitrites is associated with a slight increase in colorectal
| cancer, so people should be consuming minimally processed red
| meat where possible, as per the guidance.
| literallyroy wrote:
| Any recommendations for healthy family eating that doesn't
| require an hour every day?
| bradfa wrote:
| Cook very large or numerous portions. Use what you need for 1
| meal, freeze the rest to save for future meals. Based on how
| much your family eats in that first meal, divide up the
| remaining amount into that sized portions when freezing. Warm
| up the frozen food in the oven (still may take an hour, but you
| can do other things during that time).
|
| Frozen vegetables are pretty cheap and easy to warm up quickly
| in the microwave or an air fryer. They may not be as good for
| you as fresh produce, but that can be a reasonable tradeoff
| based on the season and free time.
|
| Chest freezers are reasonably cheap to buy (new or used) and
| cheap to operate, assuming you have the physical space and an
| open electrical outlet. They don't consume much electricity,
| mine uses about 75W for the compressor (when it's running,
| which is less than 50% of the time) and about 250W for the
| defrost heaters (which seem to turn on for about 15 minutes
| roughly once per day.
| otikik wrote:
| Yes, batch cooking!
|
| One extra thing to consider is preparing something that can
| transform easily into many dishes.
|
| We cook a "big meal" every weekend (now in winter time is
| chickpea+meat stew - "cocido madrileno"). It takes around 1
| hour to make, but the time is not proportional to the
| quantity. So we make enough for 3-4 meals for my family of 3
| on a big pot.
|
| The nice thing about this stew in particular is that you can
| reserve the liquid, meat and chickpeas in separate containers
| in the fridge. The liquid is a very good base broth for soups
| (heat up, add some noodles, done in minutes).
|
| The meat can be consumed cold, or can be the meaty base of
| other things (croquettes). We can also rebuild the dish by
| adding broth, chickpeas and meat into a plate and microwaving
| it (again, minutes). Or we can add some rice and have a
| "paella de cocido" (that takes a bit longer, around 25
| minutes).
|
| You have to adapt this idea to whatever is available to you
| in your area and your personal tastes. Perhaps you can
| prepare a big batch of mexican food, to eat in
| tacos/wraps/with salad. Or some curry base that can double up
| as a soup.
| legitster wrote:
| "We're ending the war on protein"
|
| Weird branding and culture war stuff aside, this is probably the
| least objectionable thing this health administration has done.
|
| That said, I don't know if this would actually move the needle
| much. The Japanese diet includes so much more processed foods and
| less protein and they still live longer, healthier lives. I think
| the ultimate factors are still portion sizes, environment,
| activity, and genetics.
| elicash wrote:
| The new pyramid appears to have LESS protein in it than the
| Michelle Obama 2011 version, MyPlate.
| bamboozled wrote:
| It's just all macho nonsense to make them think they're going
| to turn everyone into navy seals or something, the same reason
| they install gyms and pull up bars at airports...it makes a
| certain demographic excited that this is the end of gay / fat /
| weak people or something.
| geon wrote:
| > Every meal must prioritize high-quality, nutrient-dense protein
| from both animal and plant sources
|
| Are they saying Real Food(tm) is incompatible with vegetarianism?
| aero142 wrote:
| Yes. They probably are, but it's moderately hard to eat a
| healthy vegetarian diet if you look at what vegetarian athletes
| actually eat.
| knollimar wrote:
| This isn't a pyramid?
|
| Also I'm no health expert but this seems like a ton of protein.
| I'd like to see what a day of this diet looks like
| shellac wrote:
| > This isn't a pyramid?
|
| Thank you for saying this. It immediately drove me crazy.
| smeej wrote:
| Also came looking for this comment. I get the symbolism of
| leaving grains at the bottom, but it's dumb.
|
| Just turn the darn thing over. I won't even complain much about
| having the bottom bulk be "meat, vegetables, and fruit" with
| just a tiny layer of grains at the top. But this is a funnel,
| not a pyramid.
| knollimar wrote:
| It's not even that that bothers me; it's that 5 of the
| categories occupy the same level, and don't show recommended
| ratios between them.
|
| I don't think their own science agrees with them either (e.g.
| red meats)
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| Why does it have to be another pyramid? Why can't we just use a
| simple pie chart? With a pie chart, we could compare both calorie
| ratios and daily ratios much easier.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Pies are too processed.
| parrellel wrote:
| Let's see what the people who want to Make Mumps Great Again are
| recommending today?
|
| 64oz rare porterhouse breakfasts is it.
|
| Neat.
| chrsw wrote:
| Great. Now let's start replacing fast food places with places
| that still serve you quickly but serve healthy food. Complete
| meals of whole foods.
|
| One of the problems with the way we live and work is that it's so
| easy to go for the quick option. If you're working 60+ hours a
| week or trying to run a busy household, unhealthy food options
| are really attractive for you because they're so convenient.
| People generally know what good food is, it's just that they make
| the sacrifice because there's other things going on in their
| lives.
|
| I've said things like this before and people respond like "well,
| I run my own business and raise a family and volunteer at my
| church and so on and on... AND cook perfectly healthy meals 3
| times a day!" That's awesome for you, you're amazing, but let's
| get real.
| tracker1 wrote:
| There's a chain here in Phoenix called "Salad and Go" that's
| pretty awesome... I'd love to see a fast food place that
| specializes in breakfast items that include keto bread options
| and low carb bowls all day.
|
| I'll also get plain beef patties or grilled chicken breasts
| from misc fast food places in a pinch.
| zahlman wrote:
| Wasn't Panera supposed to be this, before the hyper-caffeinated
| lemonade scandal at least?
| toyetic wrote:
| I think this was ( at least in theory ) the goal of the "slop"
| bowls we've seen pop up in the last 15 or so years, chipotle,
| cava, sweetgreans etc.
| diath wrote:
| Fish, lean beef, chicken, eggs, kefir, milk, cheese, rice,
| potatoes, EVOO, fruit and vegetables is all you need for peak
| athletic performance and optimal hormonal profile.
| cpursley wrote:
| Kefir is amazing! My breakfast is now a Kefir shake with a half
| a ripe banana (those two work together), handful of frozen
| quality strawberries or blueberries, scoop of no-sugar added
| peanut butter and a pinch of salt.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kefir
|
| If you're stateside, you can buy it at Publix and other
| groceries: https://www.publix.com/pd/lifeway-lifeway-original-
| plain-kef...
|
| What is EVOO btw?
| tracker1 wrote:
| Extra Virgin Olive Oil... a mono-unsaturated fatty acid blend
| that's one of the healthier minimally processed oils. Not
| great for medium to high heat cooking. Avocado oil has a
| similar nutritional profile and can tolerate a bit higher
| heat. If you are doing anything resembling frying or higher
| heat cooking you're likely better off with a more saturated
| fat option, tallow/lard.
| victor_y wrote:
| I think the effort is valuable, however hard for individuals to
| act upon to effectively improve their diet.
|
| A simple do / don't list serves this better:
|
| Do: - Do consume more legumes or beans, lentils and peas. - Do
| consume more fish (low lead options) - Do consume more vegetables
| and fruit
|
| Don't - Don't consume alcohol or other harmful drugs - Don't
| consume sweetened items (either added sugars or artificial
| sweeteners) - Avoid processed food (try to cook as much as
| possible)
|
| Feel like this is more helpful for 99% of people.
| dooglius wrote:
| I thought I recall from reading a previous 5-year one of these
| there being much more explicit information on ranges of micro-
| nutrients one should get (e.g. an explicit recommendation for how
| much Vitamin C to get). Is there an equivalent somewhere here?
| jasonlotito wrote:
| War on protein? I don't know of any war on protein, but I do live
| in a more liberal area than the rest of the country. Considering
| this is coming from a more conservative government, I wonder what
| war on protein is going on in conservative areas of the country.
| Why were conservatives having a war on protein?
| mythrwy wrote:
| Geeze that's bad! Can we just show the pyramid and some text?
| NickC25 wrote:
| I own and run a CPG beverage company.
|
| This is a good start. A start. The folks at the top, including
| RFK Jr. are still captured by big industry.
|
| We need to get off of corn syrup, artificial ingredients, and
| harmful preservatives.
|
| That said, food deserts still exist, and real whole food is
| expensive, especially in a time of dire economic stress. I
| thought that's what subsidies were for, but apparently they are
| for enriching Big Food / Big Ag executives, their lobbyists, and
| their bought-and-paid-for congresscritters.
|
| We also need to realize we've been duped for generations into
| liking things that are overly sweet. Sweet is fine, but we don't
| need to add stevia or sugar to _everything_. One of my biggest
| walls of resistance that I see regularly with my own products is
| that people have been conditioned to expect that everything in my
| vertical is super sweet. Just last week I had a parent complain
| at a sampling that my drink wasn 't as sweet as Prime, and thus
| it's shit. Prime has over an ounce of added sugar in its bottles.
| I'm marketing to an entirely different set of consumer, too. I
| offered her a million USD in cash if I could name 10 ingredients
| on a Prime bottle, and she'd tell me what the ingredient was for,
| why it helped her son, and the natural origin of the ingredient.
| She accepted, couldn't get past 1, and then told me that it
| didn't matter - her son liked what he liked and that's what she
| was going to buy. We've spoiled generations of people into
| accepting super sweet things with no idea of why something is or
| isn't sweet.
|
| One thing I also do is that (i have the luxury of time to do
| this, which I recognize is something not everyone has) if i want
| something really sweet and it's not a fruit, I generally make it
| myself. If I am having a birthday party, I'll make the cake
| myself. If my nephew wants to leave christmas cookies out for
| Santa, I'll make them myself. If I want ice cream, I have an ice
| cream machine and I'll make it myself.
| zahlman wrote:
| > That said, food deserts still exist, and real whole food is
| expensive, especially in a time of dire economic stress.
|
| I can still routinely get potatoes in season at 20c/lb, carrots
| in season at 40c/lb, bananas at 60c/lb, dried legumes at $1/lb
| or not much more, frozen ground meat in the ballpark of $3/lb,
| eggs for less than $4/dz (almost as much protein as a pound of
| fatty meat), boneless skinless chicken breast under $5/lb,
| butter and cheddar cheese at right about $5/lb, 2% milk at
| $1.25/L (skim milk powder is a bit more economical if you don't
| want the milk fat)...
|
| In less healthy options, white flour at 45c/lb, polished white
| rice less than $1/lb (sometimes as low as 70c), rolled oats at
| $1.50/lb (though I'm leery about the glyphosate), select dried
| fruits in the ballpark of $3/lb, bacon at $3.60/lb...
|
| all $CAD, by the way. I converted weights but not currency.
| Last time I looked at American food prices, you guys had way
| cheaper meat than us after currency conversion.
|
| > One thing I also do is that (i have the luxury of time to do
| this, which I recognize is something not everyone has) if i
| want something really sweet and it's not a fruit, I generally
| make it myself. If I am having a birthday party, I'll make the
| cake myself. If my nephew wants to leave christmas cookies out
| for Santa, I'll make them myself. If I want ice cream, I have
| an ice cream machine and I'll make it myself.
|
| ... Generic sandwich cookies and tea biscuits under $2/lb
| (though they used to be considerably cheaper)....
|
| I absolutely agree with you about the sweet cravings, though.
| NickC25 wrote:
| Sounds like you like pretty close to or in an urban/metro
| area.
|
| Food deserts still exist all over the US. And likely in
| Canada, too - you're less likely to have the same options in
| Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal as opposed to say, Nunavut or
| Yukon.
|
| The issue here is that you specified in-season. The problem
| with food at scale is that humans are impatient, and want
| what they want regardless of season. We don't have
| seasonality in this day and age in the US outside of small
| things like pumpkins or gourds. Fruits are expected to be
| available year round.
|
| Your food standards are WAY higher than ours (I say this
| jealously). Your government gives a fuck about its
| population. Ours does not.
| zahlman wrote:
| You can get these things year-round here in Toronto, of
| course, they just tend to go on sale at specific times of
| year for reasons of supply and demand. But that's specific
| things like the root vegetables; things imported from the
| tropics have much more stable prices of course. And really,
| I'm happy to prep and freeze stuff, and to choose different
| produce seasonally.
|
| The concept of a "food desert" is wild to me. I routinely
| walk 3km each way to get groceries and think nothing of it.
| One of the best ways to make sure I get exercise.
|
| Do American Wal-Mart locations in small towns charge higher
| prices than ones in major cities in the same state? I think
| that might actually be illegal here. Certainly the grocery
| store flyers are for _at least_ the entire province.
| NickC25 wrote:
| >The concept of a "food desert" is wild to me. I
| routinely walk 3km each way to get groceries and think
| nothing of it. One of the best ways to make sure I get
| exercise.
|
| I too do the same. However, I, like you, live in a major
| metropolitan area filled with millions of people.
| Walking, or biking a few K or miles to the grocery store
| isn't unheard of.
|
| >Do American Wal-Mart locations in small towns charge
| higher prices than ones in major cities in the same
| state?
|
| To my knowledge, that's also illegal here. The thing is
| though, food deserts aren't due to proximity to a large
| city, they are more due to location economics. No offense
| meant when I say you're thinking about this the wrong way
| - let's break it down.
|
| Here's the scenario: you're a food importer, bringing in
| food to Canada. You have 1000 kilos of, let's say,
| strawberries.
|
| Because import costs are high, you want to make sure all
| those 1000 kilos sell, and sell quickly because it's
| fresh produce and it will spoil pretty quickly. You could
| likely just bring all of them to the GTA, and they'd all
| sell, because the GTA is nearly 7 million people so
| there's plenty of demand (and money).
|
| If you really were concerned about sales and proximity
| concentration, you could extend the GTA area to the
| entire golden horseshoe, which is roughly 11 million
| people, all within a few hours drive to the heart of the
| GTA. Cool, right? You could quickly sell all those
| strawberries.
|
| Except now you're ignoring Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa,
| Edmonton, etc. So you have to spread those 1000 kilos
| around to major metro areas, because that's where demand
| is. But what are you ignoring here? The very rural parts
| of the country, because it's harder and more expensive to
| transport goods there, and there's not as much money
| because there's little to no economy in extremely rural
| areas - so certainty of sell-through is not as guaranteed
| as it is in major cities. I'm talking Nunavut, the
| northern islands, Yukon territory, etc. It's also
| extremely hard to model demand from those areas.
|
| So even if you said, ok, I'll send 1 kilo to 1 rural
| area. Well, you're going to run into trouble because
| you're not going to have the demand, nor does the locale
| have any money so even if there was demand (and the
| economy strong enough for people to be able to spend on
| your berries), you have to make less money because you're
| spending more money to transport produce, and as you say
| - it's illegal to charge different prices depending on
| location.
|
| So, in a very tight margin business like produce
| importing, what will you do? You'll ignore the most rural
| areas, because it's just too risky. And so will your
| competition, and as well, adjacent business that import
| other types of foodstuffs that have the same constraints
| you do.
|
| And BOOM, food deserts are created.
|
| In the USA, there's plenty of people whose closest grocer
| is an hour away. And because that grocer is in a pretty
| remote location, there's not many distributors who are
| willing and able to risk high-cost produce going to that
| grocer, because there's no economy to justify a higher
| cost product. So you get nothing but processed junk at
| those stores, because it doesn't go bad, it doesn't
| spoil, and can sit on the shelf for months.
| zahlman wrote:
| It's just hard to imagine. I'm no stranger to the
| surrounding areas here, either. And I'm accustomed to a
| world where <10k population towns have competing grocery
| stores within city limits (and multiple restaurants), and
| the really rural people are farmers who produce their own
| food (and occasionally sell e.g. fresh corn at the
| roadside).
| NickC25 wrote:
| The difference is that you're close to a body of fresh
| water, and while it's cold as fuck for a good part of the
| year, there's enough sunlight and arable land around you
| for either farming or indoor farming to (partially)
| support the city's food needs. You're also still within
| an hour or two of a world-class major city with an urban
| area population close to 10 million people.
|
| Like I said, you go to rural Texas or Wyoming, Yukon or
| Northern Territories, it ain't easy to grow food - the
| conditions just aren't there. And you're not exactly
| close to any urban centers or large farms.
| TruffleLabs wrote:
| Kellanova, formerly known as the Kellogg Company, got the message
| and are now making Pop-Tarts with extra protein ;)
|
| https://www.poptarts.com/en_US/products/new/pop-tarts-protei...
| ecshafer wrote:
| This is the first food recommendation from the government that
| makes sense.
|
| 6-11 servings of grains, 3-5 veges, 2-4 fruit, 2-3 dairy, 2-3
| protein (all sources), minimal fat was absurd and bad. Protein is
| until you hit your needed macros. Fats are as needed. Processed
| grains are basically empty calories. a cup or two of whole grains
| is all you really need and thats it.
| mikeyouse wrote:
| They're lying to you that the last guidelines were the food
| pyramid people are remembering from the 1990s.
|
| These are the prior recommendations:
| https://lgpress.clemson.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2024/...
|
| 100% evidence based but not branded as contrarian by a bunch of
| Instagram idiots so people assume they didn't exist.
| carsoon wrote:
| Those prior recommendations you supplied are worse than the
| current ones.
|
| Added Sugar: it says <50grams when its clear that NO added
| sugar is best as the new guidelines suggest.
|
| Fat: it says to choose low fat cuts 95% and low fat milk.
| There is no basis for these options. you are just reducing
| the nutrients from fat. You should just drink/eat less of the
| fatty food if it contains fat, not choose a processed version
| that removes part of it.
|
| Protein: The protein section clearly skews towards plant
| based proteins which are fine but for the majority of people
| animal proteins are going to be healthier and easier to eat
| enough of. The protein amounts to around 35-60 grams of
| protein depending on the sources/amounts listed which is not
| ideal for a properly functioning human
|
| Sodium: It says in multiple places to lower sodium but the
| studies on sodium were correlative not causative. Meaning
| there is no basis for a low sodium diet unless you have other
| health conditions.
|
| So no they are not lying to you and these new guidelines are
| 100% evidence based given the new evidence that we have had
| for the last 30 years.
| tensor wrote:
| > Added Sugar: it says <50grams when its clear that NO
| added sugar is best as the new guidelines suggest.
|
| False. Science studies show that up to 50 grams has little
| effect on your health.
|
| >Fat: it says to choose low fat cuts 95% and low fat milk.
| There is no basis for these options. you are just reducing
| the nutrients from fat. You should just drink/eat less of
| the fatty food if it contains fat, not choose a processed
| version that removes part of it.
|
| False, it says to choose lean protein and explicitly calls
| out to avoid processed meat. A lean cut of meat is not
| "processed" it comes that way.
|
| > Protein: The protein section clearly skews towards plant
| based proteins which are fine but for the majority of
| people animal proteins are going to be healthier and easier
| to eat enough of. The protein amounts to around 35-60 grams
| of protein depending on the sources/amounts listed which is
| not ideal for a properly functioning human
|
| False, red meat has been show to be associated with
| increased cardiovascular disease.
|
| While the risk of fat and salt is likely overblown, overall
| the previous guidelines were pretty good. These new ones
| don't call out the dangers of things like red meat.
| tekkk wrote:
| Those science studies are a load of bull if they say
| added sugar up to 50 GRAMS has no effect on your health.
| Your gut develops a craving for it like no other and your
| insulin spikes much harder when you intake that much on
| daily basis. When you're off sugar for a while, you
| notice how those "compulsions" you have during groceries
| is just due to your gut yearning for some sugar. Now
| fruits and natural sugar are a lot better, but even them
| I wouldn't consume excessively if you are in the business
| of high focus -work.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| Dairy (the milk of another mammal's baby) only "makes sense" as
| a result of deep conditioning that it is normal, necessary and
| natural. Time to wake up from this lullaby.
| opinion3k wrote:
| it's great to recommend these things but if you're poor and live
| in a food desert, it doesn't address the actual issues that
| prevent people from eating healthier: money, living in an area
| where the bodega or wal-mart are your only food options,
| corporate interests that want us to eat ultra-processed foods,
| not having the time or ability to cook, and many more I'm sure.
| aworks wrote:
| I was roaming around the rural Western US last year.
|
| If I saw that there was a Walmart in town, I perked up.
| Consistent, low-priced and large number of grocery items.
| Likely better than an unknown, variable, often poorly stocked
| local grocery (or worse, groceries at a gas station/convenience
| store).
|
| I also liked seeing the economic diversity of customers that I
| wouldn't see at home.
|
| In larger cities, I'll choose other groceries if I can for
| better selection, if not better prices.
|
| Of course, except for maybe Sprouts, all the places I shop
| emphasize ultra-processed corporte interests.
| tracker1 wrote:
| I'm not that far from a Walmart in a more upscale
| neighborhood, I used to use that one for my oil changes.
| Always interesting seeing a > $100k sports car in a Walmart
| parking lot (not referring to my car).
| tracker1 wrote:
| Even questionable quality ground beef is almost always a better
| option than most carb-centric nutrition sources. It freezes
| well, transports is broadly available and can usually be
| ordered for delivery.
|
| Eggs, aside from some of the disease issues are also a very
| good, nutritionally complete source of protein that are
| relatively inexpensive.
|
| Another issue is that people have been conditioned to eat/snack
| all the time... a lot of people have moved towards 2-3 meals a
| day which is closer to historical norms... have protein be your
| main source, with vegetables as a side, and maybe bread/pasta
| at some meals.
|
| There are also beans/legumes if you can tolerate them.
| ahoka wrote:
| This was literally a South Park episode.
| DefineOutside wrote:
| The pyramid being upside down with grain on the bottom and fats
| and oils being on top is directly from south park.
|
| The only difference is that meat, fat, dairy, fruits and
| vegetables are grouped together with this new pyramid with
| grains on the bottom. while south park puts fats -> meat and
| dairy -> fruits and vegetables -> grains as the order.
| Ciunkos wrote:
| Ref: https://www.southparkstudios.com/video-clips/qcl2i8/south-
| pa...
| ndom91 wrote:
| Well it's a next.js app that's not vulnerable to react2shell,
| that's at least something they've done right haha
| PaulDavisThe1st wrote:
| > For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized
| highly-processed food
|
| WTF are they talking about?
| skirmish wrote:
| Food pyramid used to say: "Eat plenty, 6-11 servings of: bread,
| cereals, pasta".
| Whatarethese wrote:
| Good information and pyramid but holy moly that website is awful
| on desktop with a mouse.
| GaryBluto wrote:
| What _was_ that animation? It looked like 3 stock images coming
| together briefly, then flying off again, then the page scrolling.
|
| Regardless, there's nothing here (aside from the odd scrolling
| layout of the page itself) I can disagree with. I'm already
| following this "diet" in the most part anyway, and that's without
| consciously thinking that much about it.
| sdwr wrote:
| It was a low-budget restating of the message:
|
| - examples of real food
|
| - "coming together", as in being focused on
|
| - zooming away, as in being spread and disseminated widely
|
| It contrasts with the slick, professional look of the rest of
| the page, showing heart and passion for the message.
| cathyreisenwitz wrote:
| Vegs should be at the top, meat & animal products under. Still an
| improvement. #1 health tip for poor autists w IBS: Half a bag of
| frozen vegs in a bowl + splash of water. Microwave 2 min. Stir.
| Microwave 1 min. Salt. Eat.
| LoganDark wrote:
| I would love to read something composed of actual text instead of
| flashy animations and movies.
| djoldman wrote:
| This page seems to be the most "design-forward" federal .gov
| website I've ever seen.
|
| Does anyone have other examples?
| Forgeties79 wrote:
| That animation was laughably bad though you have to admit.
| croisillon wrote:
| disappointed they didn't do it in times new roman
| btreecat wrote:
| It's a reverse funnel system
| zeroonetwothree wrote:
| For all the lunacy of RFK this somehow is actually a really good
| set of guidelines? Certainly better than the previous version. I
| didn't expect that to be honest.
| tomcam wrote:
| What lunacy?
| binarymax wrote:
| Staunch anti-vaccine, and he's tearing apart the CDC wit
| regards to the same.
| cr125rider wrote:
| We don't need good vaccines anymore even though infectious
| diseases are on the rise. Other global medical experts seem
| to be going against many of his plans.
| alterom wrote:
| _> We don't need good vaccines anymore even though
| infectious diseases are on the rise_
|
| To clarify, this is an _example of RFK 's lunacy_, not the
| user's opinion to be voted on.
| vscode-rest wrote:
| The end result of his vax push has been to reduce the set
| of government required vaccines down to the same set used
| by Europe already. Additional vaccination is still
| available should an individual elect.
|
| Are you of the opinion that the European recommendation is
| insufficient? Would you petition European healthcare
| industry that they are requiring too few vaccines? If so, I
| would expect Europeans to be chronically far more diseased
| than Americans, do we see that in the data?
| amanaplanacanal wrote:
| The argument I've seen is that because the US has worse
| medical care in general, it makes sense to get more
| vaccinations.
| j0057 wrote:
| I haven't particularly kept up with RFKs brand of MAGA
| craziness, but all European countries have different
| childhood vaccination schedules, with some overlap, see
| here: https://vaccination-info.europa.eu/en/about-
| vaccines/when-va...
| vscode-rest wrote:
| The superset of all Euro vaccines is still much smaller
| than what the US had. Are we that much healthier?
| davorak wrote:
| What is on the US schedule that is not on Euro schedule?
| burkaman wrote:
| Here's the US vaccine schedule pre-RFK: https://archive.c
| dc.gov/#/details?q=schedule&start=0&rows=10...
|
| Here's a site where you can view vaccine schedules across
| Europe: https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/
|
| The only outlier is Hepatitis A, which is still
| recommended in some European countries. On the reverse
| side, the meningococcal vaccine is commonly scheduled in
| Europe but not in the US.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| They are based on denmark's guidelines, which as you know
| is a very cold country.
|
| One of the vaccines made strictly optional was for
| dengue, which is not really a thing in denmark since I
| think they don't have that many mosquitos due to weather.
|
| However, in the US, mosquitos and tropical weather are
| common for a large part of the population.
|
| Point being, a huge country with a huge variety of
| climates and diseases shouldn't follow the lead of a
| small country with a fairly homogenous weather and
| disease pattern.
| vscode-rest wrote:
| Are you familiar with any European country that does
| schedule a dengue vaccine? It is not listed here:
| https://vaccine-schedule.ecdc.europa.eu/
| hn_acc1 wrote:
| Once those additional vaccines are off the "routine"
| schedule, they'll be pulled by the suppliers, because it
| eliminates exemption from lawsuits. If you "choose" a
| non-routine vaccination, people can then sue pharma for
| ANY harm, and you can be sure there'll be a bunch of
| crackpot right-wingers trying to prove each one is "bad"
| and they'll disappear sooner or later. RFK's fans (Del
| Bigtree) have admitted that this is their plan. And if
| they're NOT routine, they'll probably not be covered by
| insurance, so you'll have to pay hundreds or thousands to
| get one. I would still do that, but not many others will.
|
| Electing to get all ZERO optional vaccines actually
| available to you because of "reasons" isn't much of a
| choice.
| jimbobimbo wrote:
| "Once those additional vaccines are off the "routine"
| schedule, they'll be pulled by the suppliers, because it
| eliminates exemption from lawsuits"
|
| Why is this bad? From one of the threads - "There IS
| scrutiny on vaccines, by the scientific and medical
| community - your "scrutiny" (as presumably neither a PhD
| in a relevant field or MD) is not valuable or relevant.
| There is decades of research that says that currently
| recommended vaccines are safe and effective."
|
| OK, then there won't be grounds for lawsuits or lawsuits
| will be easily dismissed.
|
| "you can be sure there'll be a bunch of crackpot right-
| wingers trying to prove each one is "bad" and they'll
| disappear sooner or later" - This logic can be applied to
| literally any product, be it a medicine, a vaccine, or
| any consumer good. Somehow pharma companies are able to
| sell any other drug without going into bankruptcy.
| gowld wrote:
| Cerebral palsy, a naturally occuring disorder, generates
| $10M in "malpractice" payouts, part of why giving birth
| in USA is so expensive.
| tomcam wrote:
| Kennedy has never said anything like that
| wsatb wrote:
| "There's no vaccine that is, you know, safe and
| effective."
|
| https://www.factcheck.org/2023/11/scicheck-rfk-jr-
| incorrectl...
| burkaman wrote:
| Some direct, in-context quotes:
|
| > There's no vaccine that is safe and effective.
| [interviewer pushes back, brings up polio vaccine] So if
| you say to me, "The polio vaccine, was it effective
| against polio?" I'm going to say, "Yes." And if say to
| me, "Did it cause more death than avert?" I would say, "I
| don't know, because we don't have the data on that."
|
| > The most popular vaccine in the world is the DTP
| vaccine. [...] That vaccine caused so many injuries that
| Wyeth, which was the manufacturer, said to the Reagan
| administration, "We are now paying $20 in downstream
| liabilities for every dollar that we're making in
| profits, and we are getting out of the business unless
| you give us permanent immunity from liability." And by
| the way, Reagan said at that time, "Why don't you just
| make the vaccine safe?" And why is that? Because vaccines
| are inherently unsafe. They said, "Unavoidably unsafe,
| you cannot make them safe."
|
| Not going quote the whole thing because it's long, but he
| repeatedly drives home his point that all vaccines are
| inherently unsafe, and the injuries and deaths they cause
| always outweigh their effectiveness against disease.
|
| - https://lexfridman.com/robert-f-kennedy-jr-transcript/
|
| > I see somebody on a hiking trail carrying a little baby
| and I say to him, 'Better not get him vaccinated.' And he
| heard that from me. If he hears it from 10 other people,
| maybe he won't do it, you know, maybe he will save that
| child.
|
| > If you're one of 10 people that goes up to a guy, a man
| or a woman, who's carrying a baby, and says, 'Don't
| vaccinate that baby,' when they hear that from 10 people,
| it'll make an impression on 'em, you know. And we all
| kept our mouth shut. Don't keep your mouth shut anymore.
| Confront everybody on it.
|
| - https://www.listennotes.com/podcasts/the-way-
| forward/hffh-th... timestamp 11:54, 13:30
|
| This one is interesting because the interviewer prompts
| him with something like "we aren't anti-vaccine, we just
| want to make sure they're safe" and he does not agree, he
| repeatedly says, with no qualification, "tell everyone
| not to vaccinate their children".
|
| I don't believe he has ever voluntarily made a positive
| public comment about any vaccine. He did during his
| confirmation hearing, but he was obviously heavily
| incentivized to do so. During that hearing he did not say
| his opinion had changed, he simply lied about all past
| comments and claimed they never happened.
| nancyminusone wrote:
| It's true - none of his conspiracy theories involve the moon
| directly.
| thrance wrote:
| Antivax, avocated against pasteurization, thinks fries are
| healthy when fried in beef tallow, swam in sewers with his
| grandkids to prove the human body is naturally immune to
| diseases and vaccines are unnecessary, tried to ban
| paracetamol based on bad research linking it to autism, and
| much more if you care to dig a little.
| tomcam wrote:
| He's never been anti-vax, though he has advocated for
| better data about vaccines with good reason--it's
| abominable. He's advocated against requiring milk to be
| pasteurized. One of the few reasonable datasets suggesting
| it doesn't help is the amish. The other ones sound weird so
| I will indeed dig a little.
| FireBeyond wrote:
| Show us all how all the data on vaccines is "abominable".
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Don't you remember how everyone who got a covid vaccine
| died off two years later?
| hairofadog wrote:
| While he moderates his take on it depending on who his
| audience is, he has said "There's no vaccine that is safe
| and effective."
|
| https://apnews.com/article/rfk-kennedy-
| election-2024-preside...
| codeka wrote:
| > One of the few reasonable datasets suggesting it
| doesn't help is the amish
|
| When you literally live on the farm where the cow is
| milked, there is less benefit to pasteurization, yes.
| Unless you want us to live like the Amish, then let's
| keep our pasteurized milk, OK?
| tomcam wrote:
| Should we be forced to drink pasteurized milk?
| thrance wrote:
| You were never forced to, don't change the subject. Issue
| is with the secretary of health spreading obvious lies
| about pasteurization, a process that saved countless
| lives over the course of more than a century.
| lithocarpus wrote:
| Some of us do want to live near where our food comes from
| and eat it fresh. I haven't seen anyone advocating that
| pasteurization should be banned, just that raw milk
| should be un-banned.
| ericd wrote:
| Acetaminophen, honestly, shouldn't be recommended so
| frequently, especially for kids, and if he's against it, I
| view that as a big point in his favor. The distance between
| the therapeutic and liver toxic doses is too small for
| kids, less than 2.5x the max recommended dose, and it's
| based on kid's weight, so very young kids can't really be
| given the amount shown on the box. For example, a
| hepatotoxic dose for my 5 year old based on their weight is
| just 3/4 of the adult daily max recommended dose. That's a
| pointy-ass UX failure.
|
| Growing up, my mom, a pediatrician, never let tylenol in
| the house because she saw too many kids come through the
| pediatric ER with liver failure because of it in her
| hospital shifts. It's the leading cause of acute liver
| toxicity in the US.
| rafram wrote:
| > The distance between the therapeutic and liver toxic
| doses is too small for kids, less than 2.5x the max
| recommended dose
|
| If you're giving your kid 2.5x the listed maximum dose of
| a medication, that's on you.
|
| > a hepatotoxic dose for my 5 year old based on their
| weight is just 3/4 of the adult daily max recommended
| dose
|
| Sure, and even a small drink of alcohol can poison a kid.
| Something being OK for adults doesn't make it OK for
| kids. Read the packaging.
| ericd wrote:
| It causes >100k cases of poisoning in the US every year.
| RTFM isn't working.
| jjcm wrote:
| Anti-vaccine, anti-tylenol, stating that circumcision causes
| autism, stating wireless 5G damages DNA, stating that
| vaccines are part of a anti-black conspiracy, hiv/aids
| denialism, believing that contrails are actually chemtrails,
| etc etc etc.
| tomcam wrote:
| Can you link to your strongest source for one of those
| claims?
| Carp wrote:
| https://www.factcheck.org/2025/10/rfk-jr-s-inaccurate-
| claims...
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| Link to chemtrails comments: https://gizmodo.com/rfk-jr-
| goes-full-tinfoil-pledges-to-stop...
|
| Link to autism comments:
| https://www.cato.org/blog/circumcision-tylenol-autism-rfk-
| jr...
|
| Misc including 5g comments:
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/saradorn/2024/11/15/rfk-jrs-
| con...
| tomcam wrote:
| The Cato.org one is interesting because it only
| speculates what might have influenced him, then attempts
| to debunk those sources.
|
| Obviously I feel like he should be providing his sources.
| TehCorwiz wrote:
| I chose that source intentionally to underscore that
| nobody on any part of the political spectrum is actually
| contesting he said or believes these things. Regardless
| of how they choose to view them.
| deepsquirrelnet wrote:
| AI generated health report citing hallucinated research and
| incorrectly representing real research.
| jmuguy wrote:
| Listening to him talk about the Spanish Flu, and clearly not
| understand why secondary bacterial infections killed more
| people than the flu itself, was my personal point of "wow,
| this guy is an idiot".
| burkaman wrote:
| In his book "The Real Anthony Fauci" he spends a whole
| chapter claiming that HIV does not cause AIDS and it was
| actually caused by recreational drug use.
| notaustinpowers wrote:
| He believes germ theory is a creation of Big Pharma to push
| "patented pills, powders, pricks, potions, and poisons and
| the powerful professions of virology and vaccinology"
|
| He believes in the miasma theory and just maintaining a
| healthy immune is enough to keep you from getting sick.
|
| Just read his book, "The Real Anthony Fauci" and you'll
| realize that this man shouldn't be trusted to run a
| kindergarten nurses office.
| oulipo2 wrote:
| Well, it's... what we've been told to do (at least in the rest
| of the world) for more than a century? Packaged as some "app-
| like" / "tech-like" website?
|
| Pathetic
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| I don't think there was guidance to avoid ultra processed
| foods 100 years ago anywhere in the world. I don't believe
| that concept even existed, let alone was promulgated by
| health authorities. But I'd lkvd to be proven wrong.
| oulipo2 wrote:
| Well it wasn't there because there was no processed food..
| but still the guidance everywhere on earth (except USA) is
| to eat fresh, non-processed food
| zamalek wrote:
| If the old wisdom is correct then there is no issue in
| regurgitating it in a format suitable for a modern audience.
| We departed from it for a very long time, especially in
| regards to fat and processed foods. America has been been on
| a sharp decline in diet-related health.
|
| The deeper problem is that you can feed a family with a few
| bucks at a fast food joint. Eating correctly costs money,
| money that Americans don't have.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _deeper problem is that you can feed a family with a few
| bucks at a fast food joint. Eating correctly costs money,
| money that Americans don 't have_
|
| A fast-food meal is an expensive meal by global standards.
| The problem is partly cost. And party education and time.
| But it's almost certainly not income.
| oulipo2 wrote:
| > The deeper problem is that you can feed a family with a
| few bucks at a fast food joint. Eating correctly costs
| money, money that Americans don't have.
|
| No you can't, in reality. It only seems so because the
| fast-food industry is heavily subsidized by taxpayer
| dollars.
|
| Organic food would be much more affordable otherwise
| deflator wrote:
| It was a low bar. The previous nutrition guidelines were
| garbage for generations
| fullshark wrote:
| And what does it say about traditional governance that it
| takes a someone like RFK to actually do anything about it.
| csoups14 wrote:
| That a majority of your populace not caring about how
| they're governed is bad for a democratic republic.
| zachthewf wrote:
| or maybe the nutrition guidelines just don't matter that
| much.
| csoups14 wrote:
| That's clearly true, given people by and large know
| what's good and bad for them but their consumption
| choices need to factor in a much larger set of pressing
| constraints like price, availability, and readiness and
| more abstract constraints like "am I able to be at home
| with my child and cook for them or do I need to work a
| second job to make ends meet?" I will not trust a single
| word from RFK's mouth until he has something to say about
| food deserts and prices and a plan to do something about
| it. Until then, he's done the easiest part which
| bureaucrats specialize in, which is publishing an updated
| set of guidelines.
| xphos wrote:
| I disagree I think nutrition guidence is extremely
| important and in the precense of horrible examples
| nations get really unhealthy. The only country 1st world
| country not to have really obese people is Japan (~5%
| obese ~20% overweight). (~35% obsese ~70% overweight US)
| and I'd wager a large part of that is the fact that kids
| cook for themselves in school so they learn early what a
| reasonable meal is. They also learn how to cook not that
| they do that forever but setting reasonable food
| expectations is extremely important.
|
| Being obese as a kid is almost causal for being obese
| later in life[1] as becoming obese screws up a lot of
| your bodies biology permenantly. You can of course change
| and become healthier but many lingering symptoms linger
| regardless of you losing weight. While still 70% obese
| adults were not obese as children 80% of obese children
| end up being obese.
|
| Open to other ideas but school meals and peoples
| relationship with food is extremely important to
| maintaining weight in my experience.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26696565/
| dan00 wrote:
| > The only country 1st world country not to have really
| obese people is Japan (~5% obese ~20% overweight). (~35%
| obsese ~70% overweight US) and I'd wager a large part of
| that is the fact that kids cook for themselves in school
| so they learn early what a reasonable meal is.
|
| There might also be a genetic factor, why japanese are
| less obese or overweight, because the difference for
| diabetes patients between US and japan is a lot smaller.
| xphos wrote:
| There is no genetic factor because when Japanese people
| move to the States they are as obese as america's within
| 2 generation. I want to find the study but I think they
| end up being physically lighter because of other factors
| but are just as obese or overweight as americas[1]. The
| reasoning from the paper is that Japanese 2nd generation
| adopted western cultures eating habits
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7610102/
| ranger207 wrote:
| A stopped clock is right twice a day. A running clock set
| incorrectly is correct zero times a day. If you have an
| incorrect clock, the solution isn't to stop the clock, it's
| to set it correctly and fix the process
| erulabs wrote:
| People don't notice "incorrect" as much as "stopped".
|
| Here's hoping that now that we've stopped our incorrect
| clock, the next step may very well be setting it
| correctly.
| ourmandave wrote:
| What does it say about the current administration that
| appointed a science-denying halfwit to run HHS and
| knowingly kill children with his anti-vaxx bullsh*t?
|
| And 52 GOP coward senators that approved the idiot. The
| only stand out was Mitch McConnell because he was almost
| paralyzed by polio as a child and knows first hand the
| damage RFK is doing.
|
| I'm amazed the new guidelines don't recommend a daily
| portion of roadkill, preferably raw.
| deflator wrote:
| I think it says that industries have a lot of power over
| governments in the US, especially when they are critical to
| people's survival. The food industry has enormous power,
| maybe more than any other industry in the US. Few other
| industries mint their own laws that fly in the face of the
| constitution as well as the food industry. Ag Gag laws are
| crazy. People talk about people being labelled terrorists
| for activities that are obviously not terrorism. Animal
| Rights activists who go to extremes have been familiar with
| that for a while now.
| zerocrates wrote:
| Which ones? The guidelines this replaced were "half your
| plate should be fruits and vegetables, the other half protein
| and grains (at least half of which should be whole grains)."
| That's not _way_ different from this.
|
| There are differences: the previous guidelines are very down
| on saturated fat, for example. But I feel like a lot of
| people are imagining that this is replacing the old food
| pyramid with the huge grain section at the bottom bigger than
| everything else, when that's been gone for over a decade.
|
| Realistically I don't think these guidelines really have much
| effect at all, except maybe things like school lunch programs
| that may be downstream of them.
| bhargav wrote:
| > which ones?
|
| The literal food pyramid that's printed god knows where and
| that is recommended in many countries due to US
| recommendations.
|
| Have you been to the site OP linked?
| gingersnap wrote:
| The pyramid references in the link is from 1992, it even
| says so on the page. I think that going to war against
| the recommendations from 1992 feels a bit...dishonest?
| DangitBobby wrote:
| How do we marry that "dishonesty" with the fact that the
| previous food pyramid was the dietary guidelines
| officially endorsed by the US government, represented in
| posters and taught in primary school classrooms?
| mholm wrote:
| Because there have been different FDA food pyramids since
| then. The one people popularized hasn't been the
| recommendation for decades
| great_wubwub wrote:
| The man is stark raving bonkers mad in that head-in-the-sand,
| if-I-ignore-science-then-it-can't-hurt-me way but (and OMG I
| think I'm going to throw up a little in my mouth even coming
| close to agreeing with anything that come out of his mouth)
| isn't that basically what we've been doing with dietary
| guidelines since the 80s?
|
| Like, don't get me wrong, RFK will kill N*10^5, N*10^6 people
| with his outlook on diseases, but....how many people have had
| their lives wrecked by "fat makes you fat", "ketchup is a
| vegetable", and "eat a balanced diet composed entirely of
| sausage, flour, and sugar"? As a GenXer I've been dealing with
| the echoes of this for a long time.
| themafia wrote:
| > I'm going to throw up a little in my mouth even coming
| close to agreeing with anything that come out of his mouth
|
| The American cult of personality is ridiculous. The only
| winning move is not to play.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| You went on a bit of a rant there - lol. I like the new
| guidelines they explicitly disavow processed food. As for
| vaccines, not everyone complaining about specific vaccines is
| anti vax. A lot of vaccines are also region specific. Eg HK
| does TB vax for kids because Nannie's from Indonesia carry
| TB. No one does the TB vax in the US.
|
| A lot of vaccines are tailored towards the mother going back
| to work. They could be tailored for a later schedule if there
| is concern about secondary effects like autism and the child
| is being cared for at home.
|
| Again I'm not anti vax but I also don't think the protocol
| designers are providing alternative options which they
| should.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| > if there is concern about secondary effects like autism
|
| It would sound more scientific and less anti-vaxxer if you
| said "concern about secondary effects like astrological
| contamination"
| orochimaaru wrote:
| My kids are all vaccinated according to schedule. Calling
| me an anti vaxxer is cheap trolling.
|
| And yes - if kids have had serious impacts to vaccines
| parents should be told and providers should encourage
| reporting into vaers
|
| I put autism there because it's the most commonly used
| anecdote when discussing this. I'm not saying take the
| vax away. Eg if mmrv is the big bad vax for autism -
| change its schedule to be given after 2 yrs after autism
| tests.
| satiric wrote:
| Talking about "concern for secondary effects like autism"
| legitimizes the theory, whether you wanted to or not;
| that's why the person you responded to got annoyed.
| orochimaaru wrote:
| It does not. And downvoting for being annoyed seems like
| a low bar. But people are just fucking hard to have a
| conversation these days.
|
| On second thoughts I should have said "concern for
| alleged secondary effects".
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| I didn't call you an anti-vaxxer and saying so is cheap
| trolling.
| ComplexSystems wrote:
| "Isn't that basically what we've been doing with dietary
| guidelines since the 80s?"
|
| If by this you mean to ask if the new guidelines are the same
| as previous ones from the 80s, then no. The new pyramid is
| different, makes different recommendations (more meat, for
| instance, and less wheat and grains). The website linked to
| explicitly shows how it is different from the previous "food
| pyramid" guidelines.
| great_wubwub wrote:
| No, what I meant was "haven't we been basically ignoring
| science on nutrition since the 80s?" I think we have.
|
| For those who don't believe me - go find some old family
| photos of your parents or grandparents, whichever
| generation would have been young adults in the 1960s or
| 1970s. Compare them to people of the same age born any time
| after, say, 1990. Nothing come of one sample, but people
| from the previous generation just weren't fat in their 20s
| like we are.
|
| Yes, there's more to it than that. But food is a big part
| of it.
| xp84 wrote:
| How dare you insult my diet of 7 Sausage McGriddles per day!
| ASinclair wrote:
| The problem is the massive emphasis on eating as a part of
| health. As if eating right is the only thing you need to do to
| avoid all disease. That putting other substances (e.g.
| vaccines) in your body will make you unhealthy.
| BanAntiVaxxers wrote:
| I do not think there is room for anti-vaxxers on this site.
| csoups14 wrote:
| Evidence please.
| ASinclair wrote:
| Evidence of what exactly? That RFK Jr. focuses on healthy
| eating while vilifying vaccines and other established
| health practices?
| csoups14 wrote:
| "That putting other substances (e.g. vaccines) in your
| body will make you unhealthy."
|
| This, obviously.
| ASinclair wrote:
| Maybe there's a miscommunication. I don't believe that
| statement. It's something that RFK Jr believes.
| csoups14 wrote:
| My mistake, apologies
| NelsonMinar wrote:
| A stopped clock is right twice a day. These recommendations
| come from a corrupted source and therefore have no value.
| brianf0 wrote:
| This... is so silly.
| buellerbueller wrote:
| ...but you just made the argument that corrupted sources can
| be, on occasion, correct.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| There's no contradiction there. A stopped clock is
| sometimes right _and_ has no information value.
|
| If a particular clock was _never_ right, that would
| actually give it _positive_ information value, because it
| would at least tell you one time it _isn 't_.
|
| One of the big design flaws of the engima machine was that
| no plaintext letter ever encrypted to the same letter.
| Aurornis wrote:
| This has been the running theme so far: Big talk to energize
| the base and make a splash, followed by actual policy
| implementations that are much more down to earth.
|
| Remember all the talk about banning COVID vaccines? In the end
| they just changed the wording of the federal recommendations
| and included things like "having a sedentary lifestyle" as one
| of the vague reasons to get a COVID vaccine. In some states you
| had to get a doctor to write a prescription, annoyingly, but
| the overall picture is that it's still much easier to get a
| COVID vaccine in the US than under something like the NHS.
| Aurornis wrote:
| Too late to edit, but I see I'm getting downvoted.
|
| To clarify, _I 'm not in support of the actions or the
| administration_. I'm just pointing out that this is becoming
| a trend where they say one thing but do something milder.
|
| Regarding the NHS: Here's a link showing NHS COVID-19 vaccine
| eligibility, which is highly restricted relative to the
| access we enjoy in the United States:
| https://staustellhealthcare.nhs.uk/surgery-
| information/news/...
|
| Again, I'm not saying the current system is good or that the
| NHS has it right, but trying to put it in perspective.
| diegocg wrote:
| I'm surprised that governments didn't take this problem more
| seriously. Obesity is a huge problem, people have been ignoring
| it only because improvements in medicine have been offsetting
| the general health decline. Without the medical improvements
| that save the life of obese people, life expectancy would have
| decreased. I don't expect the Trump administration to make the
| best decisions but at least they are taking it somewhat more
| seriosly.
| subpixel wrote:
| I don't believe the creators of this propaganda take this
| problem seriously at all. Their actions speak far louder than
| their words, even words on a page that scrolls weird like
| it's 2015.
| tootie wrote:
| Republicans were actively angry at past attempts to fight
| obesity or limit sugar.
|
| There is another side to the nutrition recommendations beyond
| pure nutrition and that's economics. Pro business Republicans
| were loathe to anger big food producers.
|
| On the flip side, this new food guide is now advocating a
| diet that is far more expensive for average consumers at a
| time when food inflation is already hurting so many
| households.
| notatoad wrote:
| from what i can tell, most of this is existing stuff that
| advocates have been trying to push for a while now.
|
| i think it's a perfect example of why advocates for _any_
| policy should have specific, achievable, and well-documented
| goals - you never know who might be an ally. politicians don 't
| want to do this sort of detailed work, they're looking for
| preexisting policy they can champion, and if you're standing
| there ready to hand it to them when they're looking for it you
| get get good stuff done.
| tombert wrote:
| Yeah, I was about to say this.
|
| Even before RFK Jr rubbed his metaphorical nutsack all over
| our healthcare system, doctors pretty much always told me to
| eat better. They told me to avoid processed foods, avoid
| sugar, and focus on fiber and protein.
|
| I don't know why RFK Jr. is getting credit for telling people
| to eat healthy, especially since some of his recommendations
| (e.g. telling people to eat french fries if they're fried in
| beef tallow) are _actively bad_ and will likely lead to
| people becoming more overweight and less healthy.
| kulahan wrote:
| Because nobody else changed the food pyramid to be somewhat
| not-garbage until him. Who else would you congratulate for
| this specific action? Your own personal doctor??
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > Because nobody else changed the food pyramid to be
| somewhat not-garbage until him.
|
| The food pyramid hasn't been a thing for more than a
| decade. He did bring it back.
|
| > Who else would you congratulate for this specific
| action?
|
| The people who pushed for stuff like this more than a
| decade ago, but conservatives opposed it because it was
| done by a black lady.
| kulahan wrote:
| It's a pretty straight-forward question - you can just
| say "Michelle Obama" or whoever you're referring to
| instead. I never understand the desire to actively
| present yourself as someone throwing a tantrum.
|
| If that's _not_ who you 're referring to, please correct
| me.
| tombert wrote:
| You made a claim about how RFK Jr. was the only person to
| fix the food pyramid.
|
| It is unlikely that if you are old enough to vote that
| you do not remember that Michelle Obama tried to make a
| more healthy food criteria, and as such it's very easy to
| assume that you are acting in bad faith when you say
| something about RFK Jr that is objectively not true.
| kulahan wrote:
| It's a pretty bad assumption. You should pay a lot more
| attention to Hanlon's Razor.
|
| I don't know much at all about Michelle's actions.
| Similarly, I don't know much about Melania's actions. You
| say she tried to - so... she didn't do it? If not, I
| don't see how this makes my comment "objectively untrue"?
| tombert wrote:
| Michelle Obama provided very similar guidance in around
| 2011 and every conservatively collectively lost their
| shit over it.
|
| The food pyramid wasn't really used in recent years by
| the US government, and changed to "MyPlate" in 2011, and
| if you actually read its guidelines nothing on there is
| terribly offensive.
| UncleMeat wrote:
| We haven't had a food pyramid for like _twenty years_.
| Yes, other people have "changed the food pyramid to be
| somewhat not-garbage" before RFK.
| davorak wrote:
| I post this elsewhere but:
|
| I have not seen the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice and
| pasta at the base pushed for at least ~20 years. Maybe it
| was 25-30 years ago when I saw it pushed seriously in
| school and even then I did not see people taking it
| seriously outside of those lessons, as in people actively
| calling it questionable.
|
| Where in the world was this old pyramid still being
| pushed?
| hnewsenjoyer wrote:
| Reminds me of something said about Pete Hegseth:
|
| Sure he may be a meathead moron who can only advocate that
| the military should get jacked, but if the military really
| DOES need to get in better shape and his brainiac
| predecessors weren't actually doing anything about that,
| he's actually _functionally_ smarter than them.
|
| So to answer your question, if RFK is doing the thing that
| needs to be done, he should get the credit.
| tombert wrote:
| I don't know enough about the military to say for sure if
| Pete Hegseth's stuff is stupid or reductive. I suspect it
| is, I am pretty sure that the military has had pretty
| aggressive physical training for decades and he
| contributed literally nothing to this conversation (like
| basically everything the Trump admin does that isn't
| actively destructive), but maybe I am wrong.
|
| The food pyramid was removed in 2011 and replaced with
| MyPlate, which was much more reasonable than the food
| pyramid. Of course, it was heavily criticized by
| conservatives because they claimed it was a "nanny
| state".
|
| But of course, like everyone in Trump's circle, RFK Jr.
| rebrands someone else's work, pretends he is the first
| person to ever suggest eating healthy, and then every
| stupid Trump voter with the apparent memory retention of
| a goldfish acts like he was the first person to ever
| suggest eating healthy.
| hairofadog wrote:
| The problem in my eyes is that it's performative. They're
| making this announcement as if they're doing something
| revolutionary (they're switching the food pyramid diagram
| around) while at the same time doing so much to damage the
| health of Americans: dramatically cutting healthcare access,
| bringing vaccine denialism to the mainstream, holding press
| conferences in which they wildly assert that nobody should ever
| take Tylenol, elevating discourse around quackerism like
| Methylene blue. The list goes on. And they're making this
| announcement after spending the entirity of the Obama
| administration vilifying Flotus for trying to raise awareness
| of healthy eating.
| cons0le wrote:
| Its the same thing with eliminating red40 dye. its a crumb.
| At the very least they should end corn syrup subsidies. Its
| telling how people often bring up people buying candy with
| food stamps, but never trace the source of the problem back
| to how we subsidize bad food. America has a huge blindspot
| for corporate welfare
| pstuart wrote:
| There remains concerns about saturated fat, especially for
| those with high cholesterol levels. I recognize that mistakes
| have been made in the past (low fat diets, fear of salt, etc),
| but it seems like RFK et al are driven by ideology rather than
| science.
| Flere-Imsaho wrote:
| RFK is a pretty fit, healthy guy. Whatever he believes is
| certainly working.
| uoaei wrote:
| Poe's law in action.
|
| This is the guy famous for having and being proud of his
| brain worm.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| Yeah but I've seen a documentary, Futurama I think it was
| called, that showed the cognitive benefits of having
| worms.
| shwaj wrote:
| That's what he's famous for, huh? Nobody knew who he was
| until he burst onto the national stage because of his
| brain worm. And please show a source that he was "proud"
| of the affliction.
| andrewmutz wrote:
| A friend of mine is in great shape and smokes cigarettes
| stickfigure wrote:
| He spent 15 years as a heroin junkie. I sure hope that
| doesn't show up in the US RDA.
| trashface wrote:
| He has bad skin, which is surely a sign something about his
| lifestyle is not so healthy.
| 303uru wrote:
| He's injecting testosterone. End of discussion.
| bamboozled wrote:
| and drinking methyl blue...
| Flere-Imsaho wrote:
| Isn't TRT standard treatment for older men? It certainly
| is in the uk.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I'm pinning the blame for the frustrating animate-while-you-
| scroll design squarely on RFK.
| stainablesteel wrote:
| it's a terrible design and i can't believe they've done this
| to the american people
| xp84 wrote:
| It actually behaves surprisingly well when you just scroll
| with the spacebar, as I always do[1].
|
| [1] note: using this method (spacebar to jump one screenful,
| and shift-spacebar to go back up) on sites that insist on
| doing the "sTiCkY hEaDeR" idiocy results in losing a line or
| two on every page, so, I guess, don't get too used to it as
| it's hard to use today.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I can't find the space bar on my iPhone and I'm afraid to
| ask now.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| It's next to the period.
| andreygrehov wrote:
| Apple has been using this UX for years. Blaming it on RFK is
| ridiculous.
| 303uru wrote:
| There's absolutely no need for the average American to eat more
| protein, we are eating more protein than ever and health
| outcomes are not improving. Likewise, the dairy intake
| recommendation is not backed by any science whatsoever.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| When I went as a kid with my parents to the US, there was
| this 'milk, it does a body good' commercial playing all the
| time. While in my country there was already talk that it
| really doesn't do a body good. Not sure what it ended up
| with, but we definitely never had the kind of gallons of milk
| in the fridge and grabbing cartons when you want something to
| drink.
| rainsford wrote:
| I had a similar reaction. Although I can't help but notice that
| even in something like this it included the now obligatory
| combative culture war framing with "we are ending the war on
| protein".
| ehnto wrote:
| It must be such a tiring way to live, constantly enflamed in
| imaginary thought wars.
| sejje wrote:
| That's not how it works, they're just inflating the
| importance of their work by elevating it to a battlefield,
| and they're the heroes.
|
| You see it across all kinds of industries. Presumably each
| individual is just engaged in the solitary imaginary
| thought war. Surely they're not soldiers on multiple
| fronts. Superheroes?
| ruszki wrote:
| There is a difference between inflating your work, and
| flat out lie. The previous guidelines weren't against
| protein at all. The mentioned war didn't exist at all in
| these. The protein target is about the same as 10 years
| ago. Back then the only recommendation regarding this
| was, that more seafood and nuts would be better for
| almost everybody, and for some people less meat. So
| generally, that we should consume more protein. So the
| "war" wasn't there.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Au contrair, wars invigorate reactionaries, they don't know
| any other way to live.
| blitzar wrote:
| wars invigorate donations, they don't know any other way
| to make money
| beeflet wrote:
| Those DEMOCRAT SOYBOYS are gonna hate this, but I'm gonna say
| it anyways. Today we're joining the WAR on protein- ON THE
| SIDE OF THE PROTEIN.
|
| It's an idiocracy bit, the continual flanderization of the
| USA. It reminds me of carlin's act about how everything we do
| has to be contextualized into war: we can't just solve
| homelessness, we have to declare WAR on homelessness
| (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lncLOEqc9Rw).
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| Going to be pretty crazy when they find out soy is actually
| a good source of protein.
| mock-possum wrote:
| Also you can make all kinds of delicious food with
| soybeans
| yoyohello13 wrote:
| It's even more ridiculous because Protien has been like the
| no 1 promoted macronutrient for the last decade of nutrition
| advice.
|
| Pretty sure nobody reputable has ever said "eat less protein"
| geraneum wrote:
| I wonder how affordable or accessible is it in US to follow
| this effectively.
|
| I know it's important to have an informative guideline, but
| isn't it strangely reminiscent of "just say no"?
| analog31 wrote:
| Sure. Give him a participation trophy. Assuming the guidelines
| aren't just to promote favored industries like meat production.
| tylervigen wrote:
| Better than which one? I don't think it's really an improvement
| over either the exercise slice pyramid nor the "choose my
| plate" recommendation. It is better than the popular one from
| the 90s though, sure.
|
| https://www.familyconsumersciences.com/2011/06/usda-food-pyr...
| staticassertion wrote:
| The problem is framing this as "most americans are sick" and
| blaming it on diet.
| zarzavat wrote:
| 40% of the population is obese. The framing seems on point to
| me. The actual advice is less so. Even more red meat is not
| the solution.
| staticassertion wrote:
| You don't think that's in part because of economics,
| education, healthcare, or other factors? The framing of
| this site is that it is purely a "you're eating wrong"
| problem.
| rnd33 wrote:
| A large part of the world population is poor, and they do
| not have the same level of health problems, nor are they
| similarly obese. Not purely diet related, but a huge part
| of it for sure.
| unsupp0rted wrote:
| Will this cause you to update your priors about RFK?
| rco8786 wrote:
| Most of it seems fine, although eating even more meat than we
| already do is a bit perplexing.
|
| The new "guidelines" for alcohol are pretty laughable though. I
| say that as someone who enjoys his fair share of beers. "The
| implication is don't have it for breakfast," <- direct quote
| from celebrity Dr Oz during the press conference.
| roland35 wrote:
| There is some good health advice mixed in with the rest of the
| MAHA lunacy, particularly around diet and exercise.
|
| Unfortunately their stances on vaccines, supplements, and
| mental health make are still awful
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Yeah I'm failing to see the problem here. They are very common
| sense guidelines for a population that is missing the mark big
| time.
| 827a wrote:
| I am positively blown away by the work National Design Studio is
| doing for the Federal Government.
| zachthewf wrote:
| I like the look and brand, but the animations/clickjacking are
| really jerky for me. Are you not having any issues with that?
| encomiast wrote:
| Agreed. This is one of the worst mobile sites I've used in a
| while. Blown away (in the sense I'm never coming back).
| 827a wrote:
| HN will find anything to complain about. Very on brand of
| you.
| bookman10 wrote:
| This is so much better. I wish this had been the advice when I
| was young.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| Not bad.
|
| I mean, the site runs like ass on my machine and gets the
| scrolling wrong a lot
|
| But the recommendations are actually pretty good, and I even
| think the wording and tone is right, and I think it could stick
| in the minds of modern generations.
|
| It does a good job of not pushing or engaging in any sort of BS
| conspiracy against seed oil or telling you to eat raw bull
| testicles or any bullshit.
|
| Though, to be frank, this is what the entire medical
| establishment has been saying without fail for over 30 years.
| This was known when we built the original Food Pyramid. We
| expanded the grains category in it because of grain grower
| lobbying, and it was known to be not that important, though a
| grain heavy diet would have been a beneficial recommendation a
| hundred years ago when America was less wealthy.
|
| The food pyramid shown here was replaced by the Bush Jr admin 20
| years ago. Then we had a short lived pyramid that made no
| suggestions on amounts, and encouraged physical activity, and
| that was replaced by MyPlate which hilariously puts "dairy" in a
| glass as if you should regularly drink milk and not otherwise
| consume dairy.
|
| My one qualm is that 100g per normal sized person of protein per
| day I think is a bit much, but Americans already do that for diet
| choice reasons. It really should be more plant food than meat.
|
| But the official medical guidance has been identical for my
| entire life at least: "Eat a varied and balanced diet, don't over
| snack, don't drink calories, eat lots of plant fiber, eat
| basically anything in light moderation, exercise"
|
| Oh sure, the tabloids at the checkout always have some diet fad.
| It was never supported by science or recommended by the actual
| field of medical science. Even during the 90s when we supposedly
| demonized fat, that was primarily diet culture.
|
| The reality is knowing "what is a healthy diet" hasn't been the
| limiting factor in several generations. People aren't fat because
| they think chips, soda, and chicken nuggets are healthy for
| heavens sake.
| ekjhgkejhgk wrote:
| Good message, shitty website.
| rdiddly wrote:
| Past experience has me asking whether this was drafted with the
| help of the Real Food Lobby. (I jest, but not all the way.)
| AuthAuth wrote:
| Terrible website in both usability and conveying information but
| it looks nice. Info is good, Americans do need to eat healthier
| and these are good guidelines.
|
| Also was this AI generated because Americans dont know what a
| Kilogram is and wouldnt use it to measure bodyweight.
| cr125rider wrote:
| The war on protein feels as made up as the war on Christmas...
| rayiner wrote:
| The old food pyramid has been taught to school kids for decades--
| it was entrenched when I was a kid in the 1990s--and that has
| coincided with a huge increase in obesity in the country over the
| same period. Dispensing with it is a great step forward.
| IncreasePosts wrote:
| Did anyone buy that food pyramid? I assume people laid
| attention to it as much as they paid attention to "just say no"
| jerlam wrote:
| I don't think the old pyramid was around for decades. According
| to wikipedia, the "carbs on the bottom" food pyramid was only
| recommended from 1992 - 2005, or 13 years. Those dates just
| happen to coincide with the age group of 30-50 year old adults
| that are over-represented here.
|
| It was replaced with a rainbow-like pyramid in 2005 which
| completely negated the concept of a pyramid, and then a circle
| (plate) in 2011.
|
| We need to stop bringing up the food pyramid that everyone
| already agreed was bad and replaced 20 years ago.
| j_w wrote:
| This understates the vegetable and fruit intake you should have.
| 3 servings vegetables and 2 fruit is under what you should aim
| for. 2-4 servings of grains is a lot of grain.
|
| Ideally the bulk of the volume that you eat should be vegetables
| and fruits. Meat as nutritionally required/when you like it. Meat
| at every meal/every day is not needed. Grains are a good filler,
| but vegetables and fruits are king.
| kaonwarb wrote:
| I appreciate the nod to whole milk, which has been repeatedly
| shown to be associated with _lower_ obesity in children. E.g.
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31851302/, many other studies.
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| I appreciate the nod to whole milk because 'lite' milk is,
| well, Nick Offerman said it best as Ron from Parks and
| Recreation:
|
| "There's only one thing I hate more than lying: Skim milk.
| Which is water that's lying about being milk"
| NewJazz wrote:
| You know that character is a joke, right?
| BLKNSLVR wrote:
| Yeah, but that particular line rings true for me because
| I've used similar hyperbole when describing lite milk in
| comparison to real / whole milk.
|
| If you can't tell the difference, then it's been a long
| time since you've had whole milk.
| NewJazz wrote:
| What other sources do you have besides that one observational
| study?
| kaonwarb wrote:
| This is a meta-analysis of 28 studies. "Of 5862 reports
| identified by the search, 28 met the inclusion criteria: 20
| were cross-sectional and 8 were prospective cohort."
| NewJazz wrote:
| No RCTs and it isn't clear that the studies were even
| focused on milk as a contributor to obesity, so they could
| be highly susceptible to confounders.
| NPC82 wrote:
| This is for children and adolescents, which have different
| needs than the average adult. It's also just a meta analysis of
| literature with zero RCTs and a suggestive correlation.
| Unfortunately, these new guidelines don't seem even nearly
| detailed enough to cover these kinds of differences. The usual
| guidelines are well over 150 pages.
| KaiserPro wrote:
| Sounds like big government getting into people's lives to me.
|
| Snark aside, american food culture is geared towards people
| working hard manual jobs, rather than desk work. It was fine in
| the 70/80/90s when people were still doing that kind of job, but
| times have changed. If you're burning 2k calories at work, you
| need a high calorie, high salt meal to replenish what you
| burnt/sweat out.
|
| I would also gently point out that a "balanced" meal is generally
| better than a protein heavy meal. It also is highly dependent on
| your genetic makeup. I am much less sensitive to carbs compared
| to my Indian friend, My family also doesn't have a history of
| type 2/1 diabetes.
|
| I'm also not sure how this is going to be balanced with farm
| subsidies.
| kasane_teto wrote:
| I hate websites that scroll like this. It's so... clunky.
| woodruffw wrote:
| Of note: the US's per capita consumption of meat has increased by
| more than 100 pounds over the last century[1]. We now consume an
| immense amount of meat per person in this country. That increase
| is disproportionately in poultry, but we also consume more
| beef[2].
|
| A demand for the average American to eat _more_ meat would have
| to explain, as a baseline, why our _already_ positive trend in
| meat consumption isn 't yielding positive outcomes. There are
| potential explanations (you could argue increased processing
| offsets the purported benefits, for example), but those are left
| unstated by the website.
|
| [1]: https://www.agweb.com/opinion/drivers-u-s-capita-meat-
| consum...
|
| [2]: https://ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/chart-
| detai...
| jdlshore wrote:
| It says 1.2-1.6 grams of protein and healthy fats per kilogram
| of body weight, from animal and plant sources (including milk).
| Is that really advocating for more meat?
| omgJustTest wrote:
| 90g of protein, what is recommended for me, is like 4
| hamburgers or a 16oz steak per day ...
| tejohnso wrote:
| Doesn't make sense to me that a 400lb obese person would
| need to consume the same amount of protein as a 400lb lean
| muscle bodybuilder.
|
| All of the protein recommendations I've seen were for _lean
| mass_. You don 't feed fat.
| deinonychus wrote:
| > Doesn't make sense to me that a 400lb obese person
| would need to consume the same amount of protein as a
| 400lb lean muscle bodybuilder.
|
| yeah both of those people are extreme cases that would
| break this very crude formula
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Correct, and the guideline on the "realfood.gov" site
| doesn't say it but all the protein g/kg body weight I've
| seen (mostly relative to weight training or building
| muscle) are in terms of kg of lean body mass, not total
| body weight.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| I am not 400lbs... I don't know if you are implying
| that... if so check your math:
|
| 1.2g/kg * 90kg (~200lbs-lean) = 108g of protein.
|
| each person, on average, in the US would be eating one
| 16oz steak or 3-5 hamburgers every day.
| stubish wrote:
| A 16oz steak is over 50% protein, or over double your
| entire daily target. Hamburger count could be right, if
| you are eating McDonald's burgers or similar. But then
| you are not following the guidelines, with far too much
| processed grains and added sugars.
| omgJustTest wrote:
| Your beef is with wiki or facts :
|
| "high scores: braised eye-of-round steak 40.62; broiled
| t-bone steak (porterhouse) 32.11; grilled lean steak 31.0
| " numbers are grams per hundred grams or wiki also
| reports 25% as the average, thus your factor of 2 error
| in weight (400 instead of 200).
|
| Sincerely,
|
| You-cannot-read-or-convert-units-or-gather-info-correctly
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_foods_by_protein_co
| nte...
| omgJustTest wrote:
| For some more perspective:
|
| Cranberry's & nut mix - 34g (total) have 8g of protein
|
| 1 cup of milk - roughly 8g of protein
|
| This is a pretty light breakfast of 16g of protein. How
| about a 'big, bold breakfast':
|
| 2 eggs - 12 g of protein
|
| 4 bacon strips - 12 g of protein
|
| 1 cup of hash browns - 3 g of protein
|
| (other carbs pancakes etc going to have < 1g of protein)
|
| So in the 'big, bold breakfast' => 27 g of proteins, I
| would be 3g behind my daily, average protein intake for
| the morning.
|
| 2 hamburgers for lunch, that's 30g of protein, keeping me
| close to my daily, average protein intake for lunch.
|
| 8 oz steak for dinner, thats 56g of protein.
|
| In total: 27+30+56 = 112g of protein, just 4 g over
| needed daily, average intake of protein.
|
| Resisting the sarcasm, this is not reasonable.
|
| [1] Perkins https://perkinsmenus.com/hearty-mans-
| combo/#:~:text=Two%20eg...
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| All these things are actually rules of thumb that aim to
| be easy, and less focused on accurate.
|
| A reasonably close rule of thumb can actually be 1g of
| protein per cm of height.
|
| Also not accurately represented is that your body absorbs
| less protein per gram consumed the older you get. (I
| couldnt find a source with an actual ratio, just
| recommendations for _more_ as you get older).
|
| When listening to folks like Layne Norton, they have said
| that surprisingly many people who simply increase their
| protein inadvertently begin to lose weight due to greater
| satiety per net calorie. (remember, roughly 20% of
| protein calories are lost in
| digesting/absorbing/converting the protein)
| deinonychus wrote:
| do you think that's a lot or a little? does that sound
| realistic or unrealistic?
| Aurornis wrote:
| Nobody should be getting all of their protein from meat,
| though.
|
| Even a cup of cooked rice or a slice of bread has several
| grams of protein.
| brainwad wrote:
| That's not really a lot of protein on a low carb diet like
| they are suggesting.
| blks wrote:
| If you don't forget to count proteins from all the grains
| and other products, then you may realise you don't need
| that much meat (or any meat at all).
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| People, even meat-eaters, tend to get much of their protein
| intake from the long tail of non-meat foods they consume.
| Lots of foods (especially grains and legumes) have a little
| bit of protein, and that adds up.
| avazhi wrote:
| Nobody said you have to get all your protein from meat...
| woodruffw wrote:
| The implication is that the current food pyramid
| disproportionately weights against proteins and fats.
| Assuming that Americans follow the current pyramid (this is a
| hell of an assumption), then any change to the pyramid that
| asks them to change their diets in favor of _more_ protein
| and fat is likely to result in them eating more meat.
|
| In reality, I don't think anybody in the US follows the food
| pyramid religiously. But I _do_ think people (try to) follow
| the main strokes of what the government tells them is a
| healthy dietary balance, and so any recommendation to
| increase their fat /protein intake _will_ result in more meat
| consumption even if the guidelines doesn 't itself proscribe
| that as the only source.
| jaredwiener wrote:
| The food pyramid was phased out in 2011:
| https://www.politifact.com/article/2025/nov/07/food-
| pyramid-...
| Y_Y wrote:
| You can't phase out common "knowledge"!
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| True. But you can stop recommending bad science. The
| original food pyramid was an industry wish list.
| ericd wrote:
| As I see it, the point of this new pyramid is not to add
| more emphasis to meat specifically, but to undo some of the
| past vilification of fat (note the emphasis on whole milk
| and full fat dairy), and to move emphasis away from carbs
| as the basis of the diet. And honestly, I think that's
| pretty much correct - the low fat movement was a disaster
| for our collective health, because food manufacturers added
| more sugar to compensate for the bad effects on taste that
| that has, and because if you eat a good amount of full fat
| stuff, there's not nearly as much need to snack between
| meals.
|
| If you go to Western Europe, they're not drinking lots of
| skim milk, and if you eat things from the bakeries, there's
| more butter and not as much low quality vegetable oil or
| sugar. When my French cousins come here, they find lots of
| the stuff sold here revoltingly sweet.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| What is "low quality vegetable oil"? I never heard that
| term before. Are some types considered high quality?
| ericd wrote:
| First, a grain of salt, I'm certainly not an expert, I've
| just read a bit about the subject.
|
| You know how people like cold pressed extra virgin olive
| oil? Or avocado oil? Those are "high quality".
| Industrially refined/deodorized/hexane-extracted soybean,
| corn, non-high-oleic sunflower/safflower oil, canola tend
| to be considered to be on the opposite end of the
| spectrum.
|
| Deodorizing causes the oil to oxidize, as does deep
| frying, and that makes a variety of nasty byproducts that
| seem likely to cause systemic inflammation. And from here
| on HN the other day, "Inflammation now predicts heart
| disease better than cholesterol"
| https://www.empirical.health/blog/inflammation-and-heart-
| hea...
|
| People in this thread are scoffing at RFK saying that
| beef tallow fries are "healthy", and while I wouldn't go
| that far, there seems to be good evidence that it's much
| healthier to deep fry in beef tallow than the soybean oil
| most switched to in the 90s. Beef tallow is high in
| saturated fat, which tends to be relatively stable under
| heat, and very low in polyunsaturated fats, which tend to
| be the fats that oxidize the worst. Soybean oil, on the
| other hand, is extremely high in polyunsaturated fat (60%
| vs 2-4% for beef tallow). And the big problem with
| commercial deep frying is that the oil is frequently just
| topped off rather than replaced, so those oxidization
| byproducts build up over time. More stable fat is really
| important there.
|
| I also don't know how relevant this is, but soybean
| frying oil tends to have silicone-based anti-foaming
| agents mixed in (polydimethylsiloxane is the one I've
| seen most commonly) - you can find this in the big jugs
| at Costco if you want to check it out. Silicone generally
| doesn't seem great to be swallowing - I think it's pretty
| inert, but it seems likely to me to have mechanical
| properties that your body's not quite used to dealing
| with effectively. This is just me being biased about
| eating something that's pretty obviously not food,
| though, I haven't seen much on the subject.
|
| Hydrogenated oils are now well known to be bad (trans
| fats). So Crisco/creamed vegetable shortening, very low
| quality.
|
| So yeah, there are higher and lower quality oils,
| especially once they've been degraded via high heat over
| a long period and oxygen exposure in commercial or
| industrial frying processes.
| pconner wrote:
| Actual human RCTs do not show any increased systemic
| inflammation when consuming seed oils like canola vs.
| animal fats, and saturated fat consumption from animal
| cooking fats can still drive cardiovascular risk, even if
| it is not the singular cause.
|
| Fried foods are bad for you regardless. The idea that one
| could swap out a seed oil for some other fat and keep all
| of their bad habits otherwise in place and magically
| become healthy is a fantasy.
| ericd wrote:
| Interesting, thanks. Know of where to read the random
| trial results? Did they clear the chemically
| separated/deodorized oils from suspicion? While I err on
| the side of avoiding them, I don't have too strong an
| opinion on this, because like I said, not an expert.
|
| Why are fried foods bad for you? It's commonly held
| wisdom, but I'm curious what the mechanics are, to see if
| there's a way to mitigate it. Is it something other than
| the oxidation products that I mentioned? And if it is
| those, would a more stable fat not fare better? I guess
| there's the changes to the food from the high temps in
| both cases.
| pconner wrote:
| There are a handful of studies referenced by this review
| that look at health impacts of vegetable oils:
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11600290/
|
| For fried food, I'd worry way more about the raw caloric
| density and the overeating that can be induced by
| hyperpalatable foods[1] than oxidation.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperpalatable_food
| ericd wrote:
| Thanks, I'll take a look.
|
| Something to note is the acknowledgements, though: "This
| work was supported by the Soy Nutrition Institute Global,
| United Soybean Board, Corn Refiners of America, National
| Corn Growers Association, Canola Council of Canada and
| USA Canola Association. These funders had no role in the
| design, analysis or writing of this article."
|
| Doesn't mean it's junk, but also probably not totally
| disinterested science, since continued funding is
| probably contingent on them being happy with the results.
|
| EDIT: from what I read, it was mostly a high level
| summary of literature wihh th some conclusions like high
| polyunsaturated fat is good for reducing ldl levels, it
| mentioned at the end that you shouldn't reuse deep frying
| oil, try to keep oil under smoke point, some other things
| like that. Didn't see much about inflammation, but I
| didn't read too carefully, just skimmed.
| AstroBen wrote:
| Americans do not follow the food guidelines. It's an
| absurdly low percentage who do
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| > But I do think people (try to) follow the main strokes of
| what the government tells them is a healthy dietary
| balance...
|
| Do you really observe that in your circles? I've lived in 6
| different states, from Maryland to Idaho, and I've never
| got an impression that many people take any real though or
| consideration for their health at all. If anything, I'd
| armchair guestimate something like 10% of adults seem to
| put any real attention of effort into their health. I feel
| like late teens to late college year people put more effort
| in general, but only because they themselves are on the
| meat market and don't usually have complex lives (kids,
| careers)
| DangitBobby wrote:
| I agree, and think particularly where there children are
| concerned at least some parents will try to follow official
| dietary guidelines to make sure their kids grow up healthy
| and with healthy habits.
| weslleyskah wrote:
| This can be an outrageous amount for a normal individual.
| These proportions are used for bodybuilders and powerlifters.
|
| And even then this rule is not perfect because of individual
| genetics, metabolism rates, activity level, percentage of
| lean mass, etc.
|
| Americans (US citizens) really do eat a lot. What the hell
| HoJojoMojo wrote:
| These numbers are actually "disappearance" they include an
| immense amount of food waste as well so the average
| American is probably almost half a body builder and leaving
| food on their plate at a restaurant while more of it is
| going bad at home and in their grocery.
| MattRix wrote:
| yeah, and it's also worth noting that the usual guidelines
| you hear like "eat 1g of protein for each pound you weigh"
| are actually meant to be 1g of protein per pound of _lean
| mass_ , which for many people is significantly smaller
| amount.
| giantg2 wrote:
| 1.5g/kg for a 90kg person is 135g. You can get almost half
| that daily need from a chicken breast or a few ounces of
| fish. Two meals of that and a few non-meat things like rice
| and beans, lentils, peanut butter, etc and you're set, even
| towards the higher end of the recommended range. That's
| doesn't seem outrageous at all.
| jdlshore wrote:
| I think most commenters are missing two things:
|
| 1. It's proteins _and fats,_ not just protein. The site
| specifically calls out avocado as an example.
|
| 2. It's from meat _and vegetable_ sources. Other commenters
| have mentioned that you get more protein from non-meat
| sources than you expect.
| weslleyskah wrote:
| People are also forgetting the importance of fiber for
| satiety and gut health.
| stubish wrote:
| And here I am thinking that 50-100g of protein per day for
| an elderly person was way too low.
|
| But here we have the problems with the numbers and why they
| should only be guidelines. Consumption of protein needs to
| increase as you get old (into the range we consider for
| athletes). And basing consumption on body weight is stupid,
| because telling an obese person they need to eat twice as
| much protein as a non-obese person is probably wrong.
| dkarl wrote:
| The public health discourse about protein is in a weird place
| right now. The recommendations are higher than ever, yet
| people are constantly told not to think about protein, or to
| worry about excess protein intake instead.
|
| Case in point: the Mayo Clinic article titled "Are you
| getting enough protein?"[0]
|
| It claims that protein is only a concern for people who are
| undereating or on weight loss drugs, yet it cites protein
| recommendations that many people find challenging to meet
| (1.1g/kg for active people, more if you're over 40 or doing
| strength or endurance workouts.) To top it off, it's
| illustrated with a handful of nuts, which are pretty marginal
| sources of protein. It's bizarrely mixed messaging.
|
| [0] https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-
| health/speak...
| ctoa wrote:
| When I did strength sports and would eat ~180g protein a day
| (which for me was 1.8g/100kg), I ate a lot less meat than you
| would think, I was carefully tracking all my food for a while
| and you have to count the whole diet.
|
| I really like this study of a population of highly trained
| athletes and their diets/protein intake:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27710150/
|
| In that study they eat > 1.2g protein/kg body weight, but 43%
| of that is "plant sources", meaning grains, legumes, fruits
| and vegetables. Like one serving of oatmeal is 6g, things you
| don't think of as "protein" add up and you have to count
| them. The athletes in that study are Dutch and 19% of their
| protein intake came from bread.
|
| But what always happens with protein recommendations is that
| they say "x grams protein/kg bodyweight" but people hear
| "protein is meat, you are telling me to eat x grams/kg
| bodyweight of meat." Very few people ever look closely enough
| at their diet to develop an intuitive sense for counting
| macros.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| Protein from grain food isn't as well absorbed as protein
| from meat, milk, fish. Roughly, 2g of protein from bean
| equal 1g meat protein.
| ctoa wrote:
| Yes, but the standards aren't based on "the best protein
| to absorb", they are based on whole diet consumption.
| Studies like the one I linked to are where the
| recommendations come from. It is a misunderstanding to
| read a recommendation for 1.2g/kg (or whatever) as saying
| that the 1.2g is supposed to all be meat quality protein.
| It's supposed to be the protein in your total mixed diet.
|
| Your diet contains many sources of protein lower quality
| than beans (as in the linked study with high level Dutch
| athletes getting 19% of their protein from bread), you do
| need to count those. They do add up and if you don't, you
| end up assuming you need way more protein than you do.
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| but then how do you know how much protein you should eat
| ?
|
| if I'm eating bread, pasta and other cereals, I may
| exceed the 1.2g/kg recommendations but the PDCAAS
| (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score) of
| these would make it in truth closer to 0.6g/kg.
|
| Someone else eating mostly meat would get in total
| 1.2g/kg protein but also 1.2g/kg when PDCAAS is accounted
| for.
|
| Maybe it's to simplify the calculation to the average
| user but it feels misleading, you can't know for sure the
| proportion of cereals in somebody diet.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Source?
| aucisson_masque wrote:
| PDCAAS (Protein Digestibility-Corrected Amino Acid Score)
| parl_match wrote:
| I'm a weightlifter and as part of my training, I eat pretty
| close to about a pound of meat a day during bulk, usually about
| 12-14oz. This is because I need to eat about 200g of protein a
| day. I supplement it with protein shakes.
|
| I find that to be a _challenging_ amount of meat. It 's a lot!
| And to find out that's _average_???
|
| Americans eat way too much meat. Cheese, too.
| dfee wrote:
| I too try for 200g of protein/day, with meat and supplements
| by shakes. It's difficult to eat more meat than that, because
| of how it fills you up, its prep requirements and its cost.
|
| I don't believe that the average American eats nearly a pound
| of meat per day. I do believe if the average American ate
| meat before carbs, we could get there, and all be a lot
| healthier, though.
|
| For me, processed carbs make me much hungrier, but the kale
| salad I'm eating right now makes me less hungry.
| itsamario wrote:
| I cut out mammal products and replaced with plant protein
| like lentils and wild rice.
|
| I can eat 200g of lentil noodles in a sitting.
| parl_match wrote:
| lentils carb/protein ratio isn't great. you still need to
| supplement it with protein (whey or pea). i eat a fair
| amount of lentils, but mostly as a carb source (like
| white rice). even tofu's ratio isn't good enough. i do
| eat a lot of tofu though, because i like it
|
| back of the hand math suggests id have to eat a kg of dry
| lentils a day to reach my protein requirements. that's
| gotta be what, 2800 cal? _edit: 800g of lentils for 200g
| of protein, 2500 cal._
|
| im just thinking out loud here, but lentils alone
| wouldn't be adequate for me.
| teiferer wrote:
| Depends on "adequate". The average western diet over-
| consumes protein.
| parl_match wrote:
| okay? i said "adequate for me", not "adequate for the
| average western person".
| com2kid wrote:
| I started tracking everything I ate, every single bite.
|
| The average western diet may over consume meat, but I
| have to work my butt off to hit my protein goals for
| strength training.
|
| A slice of bacon has 3g of protein. 150 calories though.
| Eating enough protein through bacon isn't the best of
| ideas, even if someone is doing a ketogenic diet!
|
| 60-80g of protein is about right for a man who has a
| moderately physical job or who exercises some small
| amount. 100g is the minimum for putting on muscle and
| getting stronger.
|
| The average western diet over consumes _everything_ , it
| could do with less sugar, less processed foods (which are
| hyper palatable and don't satiate hunger), and more pure
| protein.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Why are you quoting raw protein grams instead of using a
| g/kg of body weight metric?
| com2kid wrote:
| Because American men average around five nine and given
| the average lean muscle mass needs on that frame size,
| something within 60-90g (which is a huge range!) will
| work for most American men.
|
| Like if someone is a 6 foot 10 body builder, they know
| their needs.
|
| Also the suggested range of g/kg ranges from .8g/kg to
| 1.2g/kg, which is also a huge range, but that is
| primarily for building strength, not maintaining.
|
| Given the goals here are "rough guidelines on eating
| healthy", I'm fine saying most men should aim for 60-90g
| of lean protein a day. That isn't exactly a hot take.
| zabzonk wrote:
| > strength training
|
| why do you think you need to do that? most people don't.
| com2kid wrote:
| That question is, honestly, kind of stupid. It is akin to
| asking why eat healthy or why go outside in the sun.
|
| But hey, here we go.
|
| 1. Intense physical exercise is the only known way to
| increase IQ. (Admittedly pure strength training is not
| the best for this, HIIT workouts are better)
|
| 2. Muscle mass is a huge factor in the early death in
| seniors. Basically people who lack muscle mass are more
| likely to fall over and fracture something, at which
| point they are much more likely to die.
|
| 3. Lean muscle mass, up to a certain point (e.g. extreme
| body builders have worse mortality numbers), decreases
| mortality across the board.
|
| 4. I like living w/o pain, and you can choose to either
| have your joints take the load or your muscles take the
| load.
|
| 5. I enjoy being able to move my body and be active in
| the world.
|
| 6. I'm vain and I like to look good.
|
| > most people don't.
|
| Most people in America die of a heart attack. Most people
| in America are obese and have troubles moving around.
| Most people in America don't read books. Most people in
| America don't enjoy mathematics. Most people in America
| don't go to art museums.
|
| People should have aspirations to do more than average.
| SpicyLemonZest wrote:
| Most people experience severe mobility problems in old
| age that would likely have been preventable by strength
| training.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| > 800g of lentils for 200g of protein, 2500 cal.
|
| > im just thinking out loud here, but lentils alone
| wouldn't be adequate for me.
|
| This seems in line with maintenance calories for a
| moderately active man, am I missing something?
| heavyset_go wrote:
| If the goal is both strength training, cardio, and both
| weight gain and building muscle mass to competitive
| levels, then that can be not enough.
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| You would just eat more protein dense plant foods like
| tempeh, extra firm tofu, and seitan which is the most
| protein dense food.
|
| If the only food in your pantry were seitan, you'd have
| to eat 260g (960cal) of it to hit 200g protein. It's not
| that much food.
|
| Most people haven't tried it but asian stores may sell it
| next to tofu as "vegan chicken/beef". It has a nice
| texture that you can cube and treat like chicken in a
| stir fry.
|
| I eat it weekly.
| writebetterc wrote:
| Tofu's ratio is really good, though? I can get
| 162kcal/18g of protein tofu here. Anything where P*10 >
| KCAL is a very good protein source, imo.
| shimman wrote:
| I've been cooking more with lentils as well, so many
| cheap tasty recipes. I've been following this chickpea
| hack (cooking in microwave for like 5ish) to great
| success. Microwaving the chickpeas splits them into a
| crispy texture, then after that it's very flexible to
| create all kinds of dishes:
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5EU76q3Vf3Q
|
| My favorite is pan frying them in a hot sauce + aromatics
| for a quick chickpea rice bowl, I even gotten into the
| habit of using chickpeas as a chicken replacement for
| many of my Mexican dishes.
|
| If you're use to the typical American diet, please try
| cooking more lentils! Very tasty, filling dishes, low on
| costs and high on nutrients.
|
| chicken 100g/27g of protein
|
| chickpeas 100g/19g of protein
|
| That's a good ratio for something that costs less than a
| dollar a can compared to chicken.
| parl_match wrote:
| fwiw at the level of protein i need to eat to build
| muscle mass (im weight training 3x a week), even that 27
| vs 19 difference starts to become a problem.
|
| people don't realize how challenging it is to eat 200g of
| protein a day, every day, for months, without eating like
| 3000cal lol
|
| that said, i do eat a lot of plant based protein. i love
| chickpeas and i also fuck w tofu a lot.
| blks wrote:
| There's a pretty versatile and tasty milk product called
| tvoroh in eastern/Central Europe. It has about 18g of
| protein, and 0-10% fat depending on what you're buying.
| So for low fat options it can be as low as 70-90kkal/100g
| with 18g of protein.
|
| What is the problem of consuming say 80-100% of whey
| protein? Not all of it has sweeteners.
| parl_match wrote:
| > What is the problem of consuming say 80-100% of whey
| protein?
|
| Well, for starters, that'd be completely fucking joyless.
| And on top of that, meat contains other nutrients that
| I'd have to account for (which is not hard tbh, but
| requires a little bit of studying and planning).
|
| > tasty milk product called tvoroh
|
| My gallbladder has never been at 100% and as a result, I
| have to eat a relatively low fat diet. This is not
| something a normal person faces. I eat a fair amount of
| low fat greek yogurt, though. Similar concept.
| skirmish wrote:
| (I am from Eastern Europe). "Tvorog" / "Tvorog" is almost
| identical to commonly available cottage cheese. I buy the
| latter in big tubs from Costco and eat it almost every
| day for breakfast (with whatever fruits are on hand, or
| with raisins and nuts in the worst case).
| blks wrote:
| Yeah, I actually learned how to make it myself, although
| it requires access to kefir/piima, or making it yourself
| first. Once you have it, it's very easy to make it,
| although often unnecessary when local eastern shops have
| it quite cheap.
|
| Not sure about availability in the US, in EU cottage
| cheese often is sold as much more creamy spread, like
| Philadelphia cheese.
| skirmish wrote:
| You may be calling it "quark" then? From a quick search:
|
| "The two most common translations of tvorog are cottage
| cheese (common in the US) and quark (common in Germany).
| The process of making these different cheeses is quite
| similar: you take fermented, acidized or sour milk, and
| separate the curds from the whey. For cottage cheese,
| cream is added to the curds before they're packaged, and
| for quark, the curds are not overly dried so the curds
| come out quite soft and creamy. Tvorog, on the other
| hand, is most often packaged as dry grainy pieces of
| curd."
| thesz wrote:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lzsEqV0Bjcs - that
| lecture refers a simple formulae to compute protein
| content from the amount of nitrogen. They count nitrogen
| in grams, then multiply by 6 to get amount of "available"
| protein. But, any antinutrients such as cyanides will
| count as proteins by this calculation.
|
| Lentils contain trypsin inhibitors, which contain
| inordinate amount of nitrogen that is counted as protein.
|
| While you do not eat these directly after cooking your
| lentils, you do not eat as much protein as you would
| think you do.
| loeg wrote:
| Lentils are about 9% protein by weight; that's only 18g
| of protein.
|
| (Beef is about 25-30% protein by weight. Whey protein
| isolates are about 80% protein by weight.)
| cvbnmb wrote:
| > mammal products
|
| Makes me think of the song:
|
| https://youtu.be/14jjo7MtSzE
|
| I like that term. I assume that means you cut out beef,
| pork, mutton, goat, cheese, and milk but eat seafood and
| birds/eggs.
|
| I may start that diet!
| malyk wrote:
| I think this is person dependant. A Kale salad makes almost
| no impact on my hunger, but a piece of bread makes me feel
| pretty full.
|
| Just as an example of an opposite experience.
|
| (american, vegetarian for 13 years, athletic, former meat
| eater, long carb centric diet that i'm trying to change)
| mikestorrent wrote:
| Well, if you've ever cooked down a cabbage or spinach or
| whatever, you'll see it basically takes up no space
| whatsoever... so yeah, kale on its own will take a while
| to fill you up.
| dfee wrote:
| Maybe true! I eat a bunch (like the formal term of 1
| unit) of kale in my daily salad. That seems to be enough,
| alongside some Greek yogurt and blueberries to maintain
| me for a few hours.
|
| Can't help eating junk carbs when I see them, though.
| com2kid wrote:
| This is very true, and something that people pushing keto
| (myself included) had to learn the hard way.
|
| There are satiety indexes for different foods but they
| are not universal. I can eat almost unlimited carbs and
| never feel full. I'll eat multiple plates full of bread
| or a thousand calories in french fries and then move on
| to the main course.
|
| 6oz of lean meat and some salad and I'm good with 500 or
| so calories on my plate.
|
| I honestly don't get how potatoes supposedly fill people
| up. I have made twice baked potatoes before and eaten an
| easy 2000 calories of them along side thanksgiving
| dinner.
|
| In contrast right now I'm eating clean and doing a body
| recomp. Eating clean is super satiating, for me at least!
| malyk wrote:
| Right. My wife doesn't feel full unless she has protein.
| I don't feel full unless I have a bunch of carbs. It
| makes life interesting.
| dpark wrote:
| > I have made twice baked potatoes before and eaten an
| easy 2000 calories of them along side thanksgiving
| dinner.
|
| Try plain boiled potatoes. I bet you feel like stopping
| long before 2000 Calories. Tasty things are tasty and
| often easy to eat an unhealthy amount of.
| macNchz wrote:
| This is the thing that makes any conversation about broad
| categories of food difficult--there's just a huge range
| of ways to package those carbs, and people eat a ton of
| "hyper palatable" foods. A few hundred calories of
| Smartfood popcorn with a day's worth of sodium and
| addicting flavors is quite different in my experience
| than, say, a few slices of chewy, crusty sourdough bread.
| bjoli wrote:
| 200g a day? Are you a big guy? I did an experiment in my
| 20s on building muscle on a plant based diet, and managed
| to gain 10kg in one year (muscle mass, confirmed by a DEXA
| scan). Total weight gain was about 16kg. Most of the
| surplus was water.
|
| I started at 70kg (181cm), so pretty skinny, and without
| prior resistance training. I ate between 120and 140g of
| protein per day, without any shakes.
|
| I am aware that these gains would not have continued, but
| my body obviously had more than enough with 130g to build
| muscle. I did eat a calorie surplus, but
|
| 200g seems like A LOT.
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| The latest in body building science recommends 1g of
| protein per day per 1lb of body mass (or 2.2g per 1kg for
| metric folks). > I ate between 120and
| 140g of protein per day, without any shakes.
|
| How did you do that in a plant based diet? What were your
| largest sources of protein? (To be clear: I'm doubting
| that you did it. I am genuinely curious.)
| deepvibrations wrote:
| Definitely possible - I used to get 100g easily. Simple
| example would be some granola (with lots of nuts/seeds)
| with soya milk for breakfast, big tofu scramble for
| lunch, poki bowl with lots of veg, edamame and tempeh for
| dinner. You could probably just do this with big portions
| to get to 130 tbh.
| bjoli wrote:
| > The latest in body building science recommends 1g of
| protein per day per 1lb of body mass (or 2.2g per 1kg for
| metric folks).
|
| I wasn't that serious about the whole thing, but I read
| somewhere that the benefits decline rapidly after 1.6g/kg
| bodyweight. That was the reason I didn't do any shakes.
|
| > How did you do that in a plant based diet
|
| Beans and whole grains. I realized that fat intake was
| limiting my protein access so I cut fat down do between
| 10 and 20% of energy intake. That means you have to chew
| down a whole lot of bulgur and beans. I ate about 3000
| calories (I do a lot of swimming) and then you only need
| about 18% of energy from protein to reach 140g. Easy
| peasy.
|
| I also made my own firm tofu (i was cheap). I could
| easily eat 200g of tofu a day.
| fooker wrote:
| > And to find out that's average???
|
| I think you're conflating 200g of protein with 200g of meat
| that has protein.
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| They said "I eat pretty close to about a pound of meat a
| day during bulk, usually about 12-14oz"
| loeg wrote:
| A pound of meat is 450g of beef, which has about 110-140g
| of protein in it.
| Aurornis wrote:
| The number quoted is the pre-processing weight. A lot of mass
| is lost during processing, drying, aging, in transport, to
| spoilage, and so on.
|
| The real number for meat consumption at the end consumer is
| about half that amount.
| grvdrm wrote:
| Bodybuilder? Powerlifter? Curious what specifically you mean
| that requires you to bulk vs. cut
| parl_match wrote:
| well im not bodybuilding anymore, so i guess im just in a
| constant bulk/caloric parity. i still think like that tho
| lol
| grvdrm wrote:
| Have you considered not bothering to bulk or cut and
| instead just maintain? Maybe you are saying that but I
| can't tell. I lift 5-6 days a week but neither bulk nor
| cut. Just eating/consuming whatever is necessary to
| maintain and/or hit goals when I feel like it.
| devilsdata wrote:
| Depending on the type of training you're doing, you're likely
| eating lean meat too, like chicken breasts and fish. Most
| people are much less picky about the kind of meat they eat,
| opting for fatty cuts or meat products high in salt and
| saturated fats.
| parl_match wrote:
| yes that's true
|
| im probably more conscious about what i eat than the
| average person, just on virtue of watching macros lol
| nradov wrote:
| I guess it's a matter of perspective and what you're used to.
| Some indigenous North American peoples used to subsist
| largely on bison for at least part of the year and often
| consumed 5 pounds or more of meat and other animal products
| per day. Was that too much?
| thesz wrote:
| I am not a weightlifter, I am an amateur powerlifter, and I
| do pretty intense resistance training for my age (54yo) and
| my weight (112kg) and I eat about 800g to 1kg a day of meat -
| duck, pork or beef. Even if I eat 1kg Wagyu beef, it would
| give me about 3000 calories, slightly less than 3500 calories
| I need to keep my muscle mass. I would happily eat even more
| meat but circumstances prevents me to do so.
|
| I used to drink protein shakes, but now I am actively against
| these. Artificial sweeteners provoke insulin release [1] [2]
| that leads to type-II diabetes.
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2887503/
|
| [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S10
| 568...
| locallost wrote:
| You can get protein powder without flavoring. I drink that
| either pure or with a little bit of flavored protein mixed
| in (something like 3:1) because the flavored stuff is so
| sweet I can't drink it. Some brands I could literally do 3
| parts flavorless, 1 part flavored and it would still taste
| too sweet.
| thesz wrote:
| Why you get protein powder of unknown origin instead of
| the meat?
| NewJazz wrote:
| The origin is not unknown.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Whey has the same origin as beef meat you know?
| loeg wrote:
| Yeah, they both come from Costco.
| littlestymaar wrote:
| And from cow, ultimately.
| locallost wrote:
| It's convenient. I have no idea where the meat came from
| either.
| b00ty4breakfast wrote:
| you can get protein powder that doesn't contain artificial
| sweeteners. You can get protein powder that doesn't contain
| any sweetener. You can even buy pure protein powder without
| any additives at all.
| _bent wrote:
| thanks for the dietary advice, b00ty4breakfast
| hombre_fatal wrote:
| Your best evidence is a rat study and a narrative review?
|
| Kinda makes zero cal sweeteners look good.
| thesz wrote:
| It is hard to experiment on humans. Here is an experiment
| on monkeys: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39978336/
|
| At least aspartame increases insulin secretion in them.
| _DeadFred_ wrote:
| TIL the amount of animal suffering that goes into each person
| trying to be swole.
| bongoman42 wrote:
| Would be important to see how that number is being computed?
| If it is the amount of meat sold divided by number of people
| it may be misleading since there is a fair amount of wastage
| particularly in places like schools etc with kids filling
| plates that are never consumed.
| hunter-gatherer wrote:
| Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. There is even more
| trimming that goes on as well. Chefs trim what's ordered,
| tallow may be rendered for non-consumptive reasons, and so
| on. Like a poster above, as an athlete I eat more meat than
| most people, and I don't seem to eat those numbers... I
| feel like we are missing some data points.
| jonplackett wrote:
| The thing is though you'll be eating (I presume) mostly lean
| meat. Chicken breast, white fish etc.
|
| When you compare the macros of that to sausages or ribs or
| even steak it's quite drastically different.
|
| Also I'd guess you aren't covering your meat in thick sugary
| sauce every time...
| giantg2 wrote:
| A 16oz ribeye can easily be eaten in a single meal by most
| people who are large enough (90kg) to need 200g of protein
| per day.
| 9991 wrote:
| I'm not a weightlifter, and 1lb steak (pre-cook weight) is a
| normal amd very reasonable sized dinner for me. Weird to hear
| that called "challenging".
| kranke155 wrote:
| Cheese is probably there due to lobbying. I don't understand
| why it would be that high.
| bigiain wrote:
| Cheese _is_ delicious.
|
| (But I doubt the cheese I find so delicious is that same as
| the cheese that's so prevalent in American diets...)
| analog8374 wrote:
| I'm not a weightlifter but I'm a carpenter. Meat is like a
| healing potion on my body. Makes the pain go away. And
| without meat, it doesn't.
|
| Eggs work too.
| sneak wrote:
| That's an immense amount of cholesterol. You might consider
| replacing some or all of it with plant-based sources. (Many
| protein shakes are made with whey powder, which also contains
| cholesterol.)
|
| Heart disease is a real risk. Don't ignore it. It's not
| something that only happens to other people.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| David Bars, while not even close to anything resembling a
| whole food, have made hitting macros so much easier. End up
| being cheaper than chicken, per gram of protein per calorie,
| sometimes too!
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I'd strongly prefer the government just not try to tell people
| what to eat, the incentives will always be perverse and
| nutrition science is anything but science in most cases.
|
| _EDIT_ down-thread to prove my point you 'll see people citing
| studies in favor of and against the new recommendations. The
| studies are almost always in animals or use self reported data
| with tiny sample sizes.
| mistrial9 wrote:
| > not try to tell people what to eat
|
| food industry has to be policed -- The Jungle by Upton
| Sinclair is a high school level story featuring the meat
| packing industry. All around, additives and substitutes are
| more profitable than raw ingredients.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I'm clearly not advocating against basic safety oversight.
| It's worth noting that The Jungle was a work of fiction and
| Sinclair famously fabricated a lot of details wholesale.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| The whole point of government performing the function is that
| they don't profit from misleading you, rather their goal is
| the country's welfare.
|
| Obviously there are exceptions - particularly right now - but
| those are solved by rooting out corruption.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| You say that but the food pyramid was devised but the
| agriculture lobby, and was never based on science.
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Is this true? Specifically, "devised by" vs "influenced
| by" and "never based on science" meaning there was no,
| for example, attempt to improve heart disease rates?
|
| In any event, looking at the whole history of food
| guidance paints a clearer picture of my point. Happy to
| hear of alternatives though!
| ch4s3 wrote:
| I guess it would be more correct to say it was heavily
| influenced by the ag industry[1].
|
| > attempt to improve heart disease rates
|
| The diet basedheart disease science of the early 1990s
| was totally junk.[2]
|
| [1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8375951/
|
| [2] https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2016/09/404081/sugar-
| papers-reveal...
| cosmicgadget wrote:
| Totally junk or skewed to ignore sugar as a contributor?
| Again I have to immediately doubt your dire accusations
| because they diverge from what is said in your link as
| well as what my physician says about cholesterol.
|
| And it's not like the 90s pyramid had sugar at the base.
| ch4s3 wrote:
| Yes, largely junk. As I mentioned the literature is full
| of studies that are nothing but some regressions on top
| of self reported dietary data. It's almost all very low
| quality[1].
|
| [1] https://www.science.org/content/article/people-are-
| bad-repor...
| reactordev wrote:
| You should see the local Golden Corral.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| I bet the number of vegans and vegetarians in the US are also
| at their highest (and growing).
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.)
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Vegans are probably mostly healthy. Vegetarians? Religious
| vegetarians and healthy vegetarians intersect but mostly
| don't ;).
| sebasv_ wrote:
| I remember seeing a paper a while back that found
| veganism increased your death by ischemic stroke
| probability threefold.
|
| Because of old age. Being vegan increased your odds
| threefold to die of old age instead of prematurely from
| disease.
|
| Apologies for not having a link to the source
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Hey, do whatever helps you sleep at night. That's what I
| do. We're all going to the same place - a couple of years
| here and there won't do much when you're that old anyway.
| recallingmemory wrote:
| This is not accurate. Please link to your source.
|
| A healthy, whole-food plant-based diet is linked to a
| _lower risk_ of ischemic stroke, with studies showing
| reduced risk compared to meat-eaters. The conclusion of
| this paper[1] for example reads that "Lower risk of
| total stroke was observed by those who adhered to a
| healthful plant-based diet."
|
| Additionally, researchers at Harvard found that a plant-
| based diet may lower overall stroke risk by up to 10%.
| [2]
|
| 1: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8166423/
|
| 2: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/healthy-plant-based-
| diet-assoc...
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| nothing stops you from reading more about the topics before
| commenting on them haha
| Y_Y wrote:
| But it sure does seem like that sometimes
| woodruffw wrote:
| I thought that would fall under common sense, but if not:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10479225/
| nradov wrote:
| There may be some correlation but causality is unclear.
| India has a lot of vegetarians and also a high incidence of
| heart disease.
| woodruffw wrote:
| That might have something more to do with almost one in
| four people in India being a tobacco user[1]. CDC
| suggests that one in four CVD deaths (in the US) is
| caused by tobacco use[2].
|
| [1]:
| https://globalactiontoendsmoking.org/research/tobacco-
| around...
|
| [2]: https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/about/cigarettes-and-
| cardiovascu...
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| It has more to do with people who are on farming diets
| but no longer farm.
|
| People in India smoked just as much when they weren't
| living such sedentary lifestyles.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't understand the claim: is it that farming diets
| are unhealthy, or something else? I'd expect subsistence
| lifestyles to have higher all-round mortality, but
| probably not CVD specifically.
|
| > People in India smoked just as much when they weren't
| living such sedentary lifestyles.
|
| I suspect they also lived shorter lives for the
| aforementioned all-round mortality reasons.
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Farming diets are rich in calories. Great for farmers.
| Not so great for desk jockeys.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I think most farming diets in India are closer to
| subsistence diets, or at least historically have been.
|
| (If you have resources that show otherwise, that would be
| interesting. But smoking really does seem like the
| obvious historical outlying factor for heart disease in
| India, with calorie-dense diets playing catch up as the
| country has become wealthier.)
| sonar_un wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| 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.
| woodruffw wrote:
| 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.
| watwut wrote:
| > 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.
| 0xWTF wrote:
| "a chicken in every pot" is a political slogan that has been in
| active use from 17th century France to at least Herbert Hoover.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > the US's per capita consumption of meat
|
| That number seemed unreal to me, so I looked it up. I think it
| represents the total pre-processing weight, not the actual meat
| meat consumption. From Wikipedia:
|
| > As an example of the difference, for 2002, when the FAO
| figure for US per capita meat consumption was 124.48 kg (274 lb
| 7 oz), the USDA estimate of US per capita loss-adjusted meat
| consumption was 62.6 kg (138 lb)
|
| Processing, cutting into sellable pieces, drying, and
| spoilage/loss mean the amount of meat consumed is about half of
| that number.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Interestingly, ~12% of humans in the US are responsible for
| ~50% of beef consumption.
|
| > The US is the biggest consumer of beef in the world, but,
| according to new research, it's actually a small percentage
| of people who are doing most of the eating. A recent study
| shows that on any given day, just 12% of people in the US
| account for half of all beef consumed in the US.
|
| > Men and people between the ages of 50 and 65 were more
| likely to be in what the researchers dubbed as
| "disproportionate beef eaters", defined as those who, based
| on a recommended daily 2,200 calorie-diet, eat more than four
| ounces - the rough equivalent of more than one hamburger -
| daily. The study analyzed one-day dietary snapshots from over
| 10,000 US adults over a four-year period. White people were
| among those more likely to eat more beef, compared with other
| racial and ethnic groups like Black and Asian Americans.
| Older adults, college graduates, and those who looked up
| MyPlate, the US Department of Agriculture's (USDA) online
| nutritional educational campaign, were far less likely to
| consume a disproportionate amount of beef.
|
| _High steaks society: who are the 12% of people consuming
| half of all beef in the US?_ -
| https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/oct/20/beef-
| usd... - October 20th, 2023
|
| _Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates of
| Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age
| of Global Warming_ -
| https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/17/3795 |
| https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15173795 - August 2023
|
| (my observation of this is that we can sunset quite a bit of
| US beef production and still be fine from a food supply and
| security perspective, as consumption greatly exceeds healthy
| consumption limits in the aggregate)
| parliament32 wrote:
| > defined as those who, based on a recommended daily 2,200
| calorie-diet, eat more than four ounces... daily.
|
| This sounds like.. not very much. I eat 6-7oz of ground
| beef with breakfast alone, pretty much daily! Are people
| really eating less than ~1/2 cup of meat over all their
| meals combined?
| ronjakoi wrote:
| I haven't had any meat in about 20 years. But I also
| don't live in the US.
| SecondHandTofu wrote:
| Beef, not meat. Surely you jest and you know that that's
| a huge amount and you're on some high-calorie gym diet?
| zmgsabst wrote:
| 6oz of beef is only 44g of protein; a moderate gym load
| would require more for many adult men. Typical might be
| more like 75-100g. (Recommendations I've heard is 2g per
| 1 kg of muscle mass; roughly 40% of your weight at
| moderate fitness.)
|
| I'm a large guy (190cm/100kg); I lose weight eating a
| pound of bacon for breakfast and a pound of chicken for
| dinner, if I'm even moderately exercising (3x cardio, 3x
| strength each week). Thirty minutes a day, split between
| strength and cardio is hardly "top athlete" and more
| "recommended amount".
|
| That's not to say anybody is wrong, merely our
| experiences may be as varied as humans are -- ie, we may
| legitimately have different needs.
| smaudet wrote:
| > That's not to say anybody is wrong
|
| Except the people hallucinating that we need to eat more
| meats. A couple of people requiring more caloric/protein
| intake doesn't make it reasonable for everyone to take in
| more
|
| The advice to cut processed foods is solid and is
| something we have been saying for decades.
| XorNot wrote:
| Due to digestion protein is also much lighter on calories
| then the baseline would suggest (15% less then the
| measured value can be typical) - dependent highly on
| preparation of course (I.e. the typical American steak
| prep of "first I'm adding half a stick of butter..." kind
| of ruins the benefit).
| stinos wrote:
| _6oz of beef is only 44g of protein_
|
| It's their _breakfast_. Chances are rather small they don
| 't get any protein intake for the rest of the day.
| glenstein wrote:
| >ie, we may legitimately have different needs.
|
| Well the point of nutrition research is to account for
| that kind of thing. And it's true enough that men and
| women have specifically different protein needs. But
| person-to-person variation doesn't scale up into pure
| randomness. The reason it's possible to make meaningful
| population level nutrition recommendations is precisely
| because of broadly shared commonalities, about what is
| both good and bad for us.
| ianferrel wrote:
| That's 4 ounces of beef, not meat. I eat plenty of meat,
| but eat beef less than once a week.
| patja wrote:
| Habits vary (vegans exist!) And I agree 4 oz is a pretty
| small portion. But I don't think I personally know very
| many people who eat beef daily. For me and my family it
| is once or twice a week.
| bombcar wrote:
| I know or knew (and at a time was one) who would eat a
| hamburger for lunch every day, day-in, day-out.
|
| If you expand from that, it could easily be daily.
| bregma wrote:
| 4 oz (a quarter pound) is 100 g or an amount about the
| size of the palm of your hand -- a single serving. It's
| not a small portion, it's recommended standard portion.
|
| If you were following the old food guide in use for the
| last 20 years -- the one that replaces the food pyramid
| -- you'd see that 100 g is about a quarter of your plate.
| The old food guide could be summed up as "a quarter of
| your plate should be protein, a quarter carbs, and half
| fruits and vegetables". Real simple, so simple anyone
| could understand it. Although I have been presented with
| evidence recently that there are some who can not.
| tasty_freeze wrote:
| > Are people really eating less than ~1/2 cup of meat
| over all their meals combined?
|
| Your mind is going to be blown when you learn about
| vegetarians!
|
| I'm in the US and was raised on a pretty standard diet.
| As a young adult, I stopped eating beef for environmental
| reasons. As an older adult (50s) I mostly stopped eating
| most meat for environmental and ethical reasons. I don't
| call myself a vegetarian and don't make a fuss when
| vegetarian options aren't available (eg, eating at a
| friend's house).
|
| That is all to say: I haven't noticed any difference in
| my health either way, but that isn't why I (95%) stopped
| eating meat.
| bee_rider wrote:
| Your diet is your own business of course, but a burger
| for breakfast is... unusual, right?
| parliament32 wrote:
| Not a burger: ground beef and eggs scrambled, with
| potatoes and whatever fruit-of-the-week on the side. Yes
| it's a post-gym meal :)
| bruce511 wrote:
| I'm not sure "gym goer" defines the "average American "
| :).
|
| So I think you can consider your regular breakfast to be
| an outlier with regard to beef consumption.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Outliers are more likely to post their experiences, and
| those unusual experiences are then also more likely to be
| shared. It can make for a skewed perception of the world
| if someone consumes a lot of media (or other secondhand
| information) and allows it to shape their worldview.
| glenstein wrote:
| And to your point, I think the psychology of someone in
| the comment section is to react to broad statements like
| they are Sudoku puzzle where you can "solve" by finding
| an exception to a broad statement, however rare the
| exception.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| The administration putting out the "eat more meat"
| guidance is simultaneously telling everyone they need to
| work out. The recommendation seems consistent when their
| started goal is to change current "American" habits.
| serf wrote:
| ground beef can be more things than a burger.
|
| every breakfast joint near me in California has some sort
| of variation on hamburg steak & eggs. Judging by the fact
| that it's on every menu, it must be popular to _some_
| degree.
| bee_rider wrote:
| > ground beef can be more things than a burger.
|
| I was thinking more as a unit of measurement, but yeah,
| sorry that was poorly written on my part, sorry.
|
| > every breakfast joint near me in California has some
| sort of variation on hamburg steak & eggs. Judging by the
| fact that it's on every menu, it must be popular to some
| degree.
|
| Sure. The diners near me have that kind of stuff too,
| just, if I went to a diner every morning my heart would
| probably revolt after about a month.
| astura wrote:
| People go to "breakfast joints" for a weekend treat, not
| an everyday meal.
| bombcar wrote:
| A burger is close to a sausage McMuffin which I'm sure
| some percentage eat for brekky every day.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| There is a substantial body of evidence that much red
| meat is wildly not good for you, especially when you
| consume it as consistently as you're saying you do.
| dpark wrote:
| There's a substantial body of evidence that consuming the
| average American diet while also being mostly sedentary
| is terrible for you. I'm unclear how much of the data
| gathered about red meat specifically can be meaningfully
| decoupled from all the confounding factors, though.
|
| A study of people who eat almost exclusively whole foods
| that do _not_ include red meat vs people who eat almost
| exclusively whole foods that _do_ include meaningful
| amounts of red meat would be really interesting.
|
| When so much red meat is consumed as greasy burgers
| coupled with white bread buns and deep fried potatoes, I
| don't know how to decouple the impact of the red meat
| from the rest of it. I fear the "red meat bad" stuff
| might be the inverse of the "oh, it's clearly the wine"
| silliness for why French people are healthier.
| diddid wrote:
| Don't drink water, if you drink too much, it'll kill you!
| idiotsecant wrote:
| You don't think studies control for this?
| dpark wrote:
| I believe that they try to, but I have serious doubts
| about how effective it is. Dietary science is littered
| with examples of incorrect guidance driven by data we
| misinterpreted. Remember when a generation of people were
| told to eat low fat and they all got fatter? Remember
| trans fats replacing saturated? Remember when we told
| everyone that drinking alcohol in moderation was
| healthier than not drinking at all?
|
| Most dietary studies are observational, which means there
| is no control group and no blinding. It's a deep dive
| into data (largely self-reported) with an attempt to
| control the endless variables by slicing and dicing the
| data to hopefully end up with groups that can be
| meaningfully compared.
| idiotsecant wrote:
| There are plenty of studies that take place outside north
| america saying the same thing.[1], for example. If you
| insist on this not being true thats fine, everyone gets
| to think whatever they want, but you're clearly not
| supported by the data in saying so.
|
| [1]https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1741-7015-11
| -63?ut...
| dpark wrote:
| This is exactly what I'm talking about. You cited a study
| that does not support the claim that red meat is
| unhealthy.
|
| > After correction for measurement error, higher all-
| cause mortality remained significant only for processed
| meat
|
| This is in the abstract. You don't even have to open the
| actual report to see this. Without even getting into
| whether or not this study controlled correctly for all
| possible variables, even they themselves had to
| acknowledge that the link between red meat and mortality
| is at best weak.
|
| There is _so much_ of this sort of misinterpretation when
| it comes to dietary science that it's really hard to know
| what information is accurate and what information is
| being misrepresented or misunderstood.
| epolanski wrote:
| Sometimes I wonder how is it possible that cattle alone
| severely outweighs all livestock on the planet, and by a
| very huge margin (like 10 to 1), then I read about such
| dietary habits.
|
| I eat meat too, but I don't eat it every day so if you
| average it over time it will likely be around those
| numbers.
| edoceo wrote:
| Wow! That's feels like a lot to me. I take 7 days to
| consume 450g (~1 US lb) of pork. I eat maybe 120g of beef
| in a month.
| lambda wrote:
| I eat meat (beef, pork, poultry, and fish) maybe three or
| four meals a week, and probably about 6 to 8 oz per meal
| when I eat it. So on a per day basis, yeah, I probably
| eat about 3-4 ounces of meat per day.
|
| But the source you were quoting was about beef alone. So
| these are people who eat more beef daily than I eat of
| any meat.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Are you really eating nearly half a pound of beef for
| breakfast every morning? I have, like, some toast and
| cheese.
| parliament32 wrote:
| So you have effectively zero protein with breakfast, are
| you eating four chicken breasts for dinner or something?
| Or are you protein-deficient.. if so, it seems the
| guidance in OP is meant to correct people like you.
| wat10000 wrote:
| Doesn't cheese have protein?
|
| My diet is light on carbs and has plenty of protein. I
| don't think I'm deficient.
|
| Four chicken breasts would be something like a pound and
| a half of meat. That seems excessive.
| parliament32 wrote:
| I only mentioned it because I really struggled with
| hitting protein targets unless I made sure I had a good
| portion of meat with every meal.
|
| In OP, they say "Protein target: ~0.54-0.73 grams per
| pound of body weight per day". Given that an average male
| weighs 200lbs in the US[1], we're looking for 108-146g
| protein/day. If your protein only comes from chicken
| breasts, and given that an average (52g) chicken breast
| has 16g of protein[2], you'd have to eat 8 chicken
| breasts per day to fulfill those requirements. Factoring
| in your other meat (something with lunch, and a bit from
| other sources like cheese), if you skip meat in your
| breakfast, yeah, you'd need like four with dinner to hit
| targets.
|
| Your diet is your business of course, but I'd consider
| tracking your diet for a few days to see how the numbers
| add up.
|
| [1] https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/body-
| measurements.htm
|
| [2] values for "1 unit", whatever that is:
| https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/food-details/171477/nutrients
| wat10000 wrote:
| I don't know where "1 unit" comes from, but the Portion
| menu lists 1 unit as 52g, and 0.5 breast as 86g. So 1
| unit is about one third of one. Using the numbers on that
| site, you'd need 2-2.7 average skinless breasts to reach
| the target 108-146g, which is a lot more reasonable. And
| that assumes there's zero other protein being consumed.
|
| I hope your numbers were more accurate when you
| determined you were struggling with hitting targets....
| parliament32 wrote:
| Oh yeah that's odd. What a weird measurement. Maybe a
| "serving" is considered a third?
|
| No, I bought a kitchen scale and did everything by
| weight, it seemed like the only sensical solution. This
| is probably a good time to plug Cronometer! I'm not
| affiliated, just been a happy paying customer for a few
| years now. https://cronometer.com/
| wat10000 wrote:
| This business of "1 unit" is certainly making a good case
| for using a scale. Thanks for the link.
| throwmeaway820 wrote:
| > A recent study shows that on any given day, just 12% of
| people in the US account for half of all beef consumed in
| the US
|
| _By itself_ , this figure doesn't really mean much. On any
| given day, less than 1% of people have birthdays, but that
| doesn't mean there's a small percentage of people who are
| having most of the birthdays
|
| The following paragraph is more valid, but the 12% figure
| still seems dubious.
| awesome_dude wrote:
| > By itself, this figure doesn't really mean much. On any
| given day, less than 1% of people have birthdays, but
| that doesn't mean there's a small percentage of people
| who are having most of the birthdays
|
| Yeah, it just means that half the beef eaten per day goes
| to the 12% having a BBQ, etc, not that only 12% of the
| population have access to half the beef available each
| day
| immibis wrote:
| Do you have a BBQ on 12% of days? Is this how it goes in
| America?
| genewitch wrote:
| i'm over 40; this is anecdotal, but I've talked to a lot
| of people all over the country; however i'm not asserting
| this is 100% factual:
|
| in the US most days include a meat in at least 1 meal.
| Now, i'm framing this as "fish, eggs, fowl". Cereal with
| milk, bagel with cream cheese, not meat, but meat
| adjacent. Waffles have eggs. we love "deli meats" in the
| US, every store has a deli counter where you can get meat
| sliced right before your own eyes; or you can go to the
| 4-8 door cold case where the pre-sliced meats are. And
| dinner, well i can think of a couple of vegetarian dishes
| that are "staples" like red beans and rice (can be
| vegan/vegetarian), or pasta with marinara (vegetarian).
|
| When presented with something like the Mediterranean
| diet, most americans would balk at the bird and rabbit
| food they were now expected to eat.
|
| I can expand, but yes, meat is like, a huge deal in the
| US. Especially beef. part of it is our chicken and pork
| is kinda bland and merely "just food" but our beef ranges
| from "ok if i'm real hungry" to "really very good,
| actually". Fish is hit and miss, depends where you live
| in the US as to how popular it is. also most of the cow
| is used for food in the US, very little is wasted, to my
| understanding. brain, eyes, tongue, glands, lungs, etc
| are all sold, bones sold as fertilizer, hide is obviously
| leather, and so on.
|
| for the record i wish animals were treated better, in
| fact, i have been searching for a local beef farmer for a
| decade and all the ones i run in to sell their beef to
| texas!
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > When presented with something like the Mediterranean
| diet, most americans would balk at the bird and rabbit
| food they were now expected to eat.
|
| That would be Italian, Spanish, and Greek food (plus some
| stuff from the Balkans). I think those foods are quite
| popular in the US.
| sprayk wrote:
| gp is likely referring to a specific diet called The
| Mediterranean Diet, "inspired by the eating habits and
| traditional foods of Greece, Italy, and the Mediterranean
| coasts of France and Spain, as observed in the late 1950s
| to early 1960s."
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mediterranean_diet
| astura wrote:
| I think most Americans would consider those foods very
| "exotic."
|
| I was an adult before I ever ate chickpeas (in any form),
| really any beans outside of Taco Bell refried beans,
| eggplant (in any form), tzatziki, any sort of flatbread,
| lentils, avocado, zucchini, cauliflower. Etc.
| ghyvcggvv wrote:
| Define BBQ; in the US it means two things depending on
| the location; Southern style slow cooked meat that falls
| apart on your fork, or grilling?
|
| If you mean grilling, at least every 8 days! Hopefully
| more often than that! And what's the issue? I can cook
| indoors or outside the same meal but avoid the smoke and
| heating the house.
| HPsquared wrote:
| That sounds a lot like the "you only use 10% of your
| brain" saying. Yeah, 10% at any given moment.
| glenstein wrote:
| I'm sorry but is nobody reading TFA? It quite
| specifically is saying there's a population of
| disproportionate meat eaters, noting that they're older,
| they're whiter, and influenced by cultural traditions
| normalizing it.
|
| It's not just saying it pops out of the data as a
| statistical curiosity, it's saying that there is a real
| subset of the population who are disproportionately
| eating more beef.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| > A recent study shows that on any given day, just 12% of
| people in the US account for half of all beef consumed in
| the US.
|
| This phrasing strongly suggests it's not the same 12% every
| day. In which case... it's probably not that noteworthy.
| immibis wrote:
| is it normal, in the USA, for half of all people to only
| eat beef once every 8 days?
|
| They also found a demographic correlation, which isn't
| easily explained by random sampling.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| > is it normal, in the USA, for half of all people to
| only eat beef once every 8 days?
|
| Thats not the implication of 12% of Americans eating 50%
| of beef by consumed by all Americans that day.
|
| If I had to make up some numbers it's probably that, on
| any random day, 12% of Americans ate 50% of the beef (a
| large burger), 28% of American ate the rest of the beef
| (bit of lunch meat), and 60% of Americans did not eat any
| beef.
| glenstein wrote:
| The phrasing strongly suggests exactly the opposite.
| Essentially, the whole framing of the linked guardian
| article is that there is a specific population which are
| the "disproportionate beef eaters".
| yxwvut wrote:
| And from the study linked, that framing/suggestion would
| be incorrect (at least for the numbers given). "the 12%
| are not the same every day" is an accurate
| interpretation. They asked about what people ate
| _yesterday_...
| glenstein wrote:
| Again, the whole premise of the article is that there
| really is such a thing as disproportionate beef eaters
| (DBE), and it spends time talking about this group
| explicitly. So the wording doesn't suggest otherwise, it
| explicitly suggests this is a real group.
|
| Regarding the study this is a both can be true situation.
| There can be (1) a population who is disproportionate in
| their beef eating, and (2) a study about 12% doing the
| most on any given day can count in favor of that group
| being real and (3) not _everyone_ from the daily 12% is
| part of the DBE group. It 's more likely a venn diagram
| overlap, and where it doesn't overlap, people who aren't
| part of the DBE are incidentally in that 12% while being
| closer to average in the aggregate over the longer term.
| Those facts can all sit together comfortably without
| amounting to a contradiction.
| jncfhnb wrote:
| The phrasing you're looking for is that 12% of Americans
| consume an average of 50% of beef consumed every day.
|
| By saying "on any given day" you are suggesting it's a
| different 12%. The article does confuse this by
| identifying cohorts that eat more beef. But it's a
| tautological label based on the survey data. They
| identify some correlates, like being a 50 something male.
| But there are males who are 50 something that don't eat
| any beef. They're not included in the 12%.
|
| The 12% is just the outcome of the sample. It doesn't
| mean they're a consistent cohort.
|
| Example:
|
| * on any given day x million women give birth
|
| * there are x million women who give birth every day
| _3u10 wrote:
| We are Paraguayans... Argentinians, and Brazilians... but
| mostly Paraguayans and Argentinas
|
| https://idlewords.com/2006/04/argentina_on_two_steaks_a_day
| ....
| paulhart wrote:
| So the data is skewed by burgers georg who eats 3,000 Big
| Macs each day?
| ctoth wrote:
| > Interestingly, ~12% of humans in the US are responsible
| for ~50% of beef consumption.
|
| Go on...
|
| > One limitation of this work is that it was based on 1-day
| diet recalls, so our results do not represent usual
| intake[0].
|
| Ah.
|
| [0]: Demographic and Socioeconomic Correlates of
| Disproportionate Beef Consumption among US Adults in an Age
| of Global Warming https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/15/17/3795
| tonyhart7 wrote:
| "just 12% of people in the US account for half of all beef
| consumed in the US."
|
| what???? there is entire family that eat entire Cow that
| can feed the whole village, that is crazy
| NewJazz wrote:
| Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still there
| you're only really losing water.
|
| What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers have
| gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up so
| dramatically?
| kulahan wrote:
| Well if it's based on weight, and one of the steps is to
| reduce the weight significantly...
|
| Point being someone eating a couple bags of jerky over a
| workday would probably count as having eaten literal pounds
| of beef, despite consumed weight being much lower. Water is
| noncompressible and makes your stomach full very quickly.
| quietbritishjim wrote:
| > Point being someone eating a couple bags of jerky over
| a workday would probably count as having eaten literal
| pounds of beef
|
| For the purposes of this conversation, about the
| nutritional effect of your diet, that seems like a fair
| way to put it.
| Aurornis wrote:
| > Drying doesn't mean anything... The nutrients are still
| there you're only really losing water.
|
| The problem with the number is that people see it and
| imagine pounds of meat like they see at the grocery store,
| but it's measuring pounds of meat that go into the meat
| processing plant.
|
| > What evidence do you have that the loss adjusted numbers
| have gone down while the preprocessed numbers have gone up
| so dramatically?
|
| No, the two numbers show the _ratio_.
|
| The "pounds of meat consumed per person" from the FAO is a
| pre-processed weight.
|
| The pounds of meat consumed per person from the USDA is the
| end-user weight. It's about half of the FAO number.
| weslleyskah wrote:
| Worth noting there seems to be no upper limit for the anabolic
| response to protein ingestion, according to this study:
|
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38118410/
|
| What happens is that the excess of protein stays in your
| system, but, if you don't use the nutrient by exercising, the
| caloric excess will obviously make you fat.
|
| "These findings demonstrate that the magnitude and duration of
| the anabolic response to protein ingestion is not restricted
| and has previously been underestimated in vivo in humans."
| ixtli wrote:
| I think its dangerous to engage with this website as an earnest
| attempt to make people healthier as individuals or as a
| population and not a metastasis of woo-fueld ignorance of data
| and trends like you're talking about whos goal is ultimately
| just to sell shit to desperate people.
| underdeserver wrote:
| Small nit - this is probably assumed, but I would like the unit
| to be explicit: _Yearly_ per capita pounds of meat.
|
| That is, how many pounds of meat the average American eats in a
| year. An increase of 100 pounds means about an extra quarter-
| pound a day.
| rayiner wrote:
| I think the key point is the relative ratios of meat versus
| processed carbs. Right now we have government guidance telling
| people to eat more processed carbs than meat, and that's
| backward.
|
| Americans also just need to eat less period, but that's a
| separable issue.
| mrguyorama wrote:
| >Right now we have government guidance telling people to eat
| more processed carbs than meat
|
| No we don't. Please show me where.
|
| Are you claiming the old food pyramid is where?
|
| Because Bush jr deprecated that in 2006, and his new,
| balanced pyramid was again replaced in 2011 by MyPlate, which
| did not tell you to eat more processed carbs, and was not
| even a pyramid.
|
| Why do so many of you people think that something that was
| very clearly replaced _twice_ is still somehow in effect? How
| much of the recent history of the US are you guys missing?
| Did you lose your memory or something?
| rayiner wrote:
| Okay, I amend my statement to say "we raised an entire
| generation to think you should eat multiple times as much
| carbs as protein."
|
| I learned the 1992 food pyramid in school. I was in college
| by the time they changed it, and I have no idea what the
| current one says. When the government undertakes a mass
| campaign to socialize children into a particular idea
| that's what happens.
| uoaei wrote:
| Wouldn't it be more likely that it's calories, not meat per se,
| that is the main proxy for measuring our health decline?
| PaulRobinson wrote:
| There is a lot of research that shows the type of calorie you
| consume determines to some extent the next calorie you want
| to consume. You are more likely to be "sated" (i.e. not want
| to eat more calories), if you eat protein than you are ultra-
| processed carbohydrates, low calorie soda will leave your
| body yearning sugar, and so on.
|
| When you couple this with the motivations of industrial food
| companies (some of whom are now owned by tobacco companies),
| and the research they do into the neuroscience effects of
| flavour, texture, even packaging of food, you'll start to
| spot that a push to "Real Food", and for that food to be less
| processed and more inclined towards protein, is more likely
| to result in overall calorie reduction.
|
| One of the things that isn't cutting through on this program
| is saying "eat protein" is assumed to mean "eat meat", which
| some assume means you can eat burgers. Nope. Healthy protein
| is not red meat that has been fried - that's going to take a
| bit more education, I expect.
| dmayle wrote:
| Fun...
|
| This is something I have been thinking about and researching
| for awhile, because there is so very much confusing language
| out there.
|
| Your quote says over the last century, so I'm going to use
| roughly 1920 as the baseline. It also refers to a per capita
| increase of meat consumption by 100 pounds, or about 45.4
| kilograms (to make the math easier). This is roughly an
| increase of 124g of meat per person per day (or about 3oz if
| that makes more sense to you).
|
| This equates to a daily increase in per-capita protein intake
| by 25-30g (depending on which meat and how lean it is).
|
| In 1920, the average American adult male was about 140 pounds,
| and ate about 100g of protein per day, which works out to
| roughly 0.71 grams per pound of body weight (or about 1.6 grams
| per kilogram).
|
| In 2025, one century later, the average American adult male is
| 200 pounds, and if he eats the same ratio of weight to protein,
| you would expect that he would eat around 140g of protein per
| day, which is slightly higher than the increase in per-capita
| meat consumption over the same time.
|
| However, if you look at actual statistics of what people are
| eating in protein, you'll see that the average American adult
| male is actually eating about 97g of protein per day, or about
| 0.49 grams per pound (1.1 grams per kg), which is much less
| than we ate a century ago, which means that that the increase
| in meat consumption doesn't match change in protein, so is
| offset by either less non-meat protein, meat with lower protein
| content (e.g. more fat), or both.
|
| There was some discussion lower in the thread about
| bodybuilders vs normal people, and about basing your
| calculations on lean body weight vs full bodyweight. Lean body
| weight calculations are often used for bodybuilders, but those
| numbers are elevated (typically 1 gram of protein per pound of
| lean body weight). For someone who is sedentary to lightly
| active (e.g. daily walks), the calculation is based on full
| body weight, not lean body weight, and is about 0.7 gram per
| pound (or 1.5 grams per kilogram), which matches this
| recommendation exactly.
|
| Hitting these targets has been shown to greatly increase
| satiation, reduce appetite, but it does not make you lose
| weight, and it is not permanent (reducing your protein intake
| removes the effect, which makes sense). However, long term
| studies show that people who increase their protein intake to
| these levels _and_ lose weight (through calorie reduction or
| fasting) keep that weight off.
|
| Finally, from what I've been able to cobble together, high
| protein intakes combined with high fat and high sugar intakes
| does not have the same effect as a diet that matches the
| recommendations here (ie. it's not just about higher protein
| intake, it's about percentage of calories from protein, which
| should be around 20-25%... 200 pound sedentary to lightly
| active adult male, 140g of protein, or 560 calories, in a total
| diet of 2250-2800 calories, depending on activity level)
| loeg wrote:
| "Last century" is a big piece of that, surely. As recently as
| 50 years ago, obesity rates were quite low (and risk of hunger
| among the poor was, you know, more real than it is today).
| rayiner wrote:
| The starting point for that data is 1909, when average life
| expectancy was under 50 years and child malnourishment was a
| major problem. The change since 1970 has been much quite
| modest: http://ers.usda.gov/data-products/charts-of-note/chart-
| detai...
|
| Also, you need to adjust for demographics. In 1900, 35% of the
| population was under 15:
| https://demographicchartbook.com/index.php/chapter-5-age-
| and.... Today it's only 19%. Children and babies obviously eat
| a lot less meat than adults, and they make up a much smaller
| share of the population today than back then.
| thephyber wrote:
| There's a restaurant in Las Vegas, the Heart Attack Grill,
| which sarcastically plays on this trope.
|
| > It has become internationally famous for embracing and
| promoting an unhealthy diet of incredibly large hamburgers.
| Customers are referred to as "patients," orders as
| "prescriptions," and the waitresses as "nurses." All those who
| weigh over 350 pounds are invited to unlimited free food
| provided they weigh themselves on an electronic cattle scale
| affront a cheering restaurant crowd.
|
| > The menu includes the Single Bypass Burger(r), Double Bypass
| Burger(r), Triple Bypass Burger(r), Quadruple Bypass Burger(r),
| Quintuple Bypass Burger(tm), Sextuple Bypass Burger(tm),
| Septuple Bypass Burger(tm), and the Octuple Bypass Burger(tm).
| These dishes range in weight from half a pound to four pounds
| of beef. Also on the menu are Flatliner Fries(r) (cooked in
| pure lard) and the Coronary Dog(tm), Lucky Strike no filter
| cigarettes, alcohol, Butterfat Milkshakes(tm), full sugar Coca-
| Cola, and candy cigarettes for the kids!
|
| https://heartattackgrill.com/press
| adzm wrote:
| Real sugar Coca-Cola is delicious though, and while this may
| just be a personal anecdote, real sugar soda always makes me
| feel full and satiated, while I've been able to drink several
| cans of corn syrup soda in a sitting before, I can't imagine
| doing that with several cans of real sugar soda. The calories
| are pretty much the same!
| rcbdev wrote:
| Was very confused by this comment, until I looked it up. It
| seems, sweet beverages and candies in the U.S. are not
| sweetened with sucrose (table sugar) like in most places on
| earth. Instead, they use fructose (fruit sugar) syrup.
|
| The more you know.
| Centigonal wrote:
| It's more complicated than that.
|
| Many foods in the United States are sweetened with high
| fructose corn syrup (which is very cheap compared to cane
| sugar because growing corn is very cheap in the United
| States because of climate, infrastructure, and extensive
| government subsidies). In soft drinks, the syrup is
| roughly 55% fructose, 45% glucose.
|
| Table sugar is usually sucrose, which is a compound sugar
| (disaccharide) comprised of one fructose and one glucose
| molecule. In many bottled soft drinks, the low pH of the
| beverage hydrolyzes the sucrose into its component
| sugars, resulting in a solution of 50% fructose and 50%
| glucose.
|
| Chemically, we're comparing a 55/45 mixture of fructose
| and glucose to a 50/50 mixture of fructose and glucose.
| HFCS has become a bogeyman in American society, but
| evidence since the 1980s seems to show that, when it
| comes to soda, the excess fructose isn't nearly as bad as
| the whole "recreationally drinking 40g of instantly
| available sugar" part.
|
| Mexican coke _does_ taste different, but it may have more
| to do with the other flavorants and the bottling process
| than the source of the sugar.
|
| Here's a fantastic video about this all:
| https://www.pbs.org/video/everyone-is-wrong-about-
| mexican-co...
|
| Edit: I found a cool 2014 study that actually assayed the
| sugar content in various soda pop brands: https://www.sci
| encedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089990071...
|
| Looks like some HFCS-sweetened soda pop has up to a 70/30
| fructose/glucose ratio. It's also worth noting that corn
| syrup contains maltose and various polysaccharides not
| present in table sugar, but I think most of that is
| refined out in colas, since there only seems to be 1%
| maltose present in the colas analyzed by this paper.
| sneak wrote:
| No, they use "high fructose corn syrup", which is, just
| like table sugar, a mix of fructose and glucose (sucrose
| is 50% fructose and 50% glucose). The increase in the
| fructose fraction in HFCS over table sugar is single-
| digit percentage.
|
| It's not "fructose" vs "sucrose", it's a difference
| between something that's 50% fructose and 50% glucose
| (table sugar) and something that is 42% fructose and 53%
| glucose (corn syrup).
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| The real sugar cocacola is sometimes called Mexican Coke
| in the USA to refer to the different sweetener being
| used.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| A must visit, though I have no idea how anyone could possibly
| get past the single bypass...
| g947o wrote:
| Just looked it up on Google Maps. Have to say it's not
| exactly what I would expect from a restaurant... but makes
| sense in Vegas though.
| jessecurry wrote:
| It's the corn subsidies.
| jayers wrote:
| Too many calories is the basic explanation for why American's
| health sucks. Calories available per person has gone up ~32%
| since the 1960s (we obviously can't measure calories consumed
| per person, but supply and demand would dictate these excess
| calories are going somewhere). It is not clear to me that meat
| specifically is a problem so much as excess consumption leading
| to obesity, which then causes chronic health problems
| downstream.
|
| Though of course "meat" is too vague a category to be helpful.
| Obviously there's a link between beef and heart disease and
| colorectal cancer. There seems to be no health problems
| associated with consuming chicken or seafood.
| OJFord wrote:
| People are more wasteful now (in times of relative plenty
| generally) too though, at least I'm sure that's true in the
| UK.
| redox99 wrote:
| The biggest food related problem in the US is obesity. Lean
| meat is very high satiety and really helps with keeping weight
| in check. Of course a McDonalds meal is the opposite and you
| eat more than half your day's calories in a few minutes.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| At least the page mentions alternatives - plenty of other
| sources of protein, like dairy, eggs, legumes, etc.
| lopis wrote:
| The moment I saw whole milk and a huge steak in the intro, I
| knew this website was not to be trusted.
| cies wrote:
| 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).
| rjdj377dhabsn wrote:
| What is your criteria for "very unhealthy" and do you have
| any evidence to back up that claim?
| mythrwy wrote:
| If milk if unhealthy in any quantity how did we all survive
| infancy?
| crat3r wrote:
| 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.
| angiolillo wrote:
| > 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?
|
| By "variety" you mean B12 & omega 3? Or is there
| something else you think vegans need to supplement that
| omnivores don't? My kids have varying dietary preferences
| and personally I haven't found it any more difficult to
| get high-quality supplements than it is to get high-
| quality animal proteins.
|
| But what "variety of unregulated supplements" most
| reminds me of is my chore prepping the cow mineral-
| vitamin mixes on the farm I worked on as a kid. Most farm
| animals are given a variety of supplements (by my
| recollection the cows got A, D, E, iodine, selenium,
| zinc, various minerals...) that have even less regulation
| than human supplements. And roughly two thirds of beef
| cattle in the US receive growth-promoting hormones,
| though we didn't use those on our farm. And much of the
| dairy consumed in the US is directly supplemented with
| vitamin A and D. If you consume animal products in the US
| you're probably already taking poorly-regulated
| supplements, they've just been laundered through the body
| of an animal.
|
| (To be clear I don't agree with the grandparent comment
| that animal products like dairy, meat, and fish are
| inherently unhealthy, at least for most people. But
| neither do I agree that they're inherently superior.)
| al_borland wrote:
| Processed food and sugar consumption has also gone up.
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8805510/
|
| > Conclusions: As observed from the food availability data,
| processed and ultra-processed foods dramatically increased over
| the past two centuries, especially sugar, white flour, white
| rice, vegetable oils, and ready-to-eat meals. These changes
| paralleled the rising incidence of NCDs, while animal fat
| consumption was inversely correlated.
| gwbas1c wrote:
| My wife is vegetarian, mostly vegan because she's allergic to
| dairy.
|
| I really enjoyed "keeping up" with her when we were dating,
| because I was really tired of eating the same things all the
| time. There's really a lot of delicious plant proteins if you
| take the time to look.
|
| (That being said, our kids like meat. We just don't eat it all
| the time.)
| jjoe wrote:
| I processed the Scientific Report Appendices (PDF) through
| PaperSplain. I'm sharing the analysis here for those interested:
|
| https://papersplain.com/sample/62d71c8ecb6411e042f346088c231...
| dyauspitr wrote:
| Interesting, this is not bad at all. Maybe the only real issue is
| prescribing a lot of red meat which categorically isn't that good
| for you.
| collaborative wrote:
| Nothing wrong with grains as long as they aren't the processed
| GM'd ones you find everywhere. Bake wholegrain spelt bread at
| home and you can make that 70% of your diet no problem. People
| used to only eat bread before, they were fine
| margalabargala wrote:
| Basically none of this is true.
|
| Grains are way too high in carbohydrates and even whole grains
| tend not to be complete proteins. Eating little but bread,
| whether it's wheat or spelt or something else, will malnourish
| you.
|
| The impacts of health of processed grains is large. The impacts
| on health of GM'd grains is zero.
| eweise wrote:
| Dairy is not healthy fats.
| jaredwiener wrote:
| This is the first .gov website I've seen that does not list any
| sort of agency, branch of government, commission, whatever,
| that's behind it.
|
| Yes, I see the National Design Studio built it -- but presumably
| they aren't the ones writing nutritional guidance. Is this FDA?
| HHS?
| wavemode wrote:
| Nutritional guidelines are developed by USDA.
|
| This newest iteration appears to have had input from HHS under
| RFK Jr: https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/us-dietary-
| guidel...
| jaredwiener wrote:
| This also appears to be from USDA, as per their _other_
| website with the same info:
| https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/
| jaredwiener wrote:
| My point really was that it seems odd that this information
| isn't readily available on the website. Why hide it?
| didibus wrote:
| What exactly has changed ? And how does it differ say to the
| Canadian one: https://food-
| guide.canada.ca/themes/custom/wxtsub_bootstrap/... ?
| owentbrown wrote:
| When did white flour bread become a whole grain?
|
| There's a picture of a loaf of bread next to the word "whole
| grains".
| fabbbbb wrote:
| 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.org/core/journals/nutrition-research-r...
| max_ wrote:
| >Whole grain bread or infant formula are "highly processed"
| despite very healthy.
|
| "processed" and "healthy" are oxymorons.
|
| I think it's better to tell people to restrict themselves to
| "whole foods".
| lazyasciiart wrote:
| I believe you're missing their point. As well as
| demonstrating a complete lack of information about infant
| formula.
| fabbbbb wrote:
| To me it seems the point is "processed" == bad. Isn't it?
| And NOVA seems to be the gold standard for what's
| "processed".
|
| Of course there's better things as whole grain bread in
| plastic foil (whole grain bread freshly made) or infant
| formula (breastfeeding). But they are more healthy than
| other things that rank better in NOVA.
| fabbbbb wrote:
| Did you find evidence for your two claims?
|
| You can compose a pretty healthy diet from what's called
| "processed" (prepared, cooked and packaged). From the very
| same pyramid.
| max_ wrote:
| Yes please.
|
| For example, eating a fruit is very different from drinking
| fruit juice. And the process of "juicification" destroys
| fibre. [1]
|
| And this is just mild processing.
|
| It gets worse for other processed foods that have
| preservatives etc.
|
| Infant formula is just a scam. Nothing beats breast milk
| when it comes to feeding babies.
|
| Infant formula puts you at risk of corporate scams --
| https://x.com/i/status/2009105279414141380
|
| [1]: https://www.stanfordchildrens.org/en/topic/default%3Fi
| d%3Dfr...
| malfist wrote:
| Processed and healthy are not oxymorons.
|
| For one, most all preservation methods are processing,
| including canning, freezing and drying. You can't possibly
| claim that frozen or canned veggies are unhealthy
| lithocarpus wrote:
| Sure, and, more processed is almost always less healthy
| than less processed. Doesn't mean "bad for me" just "not
| quite as good for me"
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| really non-scientifically speaking, the kind of "processed"
| that seems to be less healthy comes closer to "pre-
| chewed/digested" and "concentrated" (ground very fine,
| broken down into constituent parts. Eg: refined flours over
| whole grains. corn syrup over corn on the cob (or even just
| frozen whole corn), Fruit juice over sliced fresh/frozen
| fruit.
|
| A big challenge is how do you make rules/terms for that
| uneducated (on the topic) folks, disinterested folks, and
| lower IQ folks (MeanIQ - 1SD) can readily understand and
| apply in their busy + stressful lives?
| doctorpangloss wrote:
| besides being loud in the media and policy, does it matter?
|
| to keep this focused on hacker news. this is like asking the
| programming community to solve "some intractable social
| problem," and then sometimes you get an answer, "well, what we
| need is, a new kind of open source license."
|
| disputes over guidelines and the meaning of highly processed,
| outside the academic humanities context, is kind of pointless
| right? if you are talking about cultural influence - you can't
| coerce people to eat (or not eat) something in this country, so
| cultural influence is the main lever government can pull
| regarding food - the answer to everything is, "What does Ja
| Rule think?" (https://www.okayplayer.com/dave-chappelles-ja-
| rule-joke-is-h...) that is, what do celebrities say and do? And
| that's why we're at where we are at, the celebrities are now
| "running" the HHS.
|
| There's a definition for highly processed food, it's whatever
| Ja Rule says it is. Are you getting it?
| sva_ wrote:
| They can also be a machine that might add a non-negligible
| amount of mineral oils and possibly other stuff to your food.
| The guideline to use should be that the ingredient list should
| be as short as possible. If it has more than 5 ingredients,
| that's already incredibly suspicious in my opinion. The problem
| is that some stuff (like a mineral oil contamination) doesn't
| even have to be declared on the ingredient list.
|
| For example, normal simple bread should only have 4 or maybe 5
| ingredients.
| grvdrm wrote:
| This is my personal approach too. I stock things with fewest
| number of ingredients. Example that comes to mind: RXBar
| might be UPF but there's not much in it. Compared to your
| average name brand protein bar or granola bar.
| parliament32 wrote:
| > In the end someone else cooks for you and packages it.
|
| I think someone else cooking for you isn't the problem, the
| problem is at "packages it". Because, when you cook something
| at home, it's good for a few days to a week -- but food
| processors effectively always need various additives to keep
| the food shelf-stable for long enough for it to go factory ->
| warehouse -> store -> your house -> your meal. There are
| definitely exceptions (eg raisins are dried grapes, end of
| story) but generally this is the problem.
|
| > Whole grain bread... very healthy.
|
| Are you sure? Ever noticed how when you bake bread at home,
| it's basically 4 days on the counter before it's inedible,
| right? Yet commercial bread lasts for weeks.. ever wondered why
| that is?
|
| As for processed food in general, I could be wrong, but my
| mental exercise goes along the lines of "would my great-grandma
| know what this is?" Eggs, butter, milk, fruits, vegetables,
| flour, rice, meat, fish, etc etc. But if it has an ingredients
| list and a nutrition label.. probably best to avoid making it a
| staple of your diet. Yes, I get it, cooking is a pain in the
| ass and everyone hates "the dinner problem", but IMO it's worth
| it for your health.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| 4 days... we bake bread from different grains: it's barely
| edible after 24 hours. But that is how we do it: bake a loaf
| early morning, eat what we need, give the rest to the
| animals. Just like my grandparents did.
|
| I don't get the cooking pain or dinner problem anyway nor do
| I know anyone irl who has that luckily. I hear it online
| sometimes and then I check their profile and it becomes clear
| why.
| abustamam wrote:
| > I don't get the cooking pain or dinner problem
|
| Wait, do you really not understand why people have issues
| cooking healthy stuff for dinner? I don't think the average
| person can bake a loaf of bread every morning, or cook a
| meal for a family of four every day.
|
| Personally I tend to batch cook for my wife and me, but my
| daughter's almost gonna start needing to eat solids soon,
| so we'll have to cook for her as well. My mom also brings
| us a lot of food but not every family is fortunate like
| that.
|
| Meals are simple -- a protein (usually meat, but sometimes
| beans or lentils), a carb (rice or pasta, usually rice) and
| veggies (frozen). Make a lot and freeze it. I can't imagine
| cooking real meals for 3 people every day with our work
| schedules.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| But not having time every day is not the same as just not
| cook right? I cook batches since uni from fresh
| ingredients and freeze it; thats 30 years ago and I still
| do. We always have so much choise just from that while it
| takes cooking 1 day a week but 10 liter pots of curries
| etc. Now I have more time and can do more cooking so
| thats a luxury. I get why people cannot do that, I guess
| GP their comment, to me, seemed more like a burden than
| just no time and I find that a difference. Many take the
| time to spend hours in the gym just to throw crap into
| themselves the rest of the time.
|
| But yes, we do the same as you generally and we can
| always eat well. Getting up at 5 to bake bread and make
| new dough for the next day is not actually eating into
| anything for me and I enjoy the work and the smells. It
| is a luxury I know that and I could not do that when in
| uni but most other cooking I could and did.
| metaketra wrote:
| There's bread making techniques that allow you to make
| bread multiple times a week relatively easily and
| quickly, even without kneading.
|
| Cold fermentation allows you the bread to rise overnight,
| so you can take 20 min to make the dough the night
| before, and then let it ferment overnight. Then the next
| day shape it, wait for it to proof and bake it.
|
| Some breads also can last days, even up to weeks, even
| for homebaked breads without any additives.
|
| Like for example, there's recipes where you make the
| dough the night before, put it in the oven after you wake
| up, and it's ready by the time you go to work.
|
| Chainbaker on youtube has lots of guides for all kinds of
| breads.
| 2001zhaozhao wrote:
| I think "highly processed foods are bad" is best seen as a
| general rule and no more than that. However, it is a _good_
| general rule and following it is probably the easiest way for
| people to eat healthy.
|
| In general, the more processing steps involved, the more things
| companies can do to make the food more delicious, cheaper to
| produce, etc., at the expense of customers' health. There is
| also a significant correlation between "highly processed food"
| and "contains way too much refined grains and oil".
|
| However, it's absolutely possible to process the food heavily
| and add lots of ingredients and still maintain a healthy food
| if you actually care about the customer's wellbeing. It would
| just result in a product that is less competitive in the short
| term, so companies have little to no incentive to do it.
| frutiger wrote:
| 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!
| lm28469 wrote:
| That's not really what we're talking about here though. An
| apple isn't the same as an apple juice which isn't the same
| as an apple flavored candy, even you can appreciate the
| difference of processing in these simple examples.
|
| A slab of beef isn't the same as a "burger patty*" where the
| meat is coming from 54 different pigs, including cartilages,
| tendons, skin &co and contains 12 additives coming from the
| petrochemical industry.
|
| The same applies to vegetarians/vegan stuff, you can make a
| patty from beans at home with like 3 ingredients, or buy
| ready made patties containing hydrogenated trans fats, bad
| additives, food coloring, &c.
| forgotusername6 wrote:
| Is there anything really wrong with cartilage, skin,
| tendons etc? Is that actually unhealthy or is that
| squeamishness? Also is there anything wrong with it coming
| from multiple animals? I.e. homogenisation of the product.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Doesnt really matter to his point. It could be the
| healthiest thing the world but still more processed than
| a whole steak. Remember, he's arguing against the claim
| that everything is processed to the point where
| distinguishing between degree doesnt matter. Not that
| tendon/cartilage are necessarily bad.
| frutiger wrote:
| Yes I understand bioavailability etc. My point is that it's
| nothing to do with how processed something is.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| He never mentions bioavailability. It seems you are
| projecting some conflation of bioavailability/processed
| which he's not doing.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| In what sense is an ear of corn highly processed? Is the same
| sense in which a hot dog is highly processed?
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| 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"
| sjw987 wrote:
| I doubt the issue is with processed food. Basically everything
| we eat is processed (even fruit and veg is selectively bred and
| has been for decades if not centuries). Bread and pasta is
| fine.
|
| Ultra-processed is where all of our issues are coming from. If
| you can't identify ingredients in something, or you see
| e-numbers, emulsifiers and such, it's UPF. Essentially any fast
| food, branded items, ready meals or heavily plastic wrapped
| long-shelf life stuff.
|
| Cognitive decline and overweight conditions have risen in line
| with the uptake of UPF. A 10% increase in UPF leads to 25%
| increase in the chance of dementia. UPF lead to overeating, and
| the way they are processed causes them to cause insulin spikes
| in the body which lead to inflammation, including in the brain.
| jaksmit wrote:
| what gave you the idea that infant formula is "very healthy".
| definitely not the case for 99% of infant formula in the USA,
| it's full of canola oil and crap
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Kennedy is targeting baby formula.
|
| > Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has directed the Food
| and Drug Administration to review the nutrients and other
| ingredients in infant formula, which fills the bottles of
| millions of American babies. The effort, dubbed "Operation
| Stork Speed," is the first deep look at the ingredients since
| 1998.
|
| > "The FDA will use all resources and authorities at its
| disposal to make sure infant formula products are safe and
| wholesome for the families and children who rely on them,"
| Kennedy said.
|
| https://news.wttw.com/2025/06/03/kennedy-has-ordered-review-...
| elevation wrote:
| I once looked at the ingredients of the baby formula product
| and was shocked to see some of them list high fructose corn
| syrup as the first ingredient. It seems like being forced to
| spending the first year of your life primarily feeding on
| industrially refined sugars is worth investigating as a cause
| of metabolic ills developed later in life.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| My personal definition: If it was impossible for ancient Romans
| to make this food, it's highly processed. I think this is a
| pretty good heuristic.
| throw7 wrote:
| This is a good reset. I just imagine if this was put out by a
| Democrat white house, the republicans would be blowing a gasket.
| christophilus wrote:
| Probably, though the horseshoe thing is real. This is one
| subject on which my liberal and conservative friends have a lot
| of overlap.
| andyjohnson0 wrote:
| _Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants._
|
| - Michael Pollan
| monster_truck wrote:
| The accessbility of this website is deplorable. There is no way
| anyone responsible for this website has our best interests in
| mind
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Eating real foods (e.g., whole foods rather than highly processed
| foods) is good advice overall. But replacing mono and poly
| unsaturated fats with saturated fats is total nonsense. We have
| thousands of studies spanning decades showing that increased
| saturated fat consumption leads to elevated LDL-C and elevated
| LDL-C is causitively associated with higher rates of CVD. There's
| no reason to replace olive oil with butter and beef tallow.
| malkia wrote:
| Make Jerkey Without Sugar Again!
| Havoc wrote:
| Think it's telling that all the things shown first and most
| prominently in their food pyramid just so happen to have massive
| lobbies. Beef, Egg, Diary & chicken.
|
| Doesn't seem terrible but that already makes me very suspicious
| of the reliability of this
| crims0n wrote:
| Fish is also right there. They are all high quality, readily
| available protein sources. It should not be a surprise that
| they show up so prominently as a recommendation.
| jorblumesea wrote:
| All of this coming while the administration guts science funding,
| food inspections, vaccine guidelines, handouts to farmers
| producing nutrient poor foods, corporatist policies creating more
| food deserts.
|
| thoroughly discredits what they are trying to do, even if there
| is some good in here.
| sdo72 wrote:
| I don't think it's even about low carb vs. high protein to begin
| with. Many countries and regions in the world are fine with a
| high-carb diet, and people there live long, healthy lives.
|
| Americans eat so much processed food simply because it is much
| cheaper than fresh food. Processed food is made to get consumers
| addicted (through convenience, taste, etc.) and encourage them to
| consume much more. Fresh food is almost the opposite.
|
| I grew up in a country where freshly made food is actually
| cheaper than processed food, even to this day. People who stick
| to a traditional diet are mostly thin, while those who stick to a
| processed food diet gain a lot of weight.
| sallveburrpi wrote:
| This should be top comment
|
| When I was visiting the US I was shocked how much more
| expensive "real" food is. Here I am spending more if I eat out
| or processed food versus cooking my own food at home. In the US
| it was basically the inverse, didn't make any sense to me. (N=1
| and 10 year old experience, but it seems to have only gotten
| more extreme since)
| MrMember wrote:
| I don't see this at all. Staple foods are cheap and abundant.
| Fruits and vegetables don't cost much at all. Some animal
| proteins can get a bit pricy (beef mostly) but chicken and
| pork aren't that expensive. Eggs are like $2 a dozen.
|
| I love my meat but if I switched to a vegetarian diet it
| would be trivial to make varied, delicious meals at $1.50-$2
| a portion.
| iteria wrote:
| Where? It's $4 for a dozen eggs where I am and I think
| that's pretty cheap. It's $5 for a bag of shitty apples.
| And then another $5 for a bag of oranges, so my kid can
| have fruit for the week. I cook from nothing but fresh and
| my kid gets one bag of chips or cookies a week. I buy 2lbs
| of meat for us both. I still spend over 100 dollars.
|
| I guess we could have beans and rice every day, but I don't
| think it's a lot to give my kid a varied diet based on
| what's in season. Out of season is awful and that's how I
| ended up spending $15 on berries my kid wanted.
|
| When people talk about these cheap meals, I wonder if they
| just expect everyone to eat the same thing every day at the
| lowest quality. I can go to a budget grocery store and get
| $3 eggs. That's true, but I feel like the local national
| chain should ve a good enough yard stick.
| MrMember wrote:
| I do most of my grocery shopping at Target. In my large
| Midwestern city 12 large eggs are $2. A 3 lb bag of
| apples is $4. A 3 lb bag of oranges is $4.29.
|
| >When people talk about these cheap meals, I wonder if
| they just expect everyone to eat the same thing every day
| at the lowest quality.
|
| Eating cheap doesn't have to mean eating the same shit
| meal every day. I like to have a framework to work from
| where I have some structure but can vary it a lot based
| on what I want to eat. Rice+vegetable(s)+protein has
| endless variations. One week I might do a taco style rice
| bowl. The next maybe I do an Asian bowl. Stews are also
| great for this. By varying the ingredients a bit and
| using different spices I can get stews with very
| different flavor profiles that taste great.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| I bought 12 eggs from trader joe's yesterday for $2,
| organics were $5
|
| I get 18 eggs from another grocery store for about $5 and
| kroger has them really cheap too. Even Whole Foods has 18
| for $5-ish in one brand and much more $$ in another.
|
| Publix is the egg-gouger around me (and just overpriced
| in general)
|
| IMHO the same cheap whole food meals are healthier than a
| variety of $2 frozen dinners.
|
| You can hit a middle-ground with some frozen stuff to
| save a little time and money a few days per week too.
| poemxo wrote:
| The messaging on the website pretty much agrees with you, then.
| tensor wrote:
| Except for the incredibly wrong and bad advice that
| Americans, who already eat too much meat, should eat even
| more meat, sure.
| AstroBen wrote:
| > Americans eat so much processed food simply because it is
| much cheaper than fresh food.
|
| I don't understand how people come to this conclusion
|
| Beans/grains/legumes are cheap
|
| Frozen veg is dirt cheap (and retains its nutrition as good as,
| or better than fresh). In-season fruit and veg
|
| Which foods are more expensive?
|
| People are door-dashing their salaries away and complaining
| about the price of fresh food...
|
| Convenience and addiction makes more sense, certainly not price
| tensor wrote:
| Yes, but look at the comments. Americans are obsessed with
| meat. They actively believe that mostly meat diets are
| somehow much more healthy than mostly carb and vegetable
| diets.
|
| None of them want to eat only grains and vegetables, and meat
| is both the most expensive food and also the most damaging to
| the environment, which I guess is a second thing Americans
| seem not to care about.
| AstroBen wrote:
| Yeah you're right. Influencers have more, well, influence
| than scientists these days unfortunately
| frutiger wrote:
| Scientists have never really had that much influence.
| See: high priests, religion, politics, &c.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Something like 15% of the Americans I know are vegetarian
| or vegan. Though you've characterized the others well.
|
| I think we need more education around glycemic index.
| Protein and fats burn slowly enough that they're not going
| to spike your blood sugar. Many Americans think that
| they're the only nutrients with that property.
| jasonlotito wrote:
| > I don't understand how people come to this conclusion
|
| Then maybe you shouldn't speak on it until you understand how
| they came to this conclusion. Knowing you have opinions based
| on ignorance and refusing to change isn't a good way to live.
| AstroBen wrote:
| You're misunderstanding what I meant
|
| Put another way: it doesn't make sense for people to come
| to that conclusion because it's so obviously wrong if they
| actually check prices
|
| I then give examples
| iteria wrote:
| You are assuming access to a grocery store.
| Disproportionately poor people live in food deserts and have
| to rely on dollar stores and other things where fruit and
| vegetables are expensive.
|
| Also, if you are busy single person, basically anything not
| shelf stable is expensive because you have to buy it in high
| quantities and it will go to waste if you are not skilled at
| storage. I, a mature adult, know how to store things, but as
| a younger person things went to rot a lot from inexperience.
|
| Then there is prep. I spent literally all day on sunday just
| preparing food for the week. It's about 10-12 hours. That's
| what 2 hours a day to cook during the week. I have lied to
| myself and said, "oh, I'll cook something" and then eaten out
| all day from being busy or being exhausted. To save money
| stuff I could jam into the microwave was cheaper.
|
| This is how you get there. I cook from fresh vegetables all
| the time now, but I have the time and energy for it. That
| just wasn't true at all when I was younger.
| AstroBen wrote:
| > an estimated 13.5 million people in the United States
| have low access to a supermarket or large grocery store [0]
|
| That's 4% of the population. Food deserts explain some of
| it but not the majority
|
| The rest yeah I absolutely agree with. People are stressed
| and time deficient, don't have food storage and prep skills
|
| Maybe in a roundabout way it just comes back to money? If
| you need to work or study too much and don't feel you have
| the time to cook, you'll get the easiest options you know
|
| Part of it can be overcome with strategy. I spend 15
| minutes a day on food prep and couldnt imagine how I'd make
| my diet healthier. I'm sure what you make is much more
| elaborate though haha
|
| 0: https://www.ers.usda.gov/amber-waves/2011/december/data-
| feat...
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| > poor people live in food deserts
|
| food deserts are fake. In college I was poor and took a 45
| minute public transit commute (2 hops) to the shop-rite.
| Granny cart and all
| roncesvalles wrote:
| You're absolutely right but Americans don't consider rice +
| legumes (the standard international poverty meal) to be a
| "real meal" like the rest of the world.
|
| In general the American diet is very meat-based. Once you
| hold meat as constant, you realize that fast-food or
| ultraprocessed food are the cheapest way to get a meat-based
| meal. E.g. McDonald's is probably the cheapest way to buy a
| hot meal containing beef (and it used to be even cheaper, you
| could add fries+coke for just 50c in the past). A lot of poor
| Americans eat hotdog sausages, microwave meals etc just to
| get some kind of meat even if it's low quality.
| maxerickson wrote:
| Ready to eat food at larger gas stations has probably
| replaced some of the cheaper fast food.
|
| Why make 2 stops and all that.
| calvinmorrison wrote:
| for what it's worth, 7-Eleven(r) Bahama Mama is a high
| quality meat product from schmidts sausage.
|
| Same with their dogs, excellent stuff.
|
| Source: hot dog connoisseur and ex-cashier
| owenpalmer wrote:
| > fast-food or ultraprocessed food are the cheapest way to
| get a meat-based meal
|
| Are you sure? Let's take the example of the McDonald's Big
| Mac which is $6.72 [0]
|
| The between the 2 patties, the sandwich contains 25g of
| protein (not grass fed beef) per sandwich. It's fair to
| assume the majority of the cost of the ingredients of a
| burger is the meat. The rest is pretty cheap because you
| only need a small quantity of it to complete the meal.
|
| Here are prices of Costco grass fed beef patties: [1]
|
| 15 patties for $36.31 Each patty contains 26 grams of
| protein, which is more protein than both patties of the Big
| Mac combined.
|
| cost per patty = $36.31/15 = $2.42
|
| cost of Big Mac = $6.72
|
| That doesn't even come close to the majority of the cost of
| the Big Mac. I could do a full analysis of each ingredient,
| but I think it's clear from this data that fast food is not
| significantly cheaper, especially considering that the
| Costco patties are higher quality.
|
| Edit: formatting, and also burgers are super fast and easy
| to cook at home.
|
| [0] https://www.mac-menus.com/big-mac/ [1] https://sameday.
| costco.com/store/costco/products/20021199-ki...
| wildrhythms wrote:
| It's not just the price of the food, it's the time cost of
| going to the store, preparing the ingredients, cooking,
| washing dishes... You are looking at the issue through a
| myopic lens.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Not as bad as expected. Healthy fats and whole grains with lots
| of fruit and vegetables. Emphasis on minimal processing.
|
| It might even be better messaging than the healthy plate because
| it shows the foods visually which is what some people need to
| see.
| sneilan1 wrote:
| I'm so confused. Why would the United States care about people's
| health? It feels out of character for this administration given
| the times.
| bluerooibos wrote:
| It's a marketing campaign and that's all it is. Zero substance
| on the website about what they're doing to make sure more
| people actually eat like this.
| lloydatkinson wrote:
| Looks like a very good effort, shame some people will disagree
| with it just because it doesn't match their politics.
| zahlman wrote:
| Clearly, both political parties are incentivized to provide
| good scientific information, so that their voters will eat
| healthy food and their opponents will sabotage themselves. (I
| joke, but I do wonder just how bad the political climate has
| gotten. Of course, there are several other competing incentives
| in this, too.)
| bluerooibos wrote:
| What a brilliant marketing campaign for the Trump administration
| to look like they're doing something positive.
|
| Yet, I see absolutely nothing on this website to suggest how they
| are going to change American diets. Do they think these
| guidelines don't already exist somewhere?
| jesse_dot_id wrote:
| Yeah, I don't feel comfortable with anything this government says
| for at least the next few years. It doesn't matter how sound the
| advice is. There is an agenda baked into everything.
| pedalpete wrote:
| This reads to me as protein first, then veg.
|
| American's don't seem to have a protein restriction problem. Look
| at your average burger, it is mostly meat, a bit of lettuce, and
| a bunch of low-quality bread.
|
| I had a "salad" in SF when I was visiting, it was the largest
| chicken breast I've ever seen, a bunch of bacon and I had to
| practically go searching for the few leaves of spinach.
|
| Lastly, is it really the guideline that are going to help, or is
| it accessibility?
| scwilbanks wrote:
| The guidelines are good, but to make a real impact, we need a
| federally funded k-12 breakfast and lunch program that is free
| for all students.
| didibus wrote:
| The only change from the previous dietary recommendations that I
| can see is that they recommend a bit of a smaller portion of
| veggies and a bit of a bigger portion of protein. Everything else
| seems exactly the same.
|
| Am I missing something?
|
| It also seems like the bigger protein portion over veggies is
| strangely what I would expect from someone on TRT...
| kkaske wrote:
| In a way, "eat real food" functions less as scientific advice and
| more as a cultural signal. It could be seen as a rejection of
| industrialized diets and all the complexities around that. The
| idea of "Eat Real Food" might be a better default when you are
| hungry and looking for food. I guess time will tell.
| spruce_tips wrote:
| wow, it's almost like this makes sense
| ixtli wrote:
| Wow thank god it's my fault im sick and i can make personal
| choices to stop chronic conditions! I was worried it might have
| something to do with material conditions i live in but also can
| not control, or worse that i might require medicine! Relatedly
| its a great thing that "real food" access isn't class-based.
| seizethecheese wrote:
| Really strange comment. You're offended by the implication that
| what we eat may impact our health?
|
| Regarding the class comment, sure a access to some food is
| class based, but pretty much all westerners can afford basic
| "real food". I know because I've lived on minimum wage and
| could buy eggs, rice, beans, chicken thigh, etc.
| tombert wrote:
| Not the person you're responding to, but the thing that
| frustrates me isn't that they're saying to eat healthy, but
| that they're acting like that's the _only_ thing we need to
| change, while actively deregulating pretty much everything
| else that _also_ affects health.
|
| Yes, obviously what we eat affects our health, I don't think
| that's ever been in dispute by any significant number of
| people (despite what the inbreds who love RFK Jr. seem to
| think), but part of the frustration is that they're acting
| that that can solely explain _all_ chronic illnesses,
| ignoring things like air pollution (which they are actively
| deregulating).
|
| Oh, also, RFK Jr. telling people to eat at Five Guys because
| they fry their fries in beef tallow is really dumb and is
| likely to lead to worse health outcomes.
| NewJazz wrote:
| Wait I thought that was shake shack, not five guys? Don't
| five guys use peanut oil...???
| tombert wrote:
| I think it was Steak and Shake, I think you're right.
| Sorry.
|
| Point still stands.
| dazhengca wrote:
| Way too much scroll jacking for me to be honest, probably the
| worst site I've seen of their team, but still for government site
| not bad
| malectro wrote:
| Drives me nuts that people still build these in 2026. Scroll
| animations should only ever be used to supplement existing
| scrolling. If scrolling is replaced entirely by an arbitrary
| animation, there's no longer anything to anchor the action, and
| basic UX feels broken.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Phew! Finally Americans can stop eating according to the old
| dietary guidelines! Everyone clear out your pantries and fridges
| and get with the new hotness. Those old guidelines, you see, were
| the cause of all of the obesity and poor health!
|
| ...wait, you mean to tell me extraordinarily few Americans
| actually listened to guidelines? That this is all performative
| nonsense?
|
| Honestly, it isn't as ignorant as I expected (although it of
| course pushes for "whole milk" and other bits of ignorant
| advice), but it's basically playing on the ignorance of the
| readers. Americans already eat some of the most amounts of
| protein worldwide -- yet of course proclaims an imaginary "war on
| protein" strawman -- yet also are one of the fattest and least
| healthy countries.
|
| People actually following the prior guidelines in earnest would
| likely be in great metabolic shape. But Americans don't: They
| gobble cheeseburgers and drink a dozen cokes and complain that
| stupid big medicine is trying to con them, while reciting some
| nonsense a supplement huckster chiropractor told them on YouTube.
| mattanimation wrote:
| I just learned there is a .gov design studio... la what?
| MinimalAction wrote:
| I liked the new guidelines given here [1]. However, I disagree
| with the protein target recommendation. Feels way too much for a
| normal healthy adult with reasonable activity.
|
| > _Protein target: 1.2-1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per
| day._
|
| [1]: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf
| kibitzor wrote:
| Agreed, this protein target is high for likely many people.
|
| Results from this meta-analysis [1] says
|
| > _protein intakes at amounts greater than ~1.6 g /kg/day do
| not further contribute RET [resistance exercise
| training]-induced gains in FFM [fat-free mass]._
|
| Said more plainly: if you're working out to gain muscle,
| anything more than 1.6g/kg/day won't help your muscle gains.
|
| For those curious about why, see Figure 5. Americans also get
| too much protein already, ~20% more than recommended [2]. There
| are negative effects from too much protein (~>2g/kg/day) like
| kidney stones, heart disease, colon cancer [3]. Going back to
| the 1.2-1.6 g/kg/day range, this can be a good range if you're
| already working out, so get out there and walk/run/weight
| lift/swim/bike!
|
| [1]: https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/bjsports/52/6/376.full.pdf
|
| [2]: https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/protein-is-important-but-
| were-...
|
| [3]: https://www.health.harvard.edu/nutrition/when-it-comes-to-
| pr...
| justinai6 wrote:
| Protein is way underated for overall health that 1.2-1.6g per
| kg of body weight (0.54-0.73g per pound) seems about right but
| its mostly directly related to lean mass. Most people don't
| realize how much they actually need.
|
| There's a lot of misinformation and stereotypes surrounding
| protein consumption--often portrayed as something only for
| bodybuilders and fitness enthusiasts.
|
| But for people aging, people looking for strength, folks
| looking for reducing fat and feeling more full. Protein is
| extremely helpful
| nektro wrote:
| i dont have the expertise to say whether this is good info but
| its nice to see other folks saying it is. but a government
| website being one of these scrollbar hacks is atrocious
| kayge wrote:
| The new pyramid looks like a decent step in the right direction,
| and as other commenters have already mentioned: better
| definitions of "highly processed" vs "real food" might be helpful
| (but I think most of us probably have a fairly clear idea of what
| they mean).
|
| Two more things I think should be considered:
|
| 1. Change the Nutrition Facts labels to say "Lipids" instead of
| "Fats". Seems like no matter how many times "fat doesn't make you
| fat" is repeated, many people are still scared of consuming fat.
|
| 2. Reconsider or recalculate the old 2000 calorie per day
| guidance. I have no actual data to support this -- fitness and
| nutrition self-experimentation is just a hobby of mine -- but I
| have a feeling that the "Average American" (which may also need
| to be defined somewhere) probably only needs around 1500 calories
| per day to maintain a healthy weight. There is obviously a wide
| range of needs depending on height, activity level, occupation,
| etc. but I feel like if someone is considering a 500 calorie
| treat, it would be more helpful if they thought "wow this is 1/3
| of my daily calories... maybe I should split it with a friend"
| instead of "meh this is only 25% of my daily calories <chomp>"
| kayo_20211030 wrote:
| Good God! There's too much scrolling involved. Is this some
| cunning way to make me exercise?
| smy20011 wrote:
| According to
| https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf, their
| recommendations do not meet their calories goal. Eg, for 2000
| calories, you can eat 4 egg, 3 cup of milk, 4 slice of bread, 2
| apple and 3 tbsp of oil per day.
|
| Total calories will be 1,608 kcal/day.
|
| It's a very depressing diet menu.
| GloamingNiblets wrote:
| This is exactly what I eat every day and I am phenomenally
| happy and successful.
| tolerance wrote:
| For those who are wondering: https://klim.co.nz/fonts/die-
| grotesk/#information
|
| I think Kris Sowersby is my favorite contemporary typographer.
|
| https://klim.co.nz/collections/untitled/
| https://klim.co.nz/collections/tiempos/
| https://klim.co.nz/collections/soehne/
| cdrnsf wrote:
| I couldn't finish scrolling to the bottom of this site. The
| performance is awful and all of the animations are extremely
| jarring.
|
| Nutrition is important, but this administration's health policy
| under RFK Jr. is an unmitigated disaster.
| dillydogg wrote:
| I really don't see how this is so different than what
| nutritionists have said for years. This reads as if the guans
| before was to drink soda and eat fat free candy all day. The
| three sentence dietary guidance still holds:
|
| 1. Eat food 2. Not too much 3. Mostly plants
|
| Though the government's position seems to be at odds with #3. I
| would encourage more beans and greens, personally.
| maelito wrote:
| Bullying Europe but hoping to live like Europeans.
| _qua wrote:
| The most important dietary intervention most people need is just
| eating less. The content of what they eat is secondary. It's not
| unimportant, it just matters less when you are still wildly
| overweight.
| exabrial wrote:
| Hijacking the scroll wheel, even in 2025, is still unbelievably
| annoying. Please stop.
| nkmnz wrote:
| Anyone else disappointed because they didn't show the Swanson
| Pyramid Of Greatness?
| teiferer wrote:
| Also, don't vaccinate your kids against measles.
|
| And if you happen to run over a bear cub, drive it to Manhattan
| and dump it in Central Park.
| klik99 wrote:
| Is there any effort to make real food more affordable for most
| Americans?
|
| Is there any proof that "much of chronic disease is linked to
| diet and lifestyle"?
|
| Is our bar so low that we give RFK credit for saying "eat real
| food" which everyone knows, while cutting vaccination
| recommendations, defunding public health and making our health
| care worse? The implication that chronic illness is a "lifestyle"
| problem is victim blaming, sure you can point to a lot of
| individual cases where this is the case, but the main issue is
| access to good, affordable food. I'm convinced the one thing that
| ties the varied MAGA coalition together is a belief that the
| problems of modern America are moral failings of the masses. Many
| of the coalition truly believe it, and the people rigging the
| system are more than happy to fund them to distract from their
| looting, just as the sugar industry funded blaming fat for
| obesity.
|
| I don't like to be this righteous on HN, but RFK wagging his
| finger about how "diet and lifestyle" causes most chronic
| disease, which is where 90% healthcare costs go to, just upsets
| me. If you truly believe that, then who cares if people suffer
| from chronic disease. Go ahead and gut public health and the CDC,
| most people with chronic diseases brought it upon themselves!
| Doctor says "Eat Real Food".
|
| The only hope I have is that he's committed enough to battle
| lobbyists and introduce more food regulations, like he did with
| food dye. That's the tough work, against entrenched power
| structures and real risk. Until then, it's all just talk.
| zaptheimpaler wrote:
| Seems like bog-standard stuff doctors and books have been
| recommending for decades now. Canada has had a food plate like
| this [1] for a long time. It's a good step forward but I wonder
| what the actual implications are. How many people didn't already
| know this, how much does it change behavior and how will it
| impact other government programs?
|
| [1] https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/
| nice_byte wrote:
| "We're ending the war on protein"
|
| WTF is this even referring to? literally everyone here is
| _obsessed_ with their protein intake, regardless of whether
| they're a meat-eater or not. of all the things America's at war
| with, protein is definitely not one of them.
| gowld wrote:
| Unreadable clunky website.
| dbg31415 wrote:
| > Protein target: 1.2-1.6 grams per kilogram of body weight per
| day.
|
| Since this is an official US government website, are we now
| officially using metric?
| jonplackett wrote:
| Diet advice is always way too complex.
|
| For most people 'stop drinking sugary drinks ever' would probably
| make the biggest life change.
|
| And 'the athletes plate' would be the runner up bit of advice if
| you want something simple - half th plate veggies, 1/4 complex
| carbs, 1/4 unprocessed meat.
|
| If you want to do it with complexity, count your macros.
| agumonkey wrote:
| Cutting sugar is worth trying for many. Even for a few days.
| You really sense your brain realign on more subtle tastes. And
| when you finally eat the usual snack or pastry you can feel the
| sudden overload of sugar (or at least your brain response to
| it). something you probably never did when sugar intake was
| high
| toyetic wrote:
| Agreed. I'm all for the government trying to help by
| setting/updating guidlines and I actually agree with the
| guidelines but ultimately any general advice boils down to -
| eat a balanced diet of whole grains fruits vegetables and meat,
| and don't eat so much of it, just enough to feel full. IMO any
| specifics on what specifically to/to not eat isn't helpful
| unless it's tailored specifically to someone's lifestyle.
|
| Basically like you said, telling someone to not drink sugary
| drinks, stop eating out as much as possible and be more active
| is the only general advice really needed
| cobalt wrote:
| unprocessed meat? as in taking a bite out of a cow?
| ElijahLynn wrote:
| This has way too much emphasis on meat. Watch Secrets of the Blue
| Zones on Netflix, and Gamechangers. We can get most of not all
| our protein from whole plant foods. And plant foods have a ton of
| phytonutrients that are proven to protect against certain
| cancerous.
|
| We need to eat real plant food.
| claymav wrote:
| Looks nice. Very wordy and boastful for such a simple message.
| konne88 wrote:
| This must be the first good looking government website I have
| ever seen.
| yamal4321 wrote:
| .gov
|
| Uhm... Skip
| smeej wrote:
| To all the people saying this doesn't go far enough to change
| things: Of course it doesn't. This is a symbolic beginning, not
| the whole project.
|
| Things like the composition of school lunches were determined for
| years by the recommendations that formed the shape of the food
| pyramid. What gets subsidized with SNAP and WIC was determined
| for years by the recommendations that formed the shape of the
| food pyramid.
|
| The depiction of the recommendations does get fixed in people's
| minds. And then when actual guidelines come out for things that
| actually matter, like food programs, people expect them to
| correspond to what they know of the guidelines.
|
| It's not that different from any corporate rebranding
| announcement. They show you the new direction they want to take
| the company with new imagery. You don't laugh and roll your eyes
| and say, "Suuuuure. Show us some new pictures. That'll fix it."
| You evaluate the direction the imagery says they're trying to go
| to decide if you think it's an improvement.
|
| So, is eating "real food" like meat, vegetables, and fruit an
| improvement over a diet based on (especially processed) grains
| for people's health? Of course it is.
|
| I'm not a fan of this government (or anyone else's, really), but
| I also think the people who are most likely to take this
| administration's word for it on something like dietary change are
| statistically among the people who would most benefit from this
| kind of dietary change, so I sincerely hope this works, and I'm
| glad to see they're trying to steer it this way. Even if the damn
| pyramid is upside down and looks like a funnel.
| throwaway_5633 wrote:
| Sounds like meat producers may have lobbied for this, fearing the
| quickly diminishing costs of lab-grown meat, expect lab-grown
| meat to be labeled "high-processed therefor bad" as soon as it
| becomes widely available.
| brikym wrote:
| Tax Fake Food?
| fogzen wrote:
| The "Reducing Saturated Fat Below 10% of Energy and Risk of
| Coronary Heart Disease" research appendix says they purposely
| excluded any study before 2010. Why? Also they only included
| randomized-controlled trials that lowered SFA below 10%. Why 10%?
| bobmcn wrote:
| This Saturated Fat below 10% requirement is a direct
| contradiction of the earlier requirements to include more meat
| and whole fat dairy. You can't do both.
| fogzen wrote:
| To be clear, the research appendix claims their review of
| RCTs does _not_ support SFA intake correlated with coronary
| events or mortality, and thus does not recommend reducing
| saturated fat below 10% of energy.
| globalnode wrote:
| companies and special interest groups run your country
| cdrnsf wrote:
| How do you build what amounts to a brochure website and send
| ~10MB+ over the wire?
| banbangtuth wrote:
| What does 1 serving here mean?????????
| Fischgericht wrote:
| What I am missing in this pyramid are brain worms. Brain worms
| are real food! Don't fall for the ultra-processed glue sniffing
| practice all scientists wrongly had been recommending you. Have a
| proudly american-made brain worm instead.
| ropable wrote:
| On the face of it, this initiative seems like solid nutritional
| advice. On the other hand, I'm a little dismayed to see animal
| protein sources given equal billing to vegetable and fruit on
| their new pyramid, and whole grains placed right at the bottom
| (below butter!) It's my understanding that people in the
| developed world already over-consume animal proteins to a large
| degree.
|
| On the other hand: it's not like anyone ever followed the old
| food pyramid either. I'm now over here waiting with baited breath
| for the US federal govt to introduce some kind of regulation
| around the amount of additional sugar, salt and fats in processed
| food sold in the US (which makes up a large proportion of what
| people are eating right now).
|
| The food landscape is complex and multi-factorial. I hope that
| they follow up with other initiatives to improve nutrition at a
| population level, like regulation and nutrition programs.
| lanfeust6 wrote:
| We can do away with "pyramids". Canada's food guide for instance
| is pretty good https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/. Aside from lots
| of veg, you can balance the rest.
|
| The Americanised diet had a heavy emphasis on refined carbs,
| added sugar, added fat, and no fibre. Thats a far cry from whole
| grains and pulses, which have been researched extensively and are
| thought to be healthy.
| kyledrake wrote:
| I would love to see some evidence for the huge increase in
| protein on this new pyramid. I'm not challenging it, I'm
| genuinely curious if there's substantial evidence that a lot of
| it is actually good for most people.
| hopelite wrote:
| Something this does not actually seem to address is that even our
| "real food" is also polluted with massive glyphosate. And no, it
| is also something that is a massive problem in Europe, including
| meat, which does not get as regulated as vegetables and fruits,
| so levels can often be even higher.
|
| This young woman did an excellent explanation of the overall
| state of things in a YouTube video, for anyone that wants an
| intro. https://youtu.be/s64PNMAK92c
| diego_moita wrote:
| Why would I even pay attention to guidelines from a government
| that wants to make political warfare in everything when the
| worldwide consensus on healthy diet is the so called
| Mediterranean Diet?
|
| The world needs less America. Even in food guidelines.
| briandoll wrote:
| Pretty rich for the administration that deregulated OSHA and
| massively harmed our ability to ensure food safety to tell people
| literally anything about food.
| lbrito wrote:
| That is one atrocious website. Couldnt get past the second fake-
| slide, so slow and broken it was
| susiecambria wrote:
| There are so many things wrong with this website and the
| underlying arguments, assertions, etc., as others have pointed
| out, I will simply say that according to
| https://www.accessibilitychecker.org, the site is not compliant.
| Which doesn't surprise me in the least, but it is a good reminder
| that this is not a serious administration.
| zamadatix wrote:
| If only HN would look at this too.
| ShakataGaNai wrote:
| Its unfortunate the way modern politics has gone. I see this site
| and am immediately suspicious. What bullshit is there? What
| ulterior motive should I be concerned about?
|
| Rather than reading it, assuming it was fact based science. Maybe
| not the best because governments never get things 100%.... but at
| least able to trust it. Now specifically because this is RFK's
| MAHA world, I assume everything on this site is a lie.
|
| After reading through it I don't see anything terrible or
| stupidly over the top. Yes, more proteins and vegetables good,
| less heavily processed foods.
| doug-moen wrote:
| This is Trump's MAGA diet, a replacement for the lame liberal DEI
| diet of the Biden administration. Not hyperbole, the web site
| states all this explicitly if you click through to this link:
| <https://cdn.realfood.gov/Scientific%20Report.pdf>
|
| The Scientific Report mentions Trump 4 times, so I looked up
| Trump's diet. Seems he eats a lot of McDonalds takeout and drinks
| a lot of diet coke. It seems to me that Trump's diet is an
| exemplary and healthy diet that follows these new
| recommendations, which prioritizes foods such as beef, oils and
| animal fat (including full fat dairy) and potatoes. Cheeseburger
| and fries, and the diet coke avoids added sugar, while promoting
| hydration. Trump might be prickly about past criticism of his
| diet; now he can point to these recommendations.
| burnt-resistor wrote:
| Drink raw milk, get antibiotic-resistant e. coli, salmonella,
| and/or listeria.
|
| Cooking is processing. Pasteurization is processing. Not all
| processing is "bad".
|
| To be consistent with their supposed "values", then they have to
| end subsidies for field corn, wheat, and soy and subsidize
| organic produce. That will never happen because these are
| lifestyle influencers playing bureaucrat when they don't know
| anything.
| perhapsAnLLM wrote:
| The website is beautiful, but I'm so tired of landing pages that
| require me to scroll for eons to see all the content, chunk by
| chunk. It's aesthetically gorgeous, but painfully impractical.
| dvrp wrote:
| https://youtu.be/fIGXkh6S8Zw?si=QiVtewrkPY85FgQi
| toomim wrote:
| South Park predicted it AGAIN
| CHB0403085482 wrote:
| Eat less meat
|
| https://www.mondaycampaigns.org/meatless-monday
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FWWe2U41N8 (no meat)
| hk1337 wrote:
| I really don't like web site designs that take control of things
| like my mouse wheel. This site isn't just scrolling down, it's
| advancing the presentation which in most places is moving down.
| raybb wrote:
| Does anyone have a recommendation for a good course to take to
| learn the basics of nutrition. I've done some very very simple
| ones from my insurance company for a small incentive but looking
| for something more serious and rooted in current scientific
| consensus (which I hear is not always so clear when it comes to
| nutrition).
| kentbrew wrote:
| Beef <= cows <= corn <= fertilizer <= oil. It always circles back
| to oil.
| TheAlchemist wrote:
| I like the title - average food in the US is absolute shit - both
| in taste and from health perspective. It doesn't even taste like
| real food most of the time. Just like sugar with some flavour...
|
| I don't get the 'For decades we've been misled' though - what
| guidance prioritiezed highly processed food ? From the look on
| both pyramids, they pretty much recommend the same things, in
| different proportions (more proteins now, less carbs) - but I
| don't think any reasonable guidance promoted highly processed
| sweet carbs before.
| hahahahhaah wrote:
| Nice one... so they look like heros for maybe $100k or $1m spent
| on a website that is like a hackathon showcase. But what action
| are they taking? Is junk food going to be taxed. Are they making
| healthy food more affordable?
| SamDc73 wrote:
| I see a lot of people complaining about red meat.
|
| It's not the healthiest food, but it's a much weaker risk factor
| than diets high in processed foods (including processed meats),
| refined carbs, added sugar, and excess salt.
|
| For adults (25-64), the biggest diet-linked contributors to
| cardiometabolic death were sugar-sweetened beverages and
| processed meats. [1]
|
| also form the paper:
|
| High sodium intake - ~66,000 deaths (9.5%)
|
| Low nuts & seeds intake - ~59,000 deaths (8.5%)
|
| High processed meat intake - ~57,000 deaths (8.2%)
|
| Low seafood omega-3 intake - ~54,000 deaths (7.8%)
|
| Low vegetable intake - ~53,400 deaths (7.6%)
|
| Low fruit intake - ~52,000 deaths (7.5%)
|
| High sugar-sweetened beverage intake - ~51,000 deaths (7.4%) Low
| whole-grain intake - ~41,000 deaths (5.9%)
|
| High unprocessed red meat intake - ~2,900 deaths (0.4%)
|
| (Full table is on page 5 of the linked paper)
|
| [1] https://episeminars.web.unc.edu/wp-
| content/uploads/sites/754...
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Agreed, much of the angst towards "meat" or "red meat" really
| ought to be stated as carcinogenic nitrosamines . When you cook
| nitrate rich red meat at high temperatures you get nitrosamines
| (less when you use herbs like rosemary) ...
|
| Meat has it's own internal ranking: Fish, boneless skinless
| chicken, low fat red meat cuts, high fat red meat,
| processed/preserved red meats (like sausage, bacon, sandwich
| meat etc) ... We should shift left in our meat consumption.
| habosa wrote:
| Are these protein guidelines legit? I'm 200lbs (I'm tall) so
| they're recommending 100-150g of protein per day. That feels like
| a lot...
| Ch4otic wrote:
| Definitely. I'm 235lbs atm, and eating 183g of protein a day.
| It's pretty easy if your lunch/dinner is protein based.
|
| https://help.macrofactorapp.com/en/articles/83-how-much-prot...
| bilsbie wrote:
| I worry this will cause people to try to treat their health
| problems with food instead of trusting the medical system.
| wvlia5 wrote:
| Optimize your diet with my app
|
| https://matiasmorant.github.io/nutrition/
| ubicomp wrote:
| Is there a note about glyphosate here? I don't see it.
| cvbnmb wrote:
| This is the only good idea that has or probably will come out of
| this administration, and it's still flawed:
|
| - Despite folic acid in processed foods causing ADD and other
| problems in those with MTHFR mutations like me, folic acid does
| help prevent birth defects.
|
| - The U.S. doesn't produce, transport, or store sufficient
| quantities of organic fresh food to feed the entire country, nor
| would schools all have access to it.
| kristopolous wrote:
| 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 releases, claiming victory...
|
| 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.
|
| Just because you might like the results doesn't mean they aren't
| corrupt as hell
| gnarlouse wrote:
| The irony is Tyson's is an absolutely horrendous organization
| and ruins food left and right. Not to mention the absurd living
| conditions for the animals they feed us.
| nhumrich wrote:
| Might be corrupt, but is at least closer to truth then the last
| corrupted version. Let's not let perfect be the enemy of
| progress
| kristopolous wrote:
| The incentives are wrong. Any good policy for bad incentives
| is temporary and incidental
|
| This policy selectively emphasizes the most difficult to
| import foods so it also plays into isolationist nativist
| policies.
|
| If you think meat lobbying groups just wanted a new triangle
| and this isn't going to extend to water, land, energy, and
| environmental policies along with farm subsidies and even
| merger&acquisition and liability policies, sorry ...
|
| This thing is for them, their profitability and their
| investors. They didn't lobby on behalf of your personal
| health...
|
| Open a position on the MOO ETF. I just did. Might as well
| make some money from it
| frinxor wrote:
| wrong incentives, good outcomes? is there a world where the
| long term outcomes are also good, or at least much better
| than the current ones?
|
| also, hi there! (da from oblong)
| kristopolous wrote:
| Sure. What about the public citizen efforts for crumple
| zone and seat belts in the 1960s?
|
| Or are you saying bad incentives, good long term
| outcomes?
|
| Maybe Napoleon's rework of Paris? That was done to
| control public dissidents but it also made it a beautiful
| city.
|
| Mass timekeeping? Those were adopted for industrial
| labor... Seems to be quite useful
|
| Joint stock ownership was I think invented for the slave
| trade but that's proven to be generally useful.
|
| I think magnetic audio tape was made practical for a
| deceitful technique by the Nazis for claiming to be
| broadcasting live on the radio after they had fled...
|
| In each of these instances though the thing long outlived
| the initial user
| bilbo0s wrote:
| > _but is at least closer to truth then_ [than?] _the last
| corrupted version_
|
| I'm pretty sure you did the rhetorical equivalent of looking
| at a roomful of pregnant high school girls..
|
| .. and declaring one of them to be closest to virginity.
| didibus wrote:
| Is it? The change in recommendation is to have less veggies
| in favor of more meat. From all the recent research and meta
| studies I've seen it doesn't track.
|
| It's still decent a guidance, but the previous one was as
| well.
| hallole wrote:
| The first food group listed is literally meat and dairy.
| The ordering here is purposeful, too, as they admit. One
| promo graphic includes a block of butter and a carton
| explicitly labelled "whole milk." This is a very definite
| downgrade.
| keleftheriou wrote:
| Why is that a downgrade?
| smaudet wrote:
| Dairy/Meat are both inflammatory and overconsumption
| contributes to a whole host of medical disease.
|
| Some protein is obviously desirable, but the ratios, like
| anything else in chemistry/biology, are paramount.
|
| I don't think the USA has a problem with under
| consumption of meat and dairy. If anything, it has a long
| standing overconsumption problem.
| toxik wrote:
| The relationship between dairy/meat and inflammation is
| more nuanced than that. While some studies show
| associations with inflammatory markers, others find
| neutral or even anti-inflammatory effects depending on
| the type (e.g., grass-fed vs grain-fed, fermented vs non-
| fermented dairy) and individual metabolic context.
|
| You're right that ratios matter enormously, but optimal
| ratios vary significantly by individual - genetics,
| activity level, metabolic health, and existing conditions
| all play roles. The overconsumption concern is valid for
| processed meats and in the context of sedentary
| lifestyles with excess calories, but the picture is less
| clear for whole-food animal proteins in balanced diets.
|
| The real issue might be less about meat/dairy per se and
| more about displacement of other beneficial foods (fiber,
| polyphenols, etc) and overall dietary patterns. Many
| Americans do overconsume calories generally, but some
| subpopulations (elderly, athletes, those on restricted
| diets) may actually benefit from more protein.
| genewitch wrote:
| why is meat inflammatory? is it they way it's
| farmed/raised?
|
| because we have teeth specifically designed to get _meat
| off bones_ and animals that don 't eat meat and weren't
| "designed to" don't have teeth designed to clean meat off
| bones. and that's just one i came up with, off the cuff.
|
| if it's current farming practices that make the
| meat/dairy bad for us, then fix that. But i don't
| currently believe there's a greater health benefit to
| taking a ton of supplements to replace the missing
| nutrients that meat and dairy give us that you absolutely
| cannot get from vegan diets without it becoming a
| monotonous pain in the neck.
| GenBiot wrote:
| I think they mean in the sense of pro-inflammatory. Which
| it very much is (especially red meat).
| donbrae wrote:
| You can get all the nutrients you need, easily, from a
| vegan diet, with the exception of B12 (a cheap supplement
| will cover that).
|
| Also, human 'canines' are pretty pathetic. They'll do the
| job in getting meat off bones, sure, but are nothing
| compared with my dog's teeth - he has proper canines. (He
| also doesn't have to prepare and cook meat before tucking
| in. Humans are actually pretty lame meat eaters even in
| comparison to other omnivores like dogs, let alone
| carnivores like lions.)
| genewitch wrote:
| vitamin D? unless you live within 10 degrees of the
| equator "the sun" is not a valid answer.
|
| The most available form of vitamin D comes from
| extracting the oil from sheep's wool/skin using chemicals
| (soap is a chemical, for the record.) Yes, it is possible
| to get a much weaker form of D from mushrooms, but not
| _as they arrive_ , regardless of packaging. they have to
| be left outside in the sun for at least 8 hours, but
| ideally "two full days in the sun", cap-side up (facing
| the sun), and then a standard mushroom will have enough
| D2 for the average adult, maybe. I don't know the
| specific conversion from D2 to calciferol or whatever.
|
| And before anyone decides to cite 30ng/ml or whatever as
| "recommended", i disagree, 90-105ng/ml is more "ideal"
| and 500IU of vitamin D supplements aren't going to cut
| it. it's 1 IU per 10 grams of body mass (roughly).
|
| i can do this all day, it's a waste of both of our time.
| As lovely as vegetarian/veganism is in the abstract, the
| entire planet cannot be vegan any more than the entire
| planet can subsist off insects.
| aziaziazi wrote:
| Some herbivores too have huge canines[0] for territorial
| fights. I used to use mine to fight my brother but now
| I'm settled they only help tearing appart coconut,
| cowliflower and seitan.
|
| 0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_deer
| didibus wrote:
| > why is meat inflammatory? is it they way it's
| farmed/raised?
|
| Not all meats are inflammatory. Processed and high temp
| cooked meats especially red are.
|
| And I don't think we have the answer fully to why, but we
| know the lesser processed it is the better, and I believe
| I've seen some things about grass fed and all these more
| organically/traditional made meats seem to not be as
| inflammatory.
|
| Also, we evolved during a period where we hunted, so even
| the idea of farmed meet maybe isn't really part of our
| evolution. But also, during our hunting evolution, we
| likely didn't have meat at every meals. Plus if you ever
| had game meat, it tastes really different and often isn't
| as good as what we farmed. So we kind of came to farm
| what tasted the best and was easy to farm, so it might be
| those meats aren't as good for us.
|
| Also, you can't always assume that the environment we
| evolved in and the "natural" state is good for us. It
| wasn't bad enough for us to dwindle in numbers, but our
| population count was kept much lower than now and our
| life expectancies were shorter. As long as we made it to
| a healthy reproduction state evolution doesn't care. So
| all these inflammatory issues appear starting in your 30s
| and really become a problem much later in life. It's
| possible this didn't matter in evolutionary terms.
|
| Lastly, you also have to take into context what else we'd
| do/eat. If our diets were more balanced than other things
| we would eat could neutralize some of that inflammation
| and meat has other vitamins and nutrients that are
| benefitial, but if someone cuts those other things out of
| their diet now the inflammation could become a problem.
|
| So it's all more nuanced and complex.
| ChrisGreenHeur wrote:
| That explains the great olympic track record of India.
| didibus wrote:
| I think generally people are optimizing for health
| outcome and longevity, not peak athletic performance at
| your prime age.
|
| But also, I've seen people often assume vegetarian or
| vegan diets are "healthy". But many people in India for
| example will still eat a lot of refined carbs, added
| sugars, fat heavy deep fried foods, large volumes of ghee
| or seed oils, etc. And total avoidance of animal products
| can also mean you have some deficiencies in nutrients
| that can be hard to obtain otherwise.
|
| A plant-forward diet is more specific, like the
| Mediterranean diet, which itself isn't at all how your
| average Mediterranean person eats haha. But it involves
| no processed foods, no added sugar or excessive sugar,
| diverse set of nutrients by eating a balance of veggies,
| legumes, nuts, seeds, meats, dairy, fish, and so on all
| in appropriate proportions, as well as keeping overall
| caloric intake relatively low.
|
| It's quite hard to eat that way to be honest haha.
| yehat wrote:
| Look - what do you expect from the vegans? To like it?
| From that comment I hear the pure "horrors". Meat! Whole
| milk!!! Can you imagine such crime! Sorry, I couldn't
| hold myself.
| hallole wrote:
| Meat and dairy contain the bulk of the saturated fat in
| the average diet. It's pretty absurd to imagine a diet in
| which the largest food group is just meat and dairy, but
| due to the ordering, that almost seems to be implied.
|
| The saturated fat - LDL-C - heart disease relationship
| has a lot of evidence and history behind it. A very
| interesting research project if you needed one. I call
| this advisory a "downgrade" because heart attack and
| stroke (among other conditions) are both: 1) downstream
| of saturated fat consumption, and 2) the most prevalent
| causes of death among people in the developed world.
| cogman10 wrote:
| It also very prominently shows red meat, which is the
| worst you can do.
|
| fish > poultry > red meat. (Fish and poultry can be
| swapped, mercury is a real problem).
|
| But really if you are looking for the healthiest proteins
| then you really can't do much better than nuts and beans.
|
| Red meat beyond having a lot of links to heart disease is
| also linked to cancer. It should be seen as a treat, not
| the main thing you should be consuming.
| Amezarak wrote:
| > It's pretty absurd to imagine a diet in which the
| largest food group is just meat and dairy
|
| There's nothing absurd about this at all, this is my diet
| and my LDL numbers are great.
| dokyun wrote:
| > It's pretty absurd to imagine a diet in which the
| largest food group is just meat and dairy
|
| Ever look at Mongolian cuisine? That's the bulk of what
| they eat. Most of those guys seem pretty healthy to me.
| didibus wrote:
| One thing I think we should better emphasize is that it's
| best to avoid foods that are bad for you, than to eat
| foods that are good for you. If you can't do both, you
| should focus on cutting out bad foods over eating
| healthier foods.
|
| Meat (non-processed, no sugary sauce or gravy), and dairy
| (plain, fermented, no added sugar). Those are kind of
| "neutral" foods. If that's all you eat, meaning you don't
| eat any crap, you're much better off health wise than if
| you eat crap and try to also eat a bunch of veggies,
| fish, fruits, legumes, etc.
| ANarrativeApe wrote:
| "The first food group listed is literally meat and
| dairy."
|
| that's because the pyramid is presented pointy end down.
| cmoski wrote:
| Butter is king. It should be pictured with a crown, stars
| and glitter.
|
| Surely whole milk is better than less-than-whole milk?
| tomp wrote:
| You're literally just lying.
|
| The first thing shown on the website is - broccoli.
|
| The top of the pyramid includes both protein (meat,
| cheese) as well as fruits & vegetables.
|
| The reason that meat is shown first is probably that it's
| the bigger change (it's been demonized in previous
| versions), whereas vegetables were always prominent.
| simiones wrote:
| The first thing on the website is indeed broccoli. But
| the first thing in the new inverted pyramid, both on the
| website and in other graphics of it, is meat. In fact, on
| the website, when you first get to "The New Pyramid",
| you'll first see only the left half, the one that has
| meat and other proteins; you'll have to scroll more to
| see the right half with vegetables and fruit.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| I don't think it is meant to read left to right but top
| to bottom. Chicken and broccoli are top center, and that
| is the standard weight lifter meal plan. That said, human
| dietary needs vary individually by far more than any
| lobbied leaders will ever communicate.
| hallole wrote:
| The website is animated, so there's no question of which
| direction to read in, the left side literally pops up
| first lol. I can't lie, I miss websites that stood still,
| this could've just been a PDF.
|
| BTW, you say "lobbied leaders" -- if you're talking about
| the scientists who have their names on this report, you'd
| be very correct. The "conflicting interests" section has
| loads of references to the cattle and dairy industries.
| didibus wrote:
| The only difference from the previous guidance is that
| it's suggesting eating more meat and dairy, which would
| come at the expense of veggies, legumes, nuts and seeds.
|
| To be honest, I don't totally disagree from a practical
| angle. I think we have to acknowledge that most Americans
| failed to eat large portions of non-processed veggies,
| legumes, nuts and seeds. The next best thing might be to
| tell them, ok, at least if you're going to eat meat and
| dairy in large portions, make sure it's non-processed.
|
| I've found for myself, it's hard to eat perfectly, but
| it's easier to replace processed foods and added sugar
| with simpler whole meats, fish and healthy fats like
| avocado, eggs, etc. And since those have higher satiety
| it helps with calorie control and so you avoid eating
| more snacks and treats which are heavily processed and
| sugary.
|
| That said, in a purely evidence based health sense, it's
| not as good as the prior ratios from what I've seen of
| the research.
| kristopolous wrote:
| And that's going to dictate nationwide purchasing policies
| for things the the 30 million school lunch meals, million
| prisoners...
|
| This is worth millions of dollars a day and we're sold it
| as common wisdom from the mom and pop country doctor.
| troupo wrote:
| Kids in the US will no longer be served reheated pizza
| and chocolate milk?
|
| Whatever the incentives, go for it
| genewitch wrote:
| the rectangular pizzas were never "reheated". i have
| copies of the recipe cards to make enough trays of pizza
| to feed a school using the industrial kitchen appliances
| they have in schools.
|
| and whatever your issue is with chocolate milk, can you
| link a recent survey that shows the percentage of say,
| americans, that have had 1 or more glasses of water in
| the last month? a glass being at least 8floz (1/4 liter
| or so)
|
| i'm leaning toward "most people don't drink enough, if
| any, water; furthermore most people are probably varying
| levels of dehydrated", at least in the US. The fad of
| carrying water with you everywhere was lambasted into
| obscurity, at least in the american south. Anecdotally,
| many people have told me they drink 64 ounces a day,
| because diet coke counts and so does beer.
|
| that a kid is getting a fortified delicious drink they
| enjoy is fine by me.
| troupo wrote:
| In a lot of schools "industrial equipment" is used to
| reheat frozen foods.
|
| As for chicolate milk: there's probably as much added
| sugar in it as in a can of Cola. Definitely not something
| kids should consume daily.
| astura wrote:
| >As for chicolate milk: there's probably as much added
| sugar in it as in a can of Cola
|
| There's no way this is true, so I looked up nutrition
| facts-
|
| A 12oz can of coke has 39g added sugars and chocolate
| milk has 6 grams added sugars for the small cartons they
| have at schools.
|
| This is the first chocolate milk I found -
| https://www.kleinpeterdairy.com/products/fresh-delicious-
| mil...
|
| In other words, coke has more than six times the added
| sugar as chocolate milk in containers that they are
| readily available in.
|
| Btw, Mountain Dew has 46 grams sugar per can.
| troupo wrote:
| According to https://www.usdairy.com/news-articles/how-
| much-sugar-is-in-m...
|
| Milk Sugar Content (per 8 oz. serving): 24 grams sugar
| (12 grams natural sugar, 12 grams added sugar)
|
| According to https://www.nhs.uk/live-well/eat-well/food-
| types/how-does-su...: Adults should
| have no more than 30g of free sugars a day,
| (roughly equivalent to 7 sugar cubes).
| Children aged 7 to 10 should have no more than 24g
| of free sugars a day (6 sugar cubes).
|
| So one small carton they have at school has 30% of an
| adult's daily intake of added sugar.
| astura wrote:
| What's your point? What does that have anything to do
| with the comment you're responding to?
| troupo wrote:
| My point is that no, chocolate milk isn't healthy at all.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| But that wasn't your point at all. You said:
|
| > As for chicolate milk: there's probably as much added
| sugar in it as in a can of Cola.
|
| Your own follow-up comment proved this to be false. No
| need to dig in further.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| And here in largely vegetarian India, everyone is now
| pushing for more protein and meats because a vegetable-
| heavy diet has been awful for our public health
| genewitch wrote:
| has your government published any science on this? being
| completely serious, i'd like to read it. Is India mostly
| vegetarian because of lack of access to farms/meats,
| religious reasons, financial, or what? I didn't know it
| was largely vegetarian. I don't know i had an idea of the
| ratio or that it would be different than any other
| country.
|
| Apparently the Mediterranean also is largely vegetarian.
| at least the eponymous diet is.
| simiones wrote:
| Most branches of hinduism condemn meat eating, so this
| has created a significant pressure against meat
| production (same as you'll find little production of pork
| in the Middle East and North Africa). This is not
| universal, of course, because historically many regions
| of India had large meat-eating muslim populations as
| well.
|
| Note that this is typically lacto-ovo-vegetarianism, not
| veganism.
| galangalalgol wrote:
| Maybe home cooking is, but every restaurant meal I bhave
| eaten near the Mediterranean had seafood or cheese in it.
|
| Edit: you said vegetarian not vegan, and yeah lot of
| pasta dishes are vegetarian but not vegan.
| badgersnake wrote:
| Well if you cook the vegetables in litres of ghee that'll
| happen.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| If you don't cook vegetables in plenty of fats, you will
| end up feeling unsatiated - at least the vast majority
| would if that's their only meal
|
| Salads are great, but eat them 7x a week for 2x meals a
| day and most will end up binge eating some absolute trash
| just to feel full
| throwaway2037 wrote:
| > because a vegetable-heavy diet has been awful for our
| public health
|
| I think the biggest health issue with India's vegetarian
| food is too many carbs.
| cogman10 wrote:
| Carbs and butter.
|
| If you look at a lot of the indian vegetarian dishes
| you'll find things like potatoes fried in butter being a
| staple.
|
| Chickpeas and yogurt do make a showing, but a lot of
| indian dishes are devoid of vegetarian protein sources.
| You need a lot more beans/nuts if you want to eat healthy
| as a vegetarian.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| If you want to actually get full and satiated with a
| largely vegetarian diet, you will eventually resort to
| carbs
|
| And this is for a culture that really knows how to make
| smashingly good vegetarian dishes
|
| I love my vegetables, but a vegetable-heavy diet is
| clearly not something that everyone can or should do. The
| people I know who retain their health with
| vegetarian/vegan diets are usually really well-versed in
| nutrition
| Ar-Curunir wrote:
| Even if Indians ate 2x the meat that they do now, they
| wouldn't consume anywhere as much as Americans do.
| _Increasing_ meat consumption in America is not
| necessary.
|
| India would do well to consume more protein, and the US
| would do well to consume less
| jibal wrote:
| The last corrupted version had the same person at its head.
| dottjt wrote:
| Isn't every single policy a result of some kind of lobby group?
| Are you saying that it's corrupt because it's been influenced
| by a lobby group? Would all policies then be corrupt to some
| degree? Or is it corrupt because you disagree with the lobby
| group?
| paulryanrogers wrote:
| Not all lobby groups are asking for harmful things. But
| nearly always they act in their own short sighted self
| interest. Which usually comes at the expense of citizens or
| the would be customers or competitors.
|
| Which is why sane countries make paying for access and
| influence illegal.
| pear01 wrote:
| So, that would be corrupt because you don't agree with it
| then?
|
| Which are these sane countries? How do you think lobbying
| should work then? Everyone should get equal access? Hunter
| and gatherer man was egalitarian like that. Afaik it is a
| universal feature of civilization that this eventually
| breaks down. Of all the existent modes of dealing with this
| problem, money is probably one of the better ones compared
| to some historical or even contemporary alternatives. I
| actually will be very surprised if you come up with a
| single country that credibly makes "paying for access and
| influence illegal" as that is pretty much the history of
| all of human civilization, but I would welcome being
| surprised.
| kristopolous wrote:
| I'm a realist. All these comments were saying "oh this is
| good they're doing this for my personal health" and I thought
| "oh, no no no. That's not how this works..."
| dottjt wrote:
| Why do the two have to be mutually exclusive though? Why
| can't something healthy also not also happen to benefit
| corporations/lobby groups?
| immibis wrote:
| If something was beneficial to shareholders and to
| everyone else, it already happened.
| hiQloIQ wrote:
| No reason to believe their numbers either given the shenanigans
| they have engaged in.
|
| We need to be smart and not knee jerk into feel good memes
| though. Local gardens and community gardens have higher
| resource use per acre than large farm ops. Commercial farm
| infrastructure is far more resilient and lasts longer while
| consumer gardening gear is cheap and disposable. Consumer
| gardening gear manufacturers factories burn tons of resources
| to crank out tons of low quality kit, consumers burn through
| piles of it. That's not sustainable either.
|
| Plus you really want the average American dumping chemicals in
| community ground water to grow the biggest pumpkin in the zip
| code?
|
| Americans need to find common ground on the path forward not
| fragment into tens of millions of little resource intensive
| potato farmers
| bamboozled wrote:
| That's how Japan works...how horrendous ?
| brigandish wrote:
| Japan is not a model to follow.
| bamboozled wrote:
| Been doing it the same way for centuries so, care to
| elaborate on what's wrong with how they farm?
|
| Also, just because their setup isn't optimal, doesn't
| mean it's the cause for some ecological crisis like you
| seem to be implying. I live in Japan, I watch people farm
| every year, there is very little going on that makes me
| suspect there is some wide-spread ecological damage being
| done by people who want to grow massive pumpkins, even
| though, people do grow massive pumpkins.
|
| You telling everyone that gardening is bad for the
| environment is interesting because I absolutely cannot
| imagine what is worse for the environment than the
| industrial scale monocrop style farming that goes on most
| developed countries. Like, holy shit...
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| People need to eat and industrial scale farming is what
| enables us to make enough, affordable food.
|
| It has plenty downsides. But it's a brilliant and truly
| efficient system that is being perfected by thousands of
| scientists and it has prevented hunger and chaos for
| decades now.
|
| If you want to see real change, people would need to have
| _way_ more time, be less lazy, have more money and be
| less demanding when it comes to variety and availability.
|
| In other words, it's easier to keep perfecting the system
| we have because it's easier to change procedures than it
| is to change people.
| johnisgood wrote:
| "enough, affordable food" makes me think of all the food
| waste we have. I do not think that food scarcity is an
| issue.
| murderfs wrote:
| > Been doing it the same way for centuries so, care to
| elaborate on what's wrong with how they farm?
|
| You're talking about the same Japan that's had rice
| shortages for like two years now, right?
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > Local gardens and community gardens have higher resource
| use per acre than large farm ops.
|
| It amazes me how few people are cognisant of this very
| obvious and important fact.
| NPC82 wrote:
| The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the produce
| harvested but the knowledge sowed. Many are federally funded
| at schools, community centers, or local libraries to serve as
| outdoor classrooms.
| mlrtime wrote:
| That's great, but they cannot feed a nation 100% or even
| close for long periods of time.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| They can help educate a nation on which are the
| healthiest foods to eat, how to prepare them, what they
| taste like, etc. That may allow us to more healthily feed
| a nation 100%, while also using fewer resources.
| rayiner wrote:
| > The value of smaller gardens are not measured in the
| produce harvested but the knowledge sowed
|
| No, it should be measured in terms of amount of input
| relative to the amount of output. It's almost never the
| case that small farms is going to be more efficient--not
| only cost wise, but for the environment--than large scale
| farming.
| neuralRiot wrote:
| > Plus you really want the average American dumping chemicals
| in community ground water to grow the biggest pumpkin in the
| zip code?
|
| Just because it's out of sight doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
| Industrial farming and specially animal farming is one of the
| most polluting industries, subsidized to produce
| environmental damage, population diseases and animal abuse.
| hallole wrote:
| > "grass fed, free range... Because agribusiness doesn't make
| money with those."
|
| They actually make a considerable amount on those last two
| items, taking advantage of those who want to consume meat more
| ethically.
|
| (Though, in reality, "grass fed" and "free range" are both
| misleading terms, and none of the meat on offer is likely to be
| humane.)
| begueradj wrote:
| They also received financial aid depending on the land
| surface they have (at least in Europe)
| zdc1 wrote:
| I was wondering why meat and veg were side by side, rather than
| vegetables being at the base. The new pyramid is still better
| than the old one, but not completely intellectually honest...
| flowerlad wrote:
| Better than the old one in what way?
| gardnr wrote:
| I'm not zdc1, but they may be referring to the previous
| advice that included more grains than fruit and veg
| combined. From a design perspective, it is an interesting
| choice to mix food groups on the same level of the pyramid.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_pyramid_(nutrition)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPlate
| davorak wrote:
| > previous advice that included more grains than fruit
| and veg combined
|
| I have not seen the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice and
| pasta at the base pushed for at least ~20 years. Maybe it
| was 25-30 years ago when I saw it pushed seriously in
| school and even then I did not see people taking it
| seriously outside of those lessons, as in people actively
| calling it questionable.
| genewitch wrote:
| do you think they market those pyramids to adults, or to
| children?
| davorak wrote:
| I asked it else where but
|
| > Where in the world was this old pyramid still being
| pushed?
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46538456
| genewitch wrote:
| > A person is most likely to see a food pyramid poster in
| an elementary or middle school classroom, cafeteria, or
| hallway, where it was commonly displayed as an
| educational tool during the 1990s and 2000s to teach
| nutrition.
|
| the first one was in 1982 or something, so you have
| nearly 3 whole generations who were exposed to it (X,
| Millennial, and Z). I really can't tell if you're
| actually incredulous; because all the nutrition stuff is
| told to schoolchildren. Adults don't use a chart, they
| use self-help books.
| rcxdude wrote:
| Yeah, but 2000 was 25 years ago. There's multiple
| generations who haven't been exposed to it, so this is
| not replacing the food pyramid, it's replacing what
| replaced the food pyramid.
| genewitch wrote:
| only 1 generation has _completely_ escaped the one from
| "25 years ago" - Alpha; and another generation is
| incoming; and if the new poster sticks around, a couple
| of generations will see the new one, too.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> the first one was in 1982 or something_
|
| The first one came out in 1992, and was active until
| MyPyramid came out in 2005. Which was then active until
| MyPlate came out in 2011.
| genewitch wrote:
| you're correct, my eyesight gets worse as the day goes on
| and i saw the second "9" as an 8. that only partially
| reduces the impact from my claim of X, Millennial,
| Zoomer; as i am gen X and i was still in "middle school"
| when the food pyramid came out, and my millennial sister
| assuredly was. the older Gen X (from the early 1970s) may
| or may not remember (as in an only child and childless
| until after the poster was no longer used) this from
| their younger years in classrooms.
|
| My main point was (i think!) that really the only people
| seeing these posters on a regular basis are
| schoolchildren. I think i've seen the pyramid a dozen
| times in the last 20 years, on cereal boxes or websites
| or whatever, but if you don't recognize it, it's easily
| written off. Maslow also had a pyramid, etc.
| davorak wrote:
| I would be interested in knowing what cereal box you saw
| it on or where you saw it promoted seriously in the last
| 20 years.
|
| In the late 90s I was in high school in a town with less
| that 80k people in the middle of the congenital USA and
| the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice and pasta at the
| base was not seriously pushed, or taken seriously, at
| school or when it came up outside of school.
| jefftk wrote:
| _> I have not seen the pyramid with bread, cereal, rice
| and pasta at the base pushed for at least ~20 years._
|
| Thats right. It was replaced 20 years ago by
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPyramid
| davorak wrote:
| That is what I found on my quick search too. I am pretty
| sure I saw some alternatives to the bread, ... based
| pyramid before 2005 as well.
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> 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, rearing and pasturing,
| didn't change because they were already "free range" and "grass
| fed". Half of the farmland in the US is pastureland and leaving
| animals in the field to eat grass was always the cheapest way
| to rear and grow them. They only really get fed corn and other
| food at the end to fatten them up for human consumption.
|
| The dirty not-so-secret is that free range/grass fed cows eat
| almost the exact same diet as regular cows, they just eat a
| little more grass because they're in the field more during
| finishing. They're still walking up to troughs of feed, because
| otherwise the beef would be unpalatable and grow quite slower.
|
| True grass fed beef is generally called "grass finished" beef
| and it's unregulated so you won't find it at a supermarket.
| They taste gamier and usually have a metallic tang that I quite
| honestly doubt would ever be very popular. The marbling is also
| noticeably different and less consistent. Grain finished beef
| became popular in the 1800s and consumers in the West have
| strongly preferred it since.
|
| I'm not sure you can even find a cow in the entire world that
| isn't "grass fed". Calves need the grass for their gut
| microbiomes to develop properly.
| messe wrote:
| > Grain finished beef became popular in the 1800s and
| consumers in the West have strongly preferred it since.
|
| Don't conflate the US and the "west".
| throwup238 wrote:
| _> Don 't conflate the US and the "west"._
|
| I only vaguely said "the West" because I didn't want to get
| into the complexities of subsistence farming, regional
| quirks, and pedantics like "soybeans hulls are often
| considered roughage".
|
| About a third of beef in the world is truly grass finished
| and two thirds of that is subsistence farmers who can't
| afford the grain. Most of the rest comes from Australia,
| Brazil, and New Zealand because it's more competitive to
| leave them in pasture than import the grain.
|
| As much as you may want to hold your nose up at the US, the
| (vast) majority of beef sold in the world is grain finished
| and has been for a long time. It's just more economically
| competitive and people strongly prefer the taste and
| texture.
| urban_winter wrote:
| > and people strongly prefer the taste and texture.
|
| ...and _people in the USA_ strongly prefer...
|
| Although, I don't know how solid the evidence for even
| that statement is.
| throwup238 wrote:
| If you want solid evidence you can read a book on the
| history of animal husbandry. Roman sources include Cato
| the Elder, Columella, and Varro describe how they used
| supplemental grains to get cows through the winter and
| provide oxen enough energy to work (and to feed cavalry
| which would have been completely impossible without
| them). Humanity has been feeding grains to cattle for
| _thousands_ of years, likely prehistorically.
|
| Then in the first half of 1800s a bunch of American
| farmers with an abundance of corn independently
| discovered that they could grow bigger cows for slaughter
| in half the time if they fed them grains instead of
| roughage like hay or grass. That idea quickly spread to
| Europe and by the time the green revolution and
| globalization rolled around in the second half of the
| 20th century, almost every body started doing it.
|
| This isn't some new phenomenon. It predates the
| globalization of agriculture and if you were to ask a
| random farmer around the world whether they feed their
| cows a ton of grain they'd look at you like you were
| asking a very stupid question.
|
| It'd be like asking "do plants _need_ fertilizer?" Yes.
| If you want to feed the world, yes they do.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| You've argued that grain is fed to cattle; which was not
| in question.
|
| The parent questioned whether the use of grain for
| finishing was down to a demand based on consumer taste
| preference.
|
| You've done nothing that would move them from their
| position of questioning the evidence here.
|
| The detail you do provide shows grain feeding increases
| yield for farmers, which would be an indicator that it is
| financial benefit to herd owners that drives the use of
| grain; potentially moving away from your assertion.
|
| Angus beef is very popular in UK, I'm relatively sure
| it's grass fed?
| throwup238 wrote:
| That is not at all what the GP was asking because this:
|
| _> ...and _people in the USA_ strongly prefer...
|
| Although, I don't know how solid the evidence for even
| that statement is._
|
| Is completely incoherent in the context of the thread and
| I just did my best to answer the two words "solid
| evidence."
|
| However you make a good point. There is a chicken and egg
| problem here between consumer taste and farmers
| optimizing their yield. I don't have an answer, but I
| invite you to compare them yourself, if you ever get the
| chance to eat grass finished beef versus a high end
| ribeye. Or something like wagyu/kobe where they're fed
| almost exclusively rice mash or grains.
|
| As for "angus beef" no that doesn't mean anything. The
| US/UK/EU don't have any meaningful regulations about
| those marketing terms.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >Is completely incoherent in the context of the thread
|
| Ah, well it seemed cogent and straightforward to me: the
| OP suggested that your indication that grain feeding was
| driven by consumer taste preference seemed to lack
| evidence.
|
| It seems like something that will have been tested
| (certainly for low-n values), it also seems likely to
| vary by culture/region substantially.
|
| One of my "if I were in charge" ideas is for origin marks
| that provide all information about inputs into any
| product made available for sale. Under sight a system one
| could look up whether the farmer bought grain feed.
| subsistence234 wrote:
| where is the mythical land of people that prefer gamey
| metallic beef?
| creshal wrote:
| Wherever it they're finding people in charge of canteen
| menus.
| messe wrote:
| > As much as you may want to hold your nose up
|
| I don't. I just take issue with your grouping.
|
| For what it's worth I grew up in a country that would be
| considered western where grass-fed is the default.
| throwup238 wrote:
| "Grass fed" is the default everywhere because calves
| can't survive otherwise. All cows spend most of their
| lives feeding on grass.
|
| Where exactly did you grow up? Without that detail "grass
| fed" is as meaningful as "cow goes mooooo"
| strken wrote:
| I live in Australia and about half our beef production is
| apparently grass-finished. I believe what we get in the
| supermarket is more likely to be grain-finished, but I've
| definitely bought steaks with the telltale grass-finished
| yellow fat from Woolworths before. My understanding is
| that it's more about rainfall and seasonal feed than the
| particular flavour of one or the other.
|
| For the record, I also think calling grass-fed beef
| gamey, metallic, and saying it's unlikely to be popular
| (like the top-level reply did) is an overstatement. The
| most prominent thing is the different coloured fat. The
| taste isn't hugely different, probably because our grass-
| finished beef still gets enough feed.
| uncletscollie wrote:
| Do you hold your pinky out while you eat your "grain-
| finished" beef?
| underdown wrote:
| Grain finished has higher fat content. Better marbling
| and generally grades higher. Wagyu is grain fed for a
| reason.
| rapsacnz wrote:
| Most Beef in New Zealand is fully grass fed and it
| tastes...real. Some people would say "Gamey" others say
| "Actually has some flavour"
| throwup238 wrote:
| Like I said in a reply to the sibling comment, that's a
| regional quirk (taste). Most of the beef exported from NZ
| to the US goes to meat products like burgers.
|
| Australia is more interesting because it's 50% grass
| finished but I could never find a source on how much of
| that was exported to SEA or US and what products it went
| to.
|
| Another country that predominantly grass finishes is Brazil
| but they export mostly to China. Again I couldn't find a
| source on how much of exports to the US go to meat products
| (we source a lot of our hamburger meat and pet food from
| random countries). I remember in all three cases very
| little is exported to the EU.
| swiftcoder wrote:
| > Like I said in a reply to the sibling comment, that's a
| regional quirk (taste
|
| It's a "regional quirk" that applies to far more of the
| world than US tastes, by my reckoning. Even within the US
| you'll find plenty of people who don't prefer bland beef,
| and outside it's just... some parts of Western Europe
| that share the bland obsession?
| worik wrote:
| Have you a source?
|
| In NZ the cattle stand around in paddocks in all weather's
| with no shelter, but how do you know they are not fed
| supplementary feed?
|
| Dairy herds almost all are
| thorin wrote:
| Cows and sheep in the UK (and I guess much of Europe) wander
| round outside all year round and I guess are eating almost
| entirely grass. You can't go for a walk in the countryside
| without coming across them constantly. Most of the beef you
| buy in the shops (not talking about processed foods) is
| produced in the UK.
| huijzer wrote:
| Isn't Brazil a big beef exporter too? [1]
|
| [1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/china/brazil-surpassing-
| us-top...
| pjc50 wrote:
| Detail in there: during winter, UK livestock are sometimes
| fed silage, which is grass that has been harvested during
| the summer and partially fermented. UK is majority local
| production, but there's significant imports from Ireland.
|
| People talk a lot about water and land use, but if you have
| the conditions of land that is (a) naturally watered and
| (b) not flat enough for arable farming, using it for
| livestock is much more environmentally friendly than, say,
| feeding them imported soy - leaving only the methane
| problem.
| Someone wrote:
| > Cows and sheep in the UK (and I guess much of Europe)
| wander round outside all year round
|
| Probably most of them, but definitely not all of them.
| https://nltimes.nl/2025/08/18/dairy-cows-netherlands-
| never-g...: _"The total number of dairy cows in the country
| reached 1.5 million last year. Of these, over 460,000 cows
| --roughly 31 percent of the national herd--did not spend
| any time outside"_
|
| A factor with cows kept for milking is that you want them
| to be able to walk to the milking robot at all times, and
| moving food to where the robot and the cows are can be
| easier than moving the robot to where the food and the cows
| are.
| faizshah wrote:
| Dairy in the UK also tastes far better than in the US.
| British people often comment how hard it is to deal with
| the dairy in the US which tastes like water in comparison.
| glenstein wrote:
| >Agribusiness absolutely makes money off of those.
|
| I took the heart of their point to be about local food
| infrastructure and co-ops and farmers markets, and the grass
| fed bring cited insofar as it was complementary to those.
|
| You rightly note that "grass fed" beef is effectively the
| same as "made with* real cheese", technically true even if
| it's in the parts per millions, and not at all a signal of
| authenticity it might seem to be at first glance. But I feel
| like this is all a detour from their point about local food
| infrastructure.
| Hnrobert42 wrote:
| 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.
| HelloMcFly wrote:
| 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.
| worik wrote:
| Interesting
|
| In New Zealand dairy herds are routinely fed all sorts of
| supplemental feed (palm kernel leftover from pressing
| palm oil, imported from Indonesia is particularly
| popular, with cows as well as farmers I guess) yet the
| products are labeled "grass fed" because the cows are
| kept in bare paddocks with grass underfoot.
|
| The cows have no shade nor shelter from storms and would
| be much better off in herd homes, but cheapness and very
| little care for animal welfare
| jaapz wrote:
| > because otherwise the beef would be unpalatable
|
| [citation needed]
| gbasin wrote:
| I don't believe that's true with 100% grass fed beef
| nradov wrote:
| So what you're saying is that it's at least a small
| improvement over the previous situation. Seems like a win
| regardless of who is making money.
| babarock wrote:
| What he's saying is that the grandparent (top-rated as of
| this writing) comment claiming that agribusinesses are
| hiding the benefits of "community gardens, local food,
| farmers markets, grass fed, free range..." because they
| don't make money off of them is unfounded.
|
| I personally don't have any insight into the situation and
| I definitely don't want to defend big businesses, I'm just
| explaining what you're replying to.
| nerdponx wrote:
| > 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.
|
| This is a material win for humane treatment of animals as
| well as the health of the consumers who aren't eating the
| stress hormones of a tortured large mammal. The price
| difference isn't even that big. Of all the things to complain
| about in the meat industry, this is not top of mind in my
| opinion.
| overgard wrote:
| Thanks for the interesting perspective! I'm curious, is the
| metallic tang because of iron content or somethig else?
| arrowleaf wrote:
| > 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.
|
| And this is exactly what people have wanted, and are willing
| to pay a premium for.
| 125123wqw1212 wrote:
| Right off the bat, "prioritizing protein" is already smelling.
| hxtk wrote:
| There's some real science there for a couple of reasons.
| Protein is a macronutrient you can be malnourished if you
| don't get enough of even if you eat enough calories and the
| right micronutrients, and if most of your calories are from
| protein then you're actually probably not getting as many
| "burnable" calories as you think you are because (1) the
| amount of protein you need to meet your daily protein needs
| never enters the citric acid cycle to oxidized for ATP
| regeneration, (2) protein is the macronutrient that feels the
| most filling, and (3) excess protein that goes to the liver
| to be converted into carbs loses around 30% of its net usable
| calories due to the energy required for that conversion.
|
| The way we count calories is based on how many calories are
| in a meal vs the resulting scat, and that just isn't an
| accurate representation of how the body processes protein
| such that a protein-heavy diet doesn't have as many calories
| as you probably think it does, which makes it a healthy
| choice in an environment where most food-related health
| problems stem from overeating.
|
| However I agree with your skepticism insofar as when they say
| "prioritizing protein" they probably mean "prioritizing
| meat," which is more suspect from a health standpoint and
| looks somewhat suspicious considering the lobbyists involved.
| reverius42 wrote:
| Most Americans get plenty of protein without trying. It's
| hard to see how eating more meat should help unless you
| think the amount of protein actually needed is much more
| than what the May Clinic thinks:
| https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-
| health/speak...
| DangitBobby wrote:
| The "without trying" people probably aren't going to make
| much use of a food pyramid anyway. The guidelines are
| more aimed at people who will try.
| tzs wrote:
| I fail to see the significance of your link to a group that
| opposes animal experimentation asking RFK Jr to reduce animal
| experimentation. Did you paste the wrong URL For the first
| link?
| stef25 wrote:
| It's crazy how people are incapable of seeing something
| positive in the actions of the tribe they don't belong to.
| telmo wrote:
| 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 if you can't see that he does some good, then you are the
| one who is irrational and not really in a sound state of
| mind." Meanwhile completely preventable, life-threatening,
| life-destroying diseases such as measles are back because of
| the obscurantist beliefs that come with this "new refreshing
| outlook". This is a bit like saying: "look, you can say what
| you want about the Spanish inquisition but they kept rates of
| extra-marital affairs down."
|
| Corporations love this sort of feel-good campaign (the same
| way they love performative LGBTQ / feminism / diversity when
| the culture wars swing the other way) for two main reasons:
| (1) they distract from fundamental issues that threaten their
| real interests; (2) they shift the blame on big societal
| issues completely to the public. They do this with climate
| change, they do it with increase of wealth inequality and
| they most certainly do it with public health.
|
| All developed nations have a problem with processed food.
| Granted, it is particularly severe in the USA, but the ONE
| THING that separates the USA from almost every other
| developed nation in our planet is the absence of socialized
| healthcare. This is the obvious salient thing to look at
| before all others, so also obviously, a lot of money will be
| spent to misdirect and distract from this very topic.
| akoboldfrying wrote:
| > 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.
|
| I'm not sure you appreciate how _symmetrical_ this
| statement is. You are on Team A, saying it about Team B,
| but nothing in the statement actually depends on that
| permutation of teams -- it could be equally compellingly
| said by a Team B member about Team A.
| khazhoux wrote:
| Yes, but my team is 100% right about everything.
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| >If the actions and beliefs of a group are fundamentally
| morally repugnant to me,
|
| sure, although if tribal differences are always experienced
| as fundamentally morally repugnant one might think the
| moral calibration is screwed a bit too tight.
|
| >I think that it is reasonable to not expect me to be able
| to find "something positive" in it.
|
| Sure, I do think it is possible that some groups are so
| morally repugnant that they have absolutely nothing to
| offer whatsoever. For example that tribe of cave dwelling
| cannibals in the film The 13th Warrior, man those guys
| sucked! But the comment seemed more to be about how it is
| weird that when you find some group does some things that
| you find morally repugnant then they have nothing they do
| that can ever be good.
|
| I have lived in places in which I find much of the
| surrounding culture to have behaviors that I found morally
| repugnant, or intellectually repugnant for that matter, but
| even at my most contemptuous of a culture and a people I
| will at times be forced to admit, honestly, that they have
| behaviors that can also be considered admirable (in many
| cultures the repugnant bits are so tightly bound to the
| admirable bits though I can see how it is difficult not to
| condemn everything)
| SecretDreams wrote:
| > sure, although if tribal differences are always
| experienced as fundamentally morally repugnant one might
| think the moral calibration is screwed a bit too tight.
|
| They're not always experienced this way. But that's the
| trend in America.
|
| > but even at my most contemptuous of a culture and a
| people I will at times be forced to admit, honestly, that
| they have behaviors that can also be considered admirable
|
| Ya, I think it's something along the lines of "even a
| broken clock is right twice a day".
|
| Do I need to give out a cookie when the clock tells me
| the correct time if it's fucking me on the time the rest
| of the day?
| bryanrasmussen wrote:
| Even a developmentally disabled human tends to be
| significantly more complex than a stopped clock so the
| analogy doesn't work well.
|
| if anything it is more than a computer with a lousy video
| and sound card, you don't use it for games or streaming
| movies or most things, but due to some other things
| (which I am not going to take the time to create a
| plausible scenario why this should be) the computer is
| actually really superior as a server, so you have set it
| up for that. Do you give out a cookie for the computer
| that works really well at serving content over port 80
| despite it sucks for anything you enjoy?
| SecretDreams wrote:
| > Even a developmentally disabled human tends to be
| significantly more complex than a stopped clock so the
| analogy doesn't work well.
|
| I think it works perfectly, honestly. Maybe moreso after
| the above statement.
|
| > Do you give out a cookie for the computer that works
| really well at serving content over port 80 despite it
| sucks for anything you enjoy?
|
| No, I do not. Nor does the server ask for a cookie. It
| just does its job consistently without making a fuss. If
| governments could do that bare minimum thing, the world
| would be a better place.
| WackyFighter wrote:
| > 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.
|
| No it isn't reasonable. In fact it is one of the stupidest
| things you can do. If you read any history, you will see
| that failures in military, politics, science etc. (really
| pick anything) are often due to key people simply refusing
| to learn from their opponents and/or refusing to adjust to
| the new reality. Often this is done because they find their
| opponents morally repugnant, or lacking in some virtue they
| happen to hold as important.
|
| It is fine if you don't like the current US Administration.
| However if they do something that happens to be good, it is
| fine to acknowledge it as such, while still pointing out
| what else they are doing wrong. Otherwise you just come off
| as a sore loser and people will stop taking any notice of
| you.
| bigfudge wrote:
| I think this is true, and the broad sense of that website
| is an improvement on what went before, so we should
| acknowledge that. But it's also right that people point
| out the moralising tone and connect other administration
| actions and policies with an assessment of whether these
| principles will be backed by policies that actually make
| any difference in real life. My suspicion is that this
| will be part of an effort to further stigmatise people
| damaged by the industrial food industry without doing
| anything to make healthy food cheaper or more accessible,
| but I'd love to be wrong!
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Well done. This might be one of the most childish comment
| I've read all day.
|
| This give off an air of virtue signalling to the extend of
| self destruction. Almost funny thinking about it.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| Try re-reading your comment and applying the same rubric.
| GlacierFox wrote:
| Thanks for the tip. Just re-read it. Didn't have same
| effect. Anything else?
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| Nothing else. Enjoy arguing with and insulting strangers
| on the internet.
| prometheus76 wrote:
| Those diseases are back because of rampant immigration.
| People from other countries bring them here. It has nothing
| to do with "obscurantist beliefs", whatever those might be.
| nradov wrote:
| 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.
| jimkleiber wrote:
| I was surprised how impressed I was by the website. The
| layout, design, focus on simple foods.
|
| I think the person above may just feel skeptical of the
| scientific and medical opinion of most of the people running
| the US government. I know I do. When I read "gold-standard
| science and common sense," I rolled my eyes. Because the
| previous news cycle said they don't think meningitis vaccines
| are important for kids, yet say they follow gold-standard
| science. It's hard for me to reconcile the two.
|
| EDIT: "rooted in...personal responsibility."
|
| "America is sick. The data is clear. 50% of Americans have
| prediabetes or diabetes 75% of adults report having at least
| one chronic condition 90% of U.S. healthcare spending goes to
| treating chronic disease--much of which is linked to diet and
| lifestyle."
|
| It also has this moralizing tone, and seems to make some
| pretty bold claims about why Americans have prediabetes or
| diabetes. For example, with the introduction of GLP-1 drugs,
| like Ozempic, people (including some I know well) have
| significantly reduced their diabetic risk. And they're still
| eating the same processed foods.
|
| Also, "linked to diet and lifestyle" is a pretty broad claim.
| Maybe the undersleeping and overcaffeinating actually matters
| more for increased appetite and desire to eat less healthy
| foods.
|
| In short, I just don't trust many people when they say health
| is so inextricably and exclusively tied to food source,
| especially when they tend to think most vaccines are net
| negatives for individuals and society.
| eloisant wrote:
| The website is good information, and if it came from a NPO
| is would be great... But the US government has so much
| power (and responsibility) to protect the US consumers from
| the food industry.
|
| - Ban some of the ingredients like they did for trans fat
|
| - Force better labeling, like the Nutri-Score in France and
| EU
|
| - Tax the more unhealthy choices so they don't become the
| cheapest solution - and maybe use that tax money to
| subsidize healthier alternatives
|
| This site looks like they're just shaming the consumers for
| falling for the tricks the government allows the food
| industry to pull off.
|
| I remember a European MEP who was fighting the food
| industry to impose Nutri-Score saying on TV that no
| constituent comes to them saying "help me, I'm too fat".
| However many expect politicians to boost the job market.
| The food industry knows that, so each time you try to
| impose some regulation they'll say "if you do that, we're
| be forced to do so many layoffs!"
| sjamaan wrote:
| > - Force better labeling, like the Nutri-Score in France
| and EU
|
| NutriScore is mostly useless, to the point of being
| misleading. The system was cooked up by the industry,
| which explains a lot.
|
| It is a label that tells you how nutritious a given
| product is "compared to products in the same category".
| So you could have, say, candy or frozen pizza with a
| NutriScore A and that would be just fine according to
| this system because it happens to be more nutritious than
| other candy/pizza. In other words, a product having a
| NutriScore of A doesn't mean the product is actually
| healthy or good for you.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| That sounds useful. Consumers most likely choose the food
| they want to eat by type, being able to spot the
| healthier options within a category sounds like it would
| help me in the supermarket.
|
| We have a traffic light system, pretty useful. But when
| all items in a category are bad for you, and you know it,
| them all having red lights doesn't help much.
|
| I'd certainly try alternatives that are marginally
| healthier, if that's true generally then it puts some
| pressure on food industry to move to healthier choices.
| melvinmelih wrote:
| I'm in Colombia right now and they actually have a great
| food labeling system. It just warns you if a product
| contains too much sugar, salt, additives etc, without
| trying to score. Whereas the European labels give you a
| false sense that everything is nutritious.
| rendx wrote:
| Who or what defines what is "too much" of any ingredient?
| Isn't that a scoring system too?
|
| European NutriScore "assigns products a rating letter
| from A (best) to E (worst), with associated colors from
| green to red. High content of fruits and vegetables,
| fibers, protein and healthy oils (rapeseed, walnut and
| olive oils) per 100 g of food product promote a
| preferable score, while high content of energy, sugar,
| saturated fatty acids, and sodium per 100 g promote a
| detrimental score." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nutri-
| Score
| carlosjobim wrote:
| > Who or what defines what is "too much" of any
| ingredient?
|
| Nutritionists.
|
| Labels on processed food products go in the style of
| "Contains an excess of sodium", "Contains an excess of
| sugar", and so on.
| Bishonen88 wrote:
| So is it useless or useful? You write one but then
| describe the other (compared to other products in the
| same category seems value add for sure)
| ap99 wrote:
| This 1000%.
|
| A lot of people in this post need to do some self reflection.
| andrepd wrote:
| A broken clock is right twice a day. Doesn't mean it's not
| broken.
| Applejinx wrote:
| It would be pretty weird if they were so broken they were
| incapable of saying anything right, even at times when they
| were trying to be ingratiating. You'd have to be
| astonishingly insane, more even than these people are, to
| be totally unable to identify something that would be good
| press.
|
| I'm not saying they can't reach that point, but this ain't
| it. They are just getting details wildly wrong and being
| generally obtuse, but this is an attempt at not seeming
| completely insane and should be graded on that curve. You
| can't expect every little detail to be insane, that's
| asking a lot.
| jibal wrote:
| That trite comment is intellectual dishonesty set to 11.
| bluebarbet wrote:
| Trite, yes, but personally I'd argue that accusing people
| of intellectual dishonesty (i.e. bad faith) is by
| definition unfalsifiable and therefore unproductive.
| Always.
| asmor wrote:
| Arguing with someone who is intellectually dishonest is
| also usually unproductive (unless you know what you're
| doing and want to convince bystanders). So it's more of a
| tie.
| pharrington wrote:
| Or the current man in control of Health and Human Services is
| _at best_ saying nothing of value. (At worst, he 's
| sidelining vaccines for multiple infectious diseases, but
| that's off topic)
| kristopolous wrote:
| If you think I'm a Democrat or part of any party, you don't
| know me.
|
| I'm virulently anti-tribalistic and it's hurt me
| professionally, socially and romantically my whole life.
| Trust me, I've got nobody. It's a big problem.
|
| So yeah, the tribal claim, that's just you. You're just
| talking about yourself
| y-curious wrote:
| > positive change happens
|
| > "Goshdangit why did arbiter of change get lobbied by
| [tangential cartel]?"
|
| I don't think it's a good take, although I won't go so far
| as to accuse you of political bias. It's not like the
| guidelines say to eat Tyson-branded chicken; Let's not
| complain about positive progress.
|
| You know what got the flawed food pyramid created? Lobbying
| by Seventh Day Adventists. That did not get enough outrage
| as it hurt countless people in ways that are difficult to
| quantify. They made fat and meat the enemy across the
| country because of their religious beliefs. They paid off
| researchers and even had one claim that Coca Cola was
| healthier than steak.
|
| Let's focus on forward progress and not how we got there.
| nishanseal wrote:
| Not to go off topic, but this comment really spoke to me.
| Have also been hurt everywhere in life for being anti-
| tribalist.
| stef25 wrote:
| Sorry didn't mean to attack.
|
| I'm thousands of miles outside the US sitting firmly in the
| center watching left and right be at each other's throats
| over absolutely everything so maybe we're kind of alike.
| 5upplied_demand wrote:
| It sounds like you are having trouble seeing the
| positives in a tribe you don't belong to.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| There are a number of lies and omissions here, as there have
| been from just about every administration due to agribusiness
| lobbying.
|
| You're playing the tribalism game by setting up this
| strawman, you too are being played.
|
| I'd personally be just as critical towards anyone who claimed
| they were fighting a "war on protein" that plainly doesn't
| exist. Americans consume more meat per capita than nearly any
| other country.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| meat != protein, that's just where we've historically
| gotten most of it. Even meat != meat; it's totally
| acceptable to read & accept "eat more protein" and then
| figure out how you're going to get it within your
| tolerances for fat, sugar, environmental impact, economics,
| etc.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| Sure, but guess how many mentions of protein that isn't
| meat based are listed on this new site
| impendia wrote:
| This could certainly be fantastic, and very good advice. Or
| it could be a lot of bunk, I don't know. Given the source
| (i.e., RFK), I refuse to trust it.
|
| The point of guidance like this is to be trustworthy and
| authoritative. If I have the ability to independently
| evaluate it myself, then I didn't really need it in the first
| place.
|
| Of course, I might be mistaken to have _ever_ trusted the
| government 's nutrition guidance. It's not like undue
| influence from industry lobbying is unique to this
| administration.
| skeeter2020 wrote:
| >> If I have the ability to independently evaluate it
| myself, then I didn't really need it in the first place.
|
| At what point in time was the government's guidance ever to
| be accepted on blind faith without critical evaluation?
| Take this input, compare with data on the same topic from
| other positions that are far from the source and make up
| your own mind.
| worik wrote:
| Many places, many times.
|
| Trust in institutions is fundamental to a society that is
| goof to live in.
|
| USAnian institutions are particularly corrupt, all the
| way to the very top. It is not like that everywhere
| impendia wrote:
| If the government's guidance isn't to be at least mostly
| trusted, then I'm not sure the government should be
| offering guidance at all. (Which is perhaps a sensible
| position in itself.)
|
| In other words, if I learn enough about nutrition to be
| able to critically evaluate the government's guidance,
| then is that guidance adding any additional signal? At
| that point, I should just rely on my sources about
| nutrition.
|
| I've never been one to rely on official guidance blindly.
| For example I don't show up to the airport two hours
| early, and cheerfully laugh at advice that I should. But
| I'd like to believe that this guidance is better than
| total nonsense.
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Personally I don't care either way about RFK Jr's new food
| pyramid.
|
| I think the bigger danger of giving this credit is lending
| any legitimacy to RFK Jr who is actively undermining actual
| medical advice and wrecking havoc on our childhood vaccine
| programs.
|
| Just because a broken clock is right twice a day, doesn't
| mean you need to give the broken clock credit for being
| right.
|
| By doing this "oh it's just tribalism" lends legitimacy to
| RFK Jr and furthers his ability to kill kids with preventable
| disease and further damage the credibility of modern medical
| science.
|
| "Oh he has some good ideas" Yeah? Which ones? Does the
| average american have the time/curiosity/capability to sort
| through which of his ideas are good and which ones will kill
| their kids?
| daddylongstroke wrote:
| Which one of his books have you read?
| MSFT_Edging wrote:
| Tell me, which of the following books should I read?
| Should I start on the silly anthony fauci attack book? or
| the book on vaccines by the man who isn't a doctor?
|
| The Riverkeepers: Two Activists Fight to Reclaim Our
| Environment as a Basic Human Right
|
| Crimes Against Nature: How George W. Bush and His
| Corporate Pals Are Plundering the Country and Hijacking
| Our Democracy
|
| Saint Francis of Assisi: A Life of Joy
|
| American Heroes: Joshua Lawrence Chamberlain and the
| American Civil War
|
| Robert Smalls: American Hero
|
| Framed: Why Michael Skakel Spent Over a Decade in Prison
| for a Murder He Didn't Commit
|
| American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family
|
| The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the
| Global War on Democracy and Public Health
|
| A Letter to Liberals: Censorship and COVID: An Attack on
| Science and American Ideals
|
| Vax-Unvax: Let the Science Speak
|
| The Wuhan Cover-Up: And the Terrifying Bioweapons Arms
| Race
| cruffle_duffle wrote:
| Bingo. It's pretty annoying. My tribe can do no wrong (in
| fact my tribe will freely point out its faults because again,
| it can do no wrong). Anything from the other tribe isn't just
| wrong, it's evil and all that is wrong with everything. Those
| guys are Neanderthals, not even worthy of telling the time
| to. My tribe is incredibly smart and gifted. We can do no
| wrong!
|
| Unfortunately the only way to opt out is to basically stop
| participating at all. No more consumption of tribal news
| media and since most news media is incredibly tribal (even
| saying it's not tribal is in fact tribal)... it basically
| means no more news media consumption. Which makes you
| uninformed instead of merely misinformed.
|
| I dunno the solution to this. It's a complex web of everybody
| playing to their incentives including the algorithms that
| aggregate things for consumption.
|
| Again though, I'll firmly emphasize that it is the other
| tribe that is wrong. My tribe isn't biased or hateful or
| outrage driven. We say we aren't so clearly it's not
| possible.
| zuminator wrote:
| 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"??
| cypherg wrote:
| this is clearly a net loss for public health in general,
| politics aside. Having alcohol in dietary guidelines (without
| even stating a drink limit) is positively idiotic.
| tzs wrote:
| > 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 with what people eat are from
| what foods they eat and how much they eat rather than from not
| choosing the highest quality of those particular foods. E.g.,
| someone might snack often on candy. If they can be convinced to
| switch to snacking on fruit it doesn't really matter much if
| they get that fruit from Safeway or a farmer's market. Maybe
| the farmer's market fruit is healthier for them than the
| Safeway fruit but the difference will be tiny compared to the
| gains from switching from candy to fruit.
| dml2135 wrote:
| 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 liking it.
| magicalhippo wrote:
| 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.
| tarentel wrote:
| A lot of it comes down to what the person you're
| responding to said, seasonality. I grew up in a very
| rural farming area and now live in a very large city.
| While the produce at the grocery store is generally
| inferior to that of being near a farm, when things are in
| season, it is at least comparable. That apple you buy in
| July is never going to be as good as one bought in the
| fall, it doesn't matter where you buy it from.
| kristopolous wrote:
| The point is with many hundreds of pages maybe there could
| have been something like
|
| "local farmers markets have shown to address concerns about
| food deserts especially in lower income communities" or some
| obvious non-controversial observation. Maybe "community
| gardens have been demonstrated to increase lifespan in
| multiple studies"
|
| The point is these things are decided on by a committee. To
| find out where their priorities are one of the bigger tells
| is when you find really obvious things that are _not_ there.
|
| If this was a sincere effort, where is all the obvious stuff?
| tomp wrote:
| cmon, this is just stupid
|
| the "industry" obviously makes much more money on "highly
| processed" and branded foods - more intermediaries, more
| profits & margins
|
| literally _everyone_ can compete freely in the "whole
| unprocessed foods" market, and the only real differentiating
| factors will be quality & taste (as it should be)
| davidguetta wrote:
| In capitalism you kinda are supposed to make money by providing
| good value in most of the case.
|
| The fact that people lobby to make more money from good food
| rather than sugar/fat crap is a good thing not a bad one
| allie1 wrote:
| You probably can't change politics, but you can use them for a
| good end.
| doctaj wrote:
| 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.
| Applejinx wrote:
| Wait, what? I lift weights and chicken breast is a
| fundamental part of my diet but I'm eating 1/3 to 1/2 a
| single chicken breast a day, and an egg for breakfast. That
| CAN'T be right.
|
| I get that I include some rice, peanuts etc. in there, but
| even if I quit EVERYTHING else there's no way 4 to 5 chicken
| breasts a day is accurate.
| habosa wrote:
| It's not recommending 4 to 5, but for larger people (I'm
| 200lbs) to hit their protein target I'd need to eat over
| 1lb of chicken a day which is a lot.
| KellyCriterion wrote:
| 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 jumu 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
| tarentel wrote:
| I am not sure if you're disagreeing with the original
| poster here but you're both saying the same thing in
| different units. 1g/kg != 1g/lb which is A LOT more protein
| and a complete waste of time. As a mostly vegetarian who
| lifts regularly, I am targeting a bit more than 1g/kg but
| being from the US it is a lot less than 1g/lb. :p
| xnx wrote:
| > 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?
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| 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
| andrewclunn wrote:
| So the animal rights and environmental groups are upset
| that health targets are prioritizing health over mudding
| the waters with these other agendas? If those are worthy
| goals on their own then fine, but stop trying to suggest
| that we can't improve health drastically and more
| effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to
| move away form processed food.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| This is a straw man.
|
| The new guidelines prioritize meat and dairy above all
| else, which comes with well known health issues,
| especially at the rate Americans consume them.
|
| There's already plenty of evidence (victory lap press
| releases from the respective industries) that indicate
| that this was accomplished due to lobbying... so we
| haven't moved at all: the old recommendations were
| imperfect and fueled by specific industry preference, and
| the new ones do the same.
|
| > we can't improve health drastically and more
| effectively by making simple and clear recommendations to
| move away form processed food.
|
| pretty much every nutritionist has been urging a
| reduction in processed foods for years now, the solution
| isn't to replace processed foods with meat and dairy...
| that's just a different problem
| nradov wrote:
| What are the "well known health issues"? I have seen some
| low-quality observational studies (junk science) which
| show some weak correlation between consumption of animal
| products and negative health outcomes but so far nothing
| conclusive one way or the other.
|
| https://peterattiamd.com/high-protein-diets-and-cancer-
| risk/
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| you've got to find better sources than a health coach
| selling a subscription program that benefits from this
| take, that post is indistinguishable from spam
|
| red meat and colorectal cancer
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4698595/
|
| > As a summary, it seems that red and processed meats
| significantly but moderately increase CRC risk by 20-30%
| according to these meta-analyses.
|
| red meat cardiovascular disease, and diabetes:
| https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37264855/
|
| > Unprocessed and processed red meat consumption are both
| associated with higher risk of CVD, CVD subtypes, and
| diabetes, with a stronger association in western settings
| but no sex difference.
| nradov wrote:
| So more low-quality, poorly controlled junk science. If
| you want anyone to take you seriously then you'll have to
| do better than that.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| You literally provided nothing but spam behind a
| subscription gate. I provided peer reviewed meta-
| analyses.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| And costs significantly more money.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| ah but why...
|
| * larger companies are producing it at a scale that
| includes efficiencies that can't be replicated on smaller
| scales
|
| * the federal government is subsidizing larger farms,
| which have industry lobbying arms
|
| * larger farms are more likely to be exploiting labor and
| working conditions
|
| * all of the above?
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| And none of that, if true, matters in the slightest to
| most of America because they otherwise wouldn't be able
| to afford these foods.
| micromacrofoot wrote:
| but it _does_ matter, why not subsidize local produce
| instead of factory-farmed meat? if we just wave away
| "it's too expensive" as some natural state (which it's
| not, it's shaped by the government) then nothing ever
| improves
|
| we need to ask _why_ people can 't afford what's arguably
| better for the environment and the workers producing it
| TZubiri wrote:
| >Tyson foods and other meatpacking companies lobbied and funded
| RFK.
|
| So? They are fighting fire with fire.
|
| Or should sugar,casino and tobacco industries have all the
| lobbying
|
| Also this doesn't surpass the minimal threshold for being
| shocked anymore, there's more critical shit going on, I can't
| be here being outraged at _checks notes_ meat companies pushing
| that meat is healthy
| LawrenceKerr wrote:
| Is lobbying the same as corruption?
|
| Would you say the same thing about the covid vaccination
| campaigns during the Biden administration? Because billions of
| dollars were poured into those as well, with record profits for
| big pharma.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| 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.
| jollyllama wrote:
| 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.
| drstewart wrote:
| Did you mistakenly mean to reference Canada's highly corrupt as
| hell food guide?
|
| https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/
|
| Ctrl+F'd and didn't see any of those words mentioned a single
| time either. What a corrupt country Canada is.
| cyberdick wrote:
| RFK is a retarded public health menace but him saying high
| protein low carb/low fat diet is generally good isn't retarded
| and only fat fricks would get mad about it
|
| The original food pyramid was based on a world crafted by
| calory deficit and worked for it's time, but in a life of
| excess it causes mass obesity which is partly why americans are
| so fricking fat.
| insane_dreamer wrote:
| Couldn't agree more that we should be eating minimally processed
| food -- our family spends money and time to do just that. I'm
| glad the gov is promoting it more heavily.
|
| But this statement on the home page of that website is
| preposterous:
|
| "For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized
| highly processed food,"
|
| What guidance ever suggested eating highly processed food? Other
| than ads of course, but this implies medical guidance. Doctors,
| nutritionists etc. have been pushing minimally-processed fruits
| and veggies and avoiding highly-processed food for decades.
|
| What a horrible attempt to portray this as somehow "new" guidance
| by a "newly enlightened" leader (aka RFK).
| robgibbons wrote:
| This site is flagged for some reason by BitDefender.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| I wish we could move past the "highly processed food" thing.
|
| You can engineer healthy food. The problems isn't the processing.
| Its that most people who are engineering food do not have
| "healthy" among the goals.
|
| We're conflating "designed" with "designed recklessly".
|
| It matters because a lot of people can't afford the diet
| suggested here. The messaging needs to distinguish between adding
| protein powder because there's no meat available, and living on
| Cheetos because there's no meat available, and "highly processed"
| fails to do that.
| tugdual wrote:
| The reason we're conflating them is because there is a strong
| correlation between "highly processed food" and "designed
| recklessly". If you look at Carlos Monteiro (The pioneer in
| this domain) he operationalized it with the NOVA metric. NOVA 4
| being the closest to what you're talking about:
|
| "Industrially manufactured food products made up of several
| ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt
| (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in
| processed foods) and food substances of no or rare culinary use
| (such as high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils, modified
| starches and protein isolates)..." [1]
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
|
| I highly recommend Chris van Tulleken's Ultra-processed people
| for a more indepth read on this fat correlation (excuse the pun
| :))
| lm28469 wrote:
| > You can engineer healthy food.
|
| Sure, but these companies mostly want to engineer the cheapest
| shit they can legally sell. It's also valid from regular food,
| it's a race to the bottom, and that's why veggies/fruit are
| less and less nutritious over the years
|
| https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10969708/
|
| > It matters because a lot of people can't afford the diet
| suggested here.
|
| #1 economy in the world baby!!! 75% of your country is
| overweight or obese but somehow they can't "afford" good food
| habosa wrote:
| This article has a pretty good history of how the research has
| evolved: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/01/13/why-is-
| the-ame...
|
| The latest conclusion seems to be that the deadly combo is
| ultra processed foods with high calorie density. That's what
| causes us to overeat garbage. Ultra processed low calorie foods
| are often still junk, but not what is killing us.
| balls187 wrote:
| Backed by Science*
| staticassertion wrote:
| This site is infuriating. The information seems banal and better
| than the previous pyramid, though flawed.
|
| It is quite stupid to say that the US is sick because of
| processed food while ignoring poverty, education, and insurance.
| The messaging should not include that but what can you expect?
| 46493168 wrote:
| Go vegan <3
| rus20376 wrote:
| The message overall doesn't seem especially controversial. I am
| personally disappointed on what seems to be a de-emphasizing of
| healthful plant based sources of protein such as beans and
| legumes, although nuts do seem to be noted more prominently.
|
| If the message is "eat plenty of protein and fiber" beans and
| legumes are a great food that has both.
| sailfast wrote:
| Are they going to subsidize real food also? Maybe help get people
| access to it?
|
| Or just talk about how good it is while they let people subsist
| on the most calories they can get for their dollar?
|
| Also - great... another website as "governance". Put out a press
| release - it's solved!
| mnemotronic wrote:
| Yea! Fat and red meat are back in style! And not a smidgen of
| talk about moderation! Woo-hoo!
|
| This guy is my
| hero:https://arstechnica.com/health/2025/01/florida-man-eats-
| diet...
| aussieguy1234 wrote:
| If you are of European decent, 80% of your ancestors diet was
| whole grains.
| neves wrote:
| Eric Topol is a better scientist than you favorite wellness
| expert. Here he talks about protein:
| https://erictopol.substack.com/p/our-preoccupation-with-prot...
| theturtlemoves wrote:
| Carnivore diet from 2022-2024 and now carnivore by day, keto at
| the dinner table I can't begin to list the health problems that
| completely disappeared or went into remission for me. Lapse and
| I'm a ball of misery for three days. Happy to have gone to
| carni/keto, wish I'd done that twenty years ago. The best time to
| enjoy my health would have been 20 years ago, the next best time
| is now. Glad to see this.
| Brystephor wrote:
| And no change in exercise or other levels of physical activity,
| home life, work life, or other diets attempted, right?
|
| Its awesome that youre feeling better. Its possible, but hard
| to believe, that its due to nothing but diet changes and if it
| is, then its hard to imagine that such an extremely specific
| diet is needed to get the same results.
| ANarrativeApe wrote:
| if everybody eats the whole foods they can afford, they will be
| healthier than if they eat an ultra high processed food diet.
|
| The cost of living issue could actually work in favor of those
| with less money as they can afford less of the unprocessed meat
| and cheese, and would have to 'settle' for more lentils, frozen
| vegetables and other incredibly healthy and inexpensive food.
|
| yes, I know the cultural reasons that will make this switch
| highly unlikely, but that is disconnected from the pyramid.
|
| The popular takeaway from the pyramid will not result in a
| decrease in the popularity of takeaways, ready meals and other
| UHP foods.
|
| The polarization of the debate is as unhealthy as the eating
| habits that desperately need changing.
| calmbell wrote:
| Whole foods are affordable and healthy. My wife and I eat
| mostly rice, tofu, lentils (especially red), and vegetables
| (mostly frozen). We buy in bulk, spend around $350 a month on
| groceries (while barely eating out), and have a lot of variety
| through preparing the tofu and lentils in different ways. Our
| favorites recipes are from Nisha Vora of Rainbow Plant Life and
| The Vegan Chinese Kitchen.
| sonar_un wrote:
| A WFPB diet is easily the most affordable diet, by far. Much
| cheaper than meat or even vegetarian diets.
| solatic wrote:
| People should look at the actual guidelines, not the flashy
| website: https://cdn.realfood.gov/Daily%20Serving%20Sizes.pdf
|
| In a 2000 calorie diet, 7-9 servings summed over fruits,
| vegetables, and grains vs. 6-7 servings summed over protein and
| dairy. 3-4 servings of protein where a serving is 1 egg or 3
| ounces of meat means eating a meatless 2-egg breakfast and maybe
| a single hamburger patty at lunch and that's pretty much your
| daily protein.
|
| Hardly some carnivorous revolution.
| tensor wrote:
| For a 2000 calorie diet, the previous recommendation was 5.5oz
| of meat a day [1], the new one is 9-12oz. The new diet gets
| 18-24g of protein from meat. Meanwhile they are saying on their
| flashy website that a 160lb person should have 80g of protein,
| which no doubt will lead people to eat 13 eggs a day instead of
| 3-4.
|
| Suffice to say, I don't think any American actually followed
| the old guidelines, and I doubt any will follow this one
| either.
|
| [1]
| https://www.dietaryguidelines.gov/sites/default/files/2020-1...
| flockonus wrote:
| Very interesting, if they indeed are after public health and yet
| don't talk about organic vs. sprayed produce.
| d--b wrote:
| Well it takes some politics to get this kind of culture shift. As
| long as highly processed food is cheap and working class people
| are paid what they are paid, there is no chance of anything
| changing.
|
| Additionnally, it is generally cheaper to eat at a fast food
| place than to actually cook at home. And since people don't have
| time to go back home and cook something for lunch, they just eat
| at subway's, domino's or mc donald's.
|
| And since this has been going on for more than a generation,
| today's grandparents don't even know how to cook from raw
| ingredients anymore.
|
| The US is sick, but change doesn't _start_ with food, it starts
| with fixing the economic inequality.
| lIl-IIIl wrote:
| There's some inconsistency between the pyramid graphic and the
| written guideline. For example whole grains are moved to the tip
| of the pyramid. But the written guidelines say 2-4 servings a
| day.
| eimrine wrote:
| Drink real milk, not the ultra-pasterized shit.
| fsh wrote:
| My impression is that most nutritional research is just p-hacking
| on extremely noisy data. The only consistent outcome is that
| eating too much for an extended period of time is extremely
| unhealthy, regardless of what you are eating. Unfortunately, this
| runs contrary to the "more is better" mentality of US consumers
| who throw a hissy fit if food portions are not gigantic.
| arnejenssen wrote:
| Fantastic. This will set America on a trajectory to prosperity
| thunfischtoast wrote:
| The "protein" part of the "new" pyramid does not mention legumes
| (beans, peas, chickpeas, lentils, lupins...) despite them being a
| highly efficient source of proteins.
| kelseydh wrote:
| Almonds and peanuts make an appearance lower than red meat on
| the pyramid, which is wild to me.
| kelseydh wrote:
| "Frozen peas" and "Green beans" make an appearance on the
| pyramid, but yes the omission of any others is glaring.
| deathanatos wrote:
| ... 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
| (and I ended up rate limiting them because of it), but it is
| frustrating to need to constantly treat the products around me
| like they're trying to sabotage me.
| spiderfarmer wrote:
| Move to Europe.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Eggs and meat products are way up in Europe (at least in NL)
| too, bird flu, government buyouts to reduce nitrogen
| emissions, etc. Here's a neat page with market prices for
| eggs: https://www.nieuweoogst.nl/marktprijzen/eieren.
|
| On the other hand, potatoes are down to near zero this year
| (bullwhip effect, last year there were crop failures and
| prices were way up so farmers planted more potatoes). Doesn't
| necessarily translate to consumer prices but nobody considers
| potatoes to be expensive anyway.
| lm28469 wrote:
| We have enough americans already
| kvuj wrote:
| 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.
| mcintyre1994 wrote:
| So dumb question I guess but which part of that old pyramid is
| supposed to be prioritising highly processed food?
| zkmon wrote:
| So, humans lost all of their evolutionary learnings and confused
| about what to eat. This doesn't happen with any other animal. And
| humans call themselves as an advanced race of animals. Not
| knowing what to eat is regress, not progress.
|
| Things went well as long as mind was a servant of the body. Then
| it became the master and dictator of body. The mind started
| posing itself as a scientist and started questioning everything
| that were well-tested over centuries. It came up weird things
| such proteins, vitamins etc, but it forgot that what mattered was
| the big picture.
|
| Body suffered silently as it lost it's most critical servant whom
| it trained over millennia.
|
| It was enough to know that water flows down the slope, apple
| falls to ground, Sun goes around the Earth and life follows a
| rythm of seasons. Human life never needed Kepler's laws,
| relativity, quantum physics, computers, cars or sugar.
|
| It's not too late. Listen to your instincts and body signals.
| Live on a farm (farm means crops and gardens, not just animals).
| Eat like your ancestors did. Eat less, eat varied food, more of
| greens and grains, mostly raw with a bit of cooking or heating.
| Centigonal wrote:
| My sister's cat will eat food until she vomits, and if my
| sister isn't quick enough with the clean up, the cat will try
| to eat her own vomit until she vomits again.
| Chance-Device wrote:
| The majesty of nature.
| sneak wrote:
| If you put me alone in a room with a pallet full of warm
| fresh Taco Bell fried cinnamon sugar frosting balls, I too
| will likely involuntarily perform the scarf and barf.
|
| There is something deep in our mammalian systems that never
| quite shook off the food scarcity thing, I think.
| 3D30497420 wrote:
| I'm a pretty big fan of the cancer treatments that saved my
| mother, the emergency medical treatment that saved my wife, the
| antibiotics that saved my brother. Also, it is -15C outside,
| and I am very much enjoying central heating.
|
| With that said, I do partly agree with you. I do think that
| becoming too divorced from the natural world drives a great
| many ills.
|
| I think the challenge is finding the balance. We sure don't
| have it now.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| That is some serious glorification and misreading of the worst
| time in human history (the past).
| lm28469 wrote:
| More than once I've seen dogs eat their own shit or shits from
| other dogs/cats
|
| Anyways, if you pay close attention to how people live in
| advanced countries you'll notice we do almost everything we can
| to fuck up our health: bad sleeping schedule, way too much time
| spend siting, bad eating habits, &c. People half starving in
| the 1700s on a mediterranean diet were doing better than the
| average modern american when it comes to health.
| hobofan wrote:
| > Listen to your instincts and body signals.
|
| Okay, sure, I'll start eating a very sugar-focused diet as
| that's what my body (via high release of dopamine) tells me is
| best.
| resoluteteeth wrote:
| > This doesn't happen with any other animal
|
| That's really not true at all. For example, rabbits love sweet
| stuff like fruit and will readily kill themselves by eating too
| much, which causes their delicate hindgut fermenter digestive
| system to shut down.
|
| Like humans, they simply aren't adapted to conditions where
| they have unlimited sugary food like fruit, so they will eat
| too much when given the opportunity.
| DetectDefect wrote:
| How is that "like humans"? Rabbits and humans have completely
| different digestion and physiologies, the former relying on
| hindgut fermentation. No human has ever died from eating too
| much fruit, period.
| scarhawk2026 wrote:
| I love how this is still quite far off from the Harvard Food
| Pyramid..
|
| But why use one of your best resources for research..
|
| https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-pyra...
| anhner wrote:
| is it really the best resource if it recommends alcohol??
| kelseydh wrote:
| Copyright (c) 2008
|
| When was this web page last updated?
| scarhawk2026 wrote:
| https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-
| plat...
|
| Actually 2023.
|
| And also 2024. https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/2024/
| 01/02/healthy-...
| fnord123 wrote:
| > America is sick. The data is clear.
|
| Can we inform dictionaries and encyclopaedia that data is now a
| mass noun and it is considered archaic to use data as a plural of
| datum?
| sn0wleppard wrote:
| OED records the first usage as a mass noun in 1702, I think the
| ship's already sailed there
| awl130 wrote:
| Bravo. I never thought I'd live to see the day. The old pyramid
| was so outdated.
| ptdorf wrote:
| Red meat is good for you. Animal fat is good for you.
|
| Sugar is the real enemy.
| globular-toast wrote:
| It's funny how language betrays how people think. Notice how it's
| always a "war" with these people. "War on motorists", "war on
| drugs", and "war on protein" now. These people are unable to
| think about anything doesn't involve conflict of some kind. Even
| in peacetime, they will find it, somehow.
| tekkk wrote:
| Does this mean better school lunches? With real salad and meat,
| not just hamburgers and ketchup. I'd hope so.
| otikik wrote:
| > The new Pyramid > Protein, Dairy & Healthy Fats
|
| (shows picture of butter)
|
| I'm sorry to say this, but butter, even if delicious, is not a
| "healthy fat". It's "less unhealthy" than margarine, and perhaps
| that's what they are going for.
|
| Healthy fats are Olive oil (especially extra virgin), avocado,
| nuts, seeds and fatty fish.
| a3w wrote:
| How is milk considered food? Way too sweet for a diet in a rich
| country.
| adaszko wrote:
| Just compare this with actual scientific findings and see for
| yourself: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-025-03570-5
| pelf wrote:
| For the lazier folk:
|
| > Higher intakes of fruits, vegetables, whole grains,
| unsaturated fats, nuts, legumes and low-fat dairy products were
| linked to greater odds of healthy aging, whereas higher intakes
| of trans fats, sodium, sugary beverages and red or processed
| meats (or both) were inversely associated.
| liveoneggs wrote:
| That article uses the Nurse's Health Study and nurses are some
| of the least healthy people I've ever met.
| adaszko wrote:
| How are you going to infer what's harmful if you're only
| going to research healthy people?
| liveoneggs wrote:
| I was joking but, actually, it's just random food surveys
| and the categories are too broad to take seriously.
|
| Tons of studies are based on this data and just look at our
| outcomes. This data is poison.
| vixen99 wrote:
| 'America is sick. The data is clear' With an US obesity rate of
| what, 40% and horrible health stats overall, not much to argue
| over. Something should happen.
| NPC82 wrote:
| Traditionally, the US Dietary Guidelines for Americans (DGA) is
| actually a _policy guidance_ document and not a marketing or
| handout document.
|
| Nine pages is laughable and sad. There are entire missing
| sections on different life stages and transition foods. (edit: I
| see it now, I scrolled by it because it's way shorter than it
| usually is) That kind of sensitive guidance on nutrition is
| _supposed_ to come from this document - which is usually 150+
| pages and includes input from committees of registered
| dietitians.
|
| I'm glad some people are enthusiastic to find nutritional clarity
| in their lives but I can't imagine this is going to be helpful
| for the institutions or people that usually rely on it.
|
| Also, please remember this secretary is actively ignoring a
| measles outbreak, has an obsession with instagram health fads,
| and is a disgrace to the global scientific community.
| RagAlgo wrote:
| Coffee might be bitter and unpleasant at first, but like
| vegetables, you'll get used to it over time. Don't just seek out
| what suits your taste. You can't live like an elementary school
| student, right? Why not try eating vegetables first before
| judging what's good or bad? I'm not advocating vegetarianism,
| though.
| c16 wrote:
| Credit where credit is due, going back to whole-foods and single-
| ingredient foods is the correct decision for everyone, and is
| often cheaper. But you can tell it's with a heavy focus on
| meatpacking, and it's known there's heavy lobbying going on.
|
| Is that a bad thing? I'd rather people eat single ingredient
| foods and foods without labels (fruit, veg) than neon green
| cereals. I guess my point here is that it's a little sad the
| 'right' outcome was as a result of heavy lobbying.
|
| The correct order should have been greens > proteins > carbs for
| an overweight nation.
| NPC82 wrote:
| The Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics has put out a statement in
| response: https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/public-
| state...
| backtogeek wrote:
| All the deep state stuff aside, I switched to 100% unprocessed
| meals for a month sometime ago after finding out I was becoming
| insulin resistant.
|
| It worked I feel better and a few other things... My eye sight
| improved and my beard, leg and arm hair increased, noticeably.
| jibal wrote:
| "Better health begins on your plate--not in your medicine
| cabinet."
|
| This is an extraordinarily dangerous false dichotomy and
| misrepresentation. This government is killing people.
| tomaytotomato wrote:
| It's interesting to see the commentary on processed meat and
| inverting the pyramid. T
|
| It feels a bit Orwellian in some way - Oceania is always the
| enemy, Saturated fat was never the enemy.
|
| Meat is ok, I try and consume fish and chicken with the odd bit
| of beef, but the amount of chemicals that goes into processed
| meat like sliced ham would make a chemist blush.
|
| I wrote a light hearted blog piece just before the new year on
| giving up processed meat if anyone is interested:
|
| https://tomaytotomato.com/no-ham-anuary/
|
| Also mandatory South Park clip:
|
| https://youtu.be/fIGXkh6S8Zw
| worldsavior wrote:
| Those are great animations. It's amazing what a browser can show.
| sjw987 wrote:
| In general, this message is good. Particularly interesting from a
| country which has given the world McDonalds and Coca Cola.
|
| The rise of Ultra Processed Food (UPF) is almost inline with the
| explosion of waistlines around the world. Not to mention several
| large scale studies have found clear links between high UPF
| consumption and cognitive decline, dementia and Alzheimer's. In
| the West, 60 to 80% of peoples diets are UPF.
|
| What we eat is both a short term (overweight and obese people
| bunging up the public healthcare system) and long term (elderly
| people with dementia and Alzheimer's clogging up the social care
| system) catastrophe.
|
| Generally if it's coming in plastic wrap, you don't recognise
| stuff in the ingredients, or it has a ridiculously unnatural
| sounding lifespan, it's UPF.
|
| It's disturbing how penetrative UPF are in the food market. I
| bought an "Eat Natural" cashew and blueberry with yoghurt coating
| bar this morning. Of course, very unnaturally it has sunflower
| lecithin, glucose syrup, palm kernel oil and palm oil vegetable
| fats, making it technically NOVA class 4 UPF.
| Finbarr wrote:
| If you'd like a less condensed version of this, I highly
| recommend reading "In Defense of Food" by Pollan. It covers all
| the changes in nutritional science and food packaging that have
| led to the poisoning of the populace by the food industry, and it
| lays out a set of rules for what to eat and how to eat it in more
| detail.
| danielovichdk wrote:
| Shove some letters in there. You ate your way in. You can walk
| your way out.
| mark_l_watson wrote:
| While the over-arc of this message is good (avoid packaged and
| processed food) I personally don't like the advice that these are
| not top tier foods: non-GMO organic whole wheat (i.e., not soaked
| with pesticides), brown rice, and other pesticide-free whole
| grains --- all in moderation.
|
| I also don't like the emphasis on meat protein. Small amounts of
| meat protein a few times a week are definitely healthy for most
| people, but organic (not soaked in pesticides) beans, lentils,
| etc. are almost certainly a healthy way to consume extra protein.
|
| I sense the ugly hand of the meat industry in realfood.gov. I
| think if more people understood how (especially) chickens and
| pigs are tortured in meat production, it would help people who
| are addicted to excess meat cut back on their consumption to just
| what they need for good health.
|
| EDIT: the documentary movie The Game Changers (2018) is an
| excellent source of information. The scenes interviewing huge
| muscular vegetarian NFL football players really put the lie to
| the 'must have meat' addicts. That said, I still think small
| amounts of meat protein are very healthy for most people.
| dillydogg wrote:
| I totally agree on all three accounts: unprocessed foods are
| great, organic wheats are good, and the concerning focus on
| abundance of red meat. I think we are going through a fad of
| "we need to gobble down as much protein as we can". I agree
| it's reasonable we need more, and especially older adults at
| risk of falling. I am concerned that there are so many junior
| residents that I work with that are throwing back protein
| shakes because they are "optimizing their macros". So many of
| these protein powders have added sugar and are contaminated
| with heavy metals! I will commend the guidelines for supporting
| lentils, beans and other pulses.
| Spacemolte wrote:
| "Eat real food" yet they seem to roll back regulation including
| but not limited to food safety?
| stewx wrote:
| > We are ending the war on protein. Every meal must prioritize
| high-quality, nutrient-dense protein from both animal and plant
| sources, paired with healthy fats from whole foods such as eggs,
| seafood, meats, full-fat dairy, nuts, seeds, olives, and
| avocados.
|
| This is some seriously radical stuff, if you take it literally.
| Every single meal you eat "must" prioritize protein? Why? Who is
| lacking protein in America?
| greener_grass wrote:
| Project 2025 was strongly against active travel, yet increased
| car dependency is one of the main factors in poor health in the
| USA.
| lunias wrote:
| Cool, yet another pyramid that people will debate. There a lot of
| different diets. Try them and judge which ones work best for you
| based on your goals and which foods are available to you. A lot
| of people in the United States struggle with caloric restriction
| i.e. not which foods, but how much.
| rubzah wrote:
| Instead of more meat, eat more eggs. Eggs are as good a protein
| source as meat, down to the same amino acid groups (unlike other
| protein sources, like plant-based). People used to worry about
| cholesterol but that has pretty much been put to rest by now.
| okokwhatever wrote:
| This is OK
| crispyambulance wrote:
| Given that HHS is now run by a nutcase, it's surprisingly not a
| completely insane dietary recommendation. I think a sensible
| person would do OK following those general guidelines.
|
| That said, if you don't like it, disregard it. No one is forcing
| you. I think it has too much emphasis on protein but that's just
| me.
|
| These guidelines theoretically could influence school lunches.
| Will it make them worse or better or change nothing? -\\_(tsu)_/-
| nottorp wrote:
| Scrolling that kills my browser. I suppose the info is only for
| those who can afford very high end computers and thus also afford
| to pay for real food?
| ck2 wrote:
| every single gov website is being hijacked for propaganda
|
| one by one
|
| completely untrustworthy
|
| I fully expect weather .gov at some point to be taken over,
| nothing is sacred with these a-holes
|
| https://404media.co/dhs-is-lying-to-you-about-ice-shooting-a...
|
| impeach them all
| ainiriand wrote:
| Half the pyramid is dairy+meat, that's a pass for me. I do not
| eat those and my yearly health checks are as boring as a tax
| seminar on a Friday afternoon.
| cassepipe wrote:
| > For decades we've been misled by guidance that prioritized
| highly processed food, and are now facing rates of unprecedented
| chronic disease.
|
| Is this true ? I don't think the blame is to place on the
| previous guidance but people just you know food engineering and
| natural laziness, no ?
| markvdb wrote:
| Why would I trust these recommendations? Much higher quality
| dietary information is available from much more trustworthy
| sources than the US government du jour.
| swatson741 wrote:
| I dunno about this. The problem mainly affects low-income
| families and residents of food deserts, and now the government is
| trying to put everyone on a keto diet. It just seems like they're
| not fixing the problems where they happen.
| cramcgrab wrote:
| You can eat what you want, I'm eating real food. Good luck!
| bovermyer wrote:
| It's fascinating that my new gut reaction to the combination of
| "health" and ".gov" is now deeply negative.
|
| That was not the case a decade ago.
| xnx wrote:
| Harvard (https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-
| plat...) or Canada's (https://food-guide.canada.ca/en/) guides
| are better.
| ratelimitsteve wrote:
| RFK is insane about a lot of things but I've been eating roughly
| like this with a focus on lean protein and fresh produce and I
| brought myself back from the brink of prediabetes and basically
| got rid of my sleep apnea. Besides, the last food pyramid was
| just as worked by industry lobbyists as this one is. That's the
| problem with tolerating a little bit of corruption: the
| difference between you and the blatantly corrupt goes from being
| a difference of kind to merely a difference of degree.
| sneak wrote:
| A reminder: cardiovascular disease is right up there close to
| tied with cancer for the #1 killer in non-accidental deaths.
|
| Cholesterol only comes from animals. Non-animal protein sources
| are much safer and healthier for humans to consume. This website
| is not science, it's ideology.
|
| But we already knew that's all we could expect from RFK and this
| administration.
| jamesnights wrote:
| 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
| sneak wrote:
| 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 person it
| aims to grasp, without his even noticing that he is being
| permeated. Of course propaganda has a purpose, but the purpose
| must be concealed with such cleverness and virtuosity that the
| person on whom this purpose is to be carried out doesn 't
| notice it at all._
|
| Note well that something being true, or false, or rooted in
| truth or falsehood has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not
| something is propaganda, or can serve as effective propaganda.
|
| Cardiovascular disease is the NUMBER ONE cause of non-
| accidental death in adults. It kills almost twice as many as
| cancer. Recommending high cholesterol foods as staples is
| grossly irresponsible and will result in millions, perhaps
| billions of curtailed life-years.
| richwater wrote:
| > 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.
| dangus wrote:
| 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...
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| 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.
| eudamoniac wrote:
| 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.
| socalgal2 wrote:
| 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
| broof wrote:
| I'm pretty sure there was a shot of curry in the video
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| It's an interesting point. I would suggest the its kinda
| recursive.
|
| Good food ingredients are those which are or composed of Good
| food ingredients.
|
| We can intuitively realize that A salad composed of Tomatoes,
| lettuce, radish, kale, cucumber, figs etc is at least as good
| as just eating Tomatoes. But each of those ingredients is a
| simple good food. IMO the issue is fractionation and
| concentration (and is weighted by dose). Corn on the cob, good.
| Corn syrup, bad.
|
| Lots of the traditional dishes from the places you mentioned
| would be using very whole foods. Like a traditional, non
| industrial, mole is pretty much a gravy/sauce of very nutrition
| whole foods. But it's notable there is a highly processed
| equivalent in a jar.
|
| Michael Pollan interestingly noted that when people cook food
| for themselves more or less from scratch they usually default
| to high quality whole foods because we often cannot make the
| low quality ultra-processed food in our own homes, they can
| only be made with industrial/factory equipment.
| gradientsrneat wrote:
| 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.
| sejje wrote:
| 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.
| bromuro wrote:
| How can be something simple as bread be ultra processed? We
| can prepare it at home.
| beezlebroxxxxxx wrote:
| Looking at the ingredients list on Wonderbread white bread,
| could you make that at home?
|
| You can make bread with salt, flour, yeast, and water. Most
| breads in the grocery store, however, have considerably
| more ingredients, which are more in the purpose of treating
| the foodstuff as an industrial product rather than for
| nutritional purposes.
|
| (That's not automatically bad btw. The amount of
| ultraprocessed food you can eat is actually probably quite
| a lot in relative terms before it starts causing health
| problems --- the problem is when it becomes 70-80% of your
| diet.)
| d-us-vb wrote:
| He's talking about "wonder bread" and other factory breads
| that have had much of their nutrients stripped and some put
| back, to the detriment of their absorption. Some also are
| concerned with artificially included preservatives and the
| unknown unknowns of putting them in places (even if there's
| a common natural source in another food).
|
| Homemade bread is certainly not ultraprocessed (especially
| if made with unbleached flour or even better, whole wheat
| flour), but factory bread most certainly is considered
| ultraprocessed.
| aembleton wrote:
| Even the original margarine (before the invention of
| hydrogenation) is more processed than the best bread and
| butter.
|
| To quote from Ultra-Processed People:
|
| Mege-Mouries took cheap solid fat from a cow (suet), rendered
| it (heated it up with some water), digested it with some
| enzymes from a sheep stomach to break down the cellular tissue
| holding the fat together, then it was sieved, allowed to set,
| extruded from between two plates, bleached with acid, washed
| with water,warmed, and finally mixed with bicarb, milk protein,
| cow-udder tissue and annatto (a yellow food colouring derived
| from seeds of the achiote tree). The result was a spreadable,
| plausible butter substitute.
| audunw wrote:
| Yes and no. It's not a good word, but it has generally been
| defined in a way that wouldn't include any of the steps you
| mentioned.
|
| One common description is that it includes lots of ingredients
| you wouldn't find in your kitchen.
|
| It sometimes also includes ingredients that have been turned
| into extremely fine powder, and other very heavy industrial
| processing. My way of thinking of this is: adults shouldn't eat
| baby food. Some fast food essentially becomes way to easy to
| absorb.
|
| I think this interview had a really good description about the
| problems of the "ultra-processed" label.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAPgzCiSk9Y&t=377s
|
| But at least the label is triggering some interesting
| discussions and awareness about bad aspects of industrial fast
| food.
| ramon156 wrote:
| Anyone know how I can contact https://ndstudio.gov/ ? their
| talent form is broken
| resters wrote:
| 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.
| tnel77 wrote:
| It's not perfect, but buying bulk meat directly from a farmer
| can greatly reduce the issues you listed above.
| mud_dauber wrote:
| 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.
| resumenext wrote:
| The big issue I have with this is no kale or oatmeal in the
| pyramid image. And rice seems to get a bad rank too. How many fat
| Asians do you see? People diss oatmeal (lames, tbh) cause of
| "leaky gut" but is that even a real thing? There's also
| glyphosates but quaker is nongmo according to the label. Anyway,
| I see "leaky gut" and I think quack. The pyramid should have more
| kale, truly.
| davidmurdoch wrote:
| Are you looking at the wrong website?
| torcete wrote:
| In reference to this. I just want to tell the case of sugar
| alcohols and my partner. She used to suffer random intestinal
| bloating and it tooks us a while to discover the reason.
|
| We were aware of the problems associated with carbs and sugar
| consumption and we tried to find alternatives so we switched to
| 0% sugar foods. It turns out that most of them are filled with
| sweeteners, mostly sugar alcohols, and they have worse
| consequences.
|
| In fact, anything that you ingest, and it is not absorbed by your
| digestive system, must go somewhere. Sugar alcohols can be
| fermented by the gut bacteria causing other kinds of problems. I
| would say that the best thing to do is to reduce/remove sugar
| from your diet without trying to find substitutes.
|
| By the way, my partner went to her GP (NHS) and they just
| dismissed her case by just saying. "Oh, we believe you have IBS".
| That's it, case close.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2026-01-08 23:01 UTC)