Hacker News Reader

Comment by algoatecorn | Hacker News Reader

Every time I see some study anchored in dietary impositions, I can't help but wonder:

How have we managed to complicate diet and health so much?

We are humans. We are supposed to move. A lot.

Eat mostly whole food and move. Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.

Buy food in the produce section. Buy food in the meat section (if you eat meat). Buy whole grains. It's not expensive. Maybe it takes time to prepare. Try to find value in that time. Do it with family and friends. There's no food product, diet, or gimmick that's going provide a greater marginal benefit

View on HN

I think this works but only in a vacuum. I’m a single human with a humans natural stressors, getting dopamine from food. Food these days are literally engineered to maximum craving/hunger/whatever, with a bunch of ads and marketing also designed by people with literal lifelong studies of how to get people craving junk. Armies of em.

This isn’t even talking about what sort of thing forever chemicals are doing to me. No idea what microplastics in my bloodstream are up to.

Im just a dude, my dude. I didn’t make the game so hard.

I'm sorry to hear about your loss of free will.

Dude I’m just a guy, I’m not like perfect or anything. I get tired, sleep like crap sometimes, get stressed about money and inflation like everyone else. Sometimes I don’t feel like fighting a whole system with armies of psychologists keeping me a lazy consumer or whatever, so maybe some dinners is something out of a microwave or a can. Condemn me, or whatever, for not being so free willed as others here. I’m just not as enlightened I guess.

No one is perfect. I'm sorry for being snarky, but how else can we make meaningful change without starting with personal responsibility. We can't blame big food for our choices.

Im not tying to shift blame, I’m pointing out that this is much less simple than the original poster described. It’s no so simple as just walking more and taking the time to eat whole food precisely because there is a broader system designed to keep people fat consumers that should be seriously and skeptically examined for dodging their influences on society. We know cigarette kept dodging their involvement in getting kids addicted early. We know Perdue was lying about how their opioids worked to guarantee addiction cycles. We know the original nutrition guidelines were originally developed by the agriculture department and that several agribusinesses had their thumbs on the scale to skew what was told to the entire nation on how to eat well.

Are those kids who were exposed to cigarettes personally responsible? How about those folks who are addicted to opioids now? And of course all those Americans at the time, they just should’ve decided against following official nutrition guidelines by their government (assuming they can afford to! Poor kids were fed according to these guidelines in school lunches…)

And that’s just the stuff we know about!

It is simple. It's just not easy.

I think the original comment was pointing out that our discussion of diet and nutrition is overly complicated. Not that it's easy to make the right choices, but that it is easy knowing what those right choices are.

I hear you on how difficult it is though. People who are able to manage it confuse the simplicity of knowing what to do and the difficulty of actually achieving it.

Can you read the room or will you keep being a smart ass ?

> No one is perfect. I'm sorry for being snarky, but how else can we make meaningful change without starting with personal responsibility. We can't blame big food for our choices.

Yeah. Actually we can. The marketing and psychological warfare big food is waging against customers take its toll on personal responsibility when it's time to cook something after your second job night shift.

Then go innovate in that area. Find ways to reduce cost and time prep through new technology and business models. This is why I'm being a smart ass and why it's so frustrating to listen to excuses.

You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it. No one is going to pay you to complain.

> Then go innovate in that area. Find ways to reduce cost and time prep through new technology and business models.

This is so effing stupid to read. You don't innovate to reduce costs and time prep to squeeze out more time out of people so they can work 3 jobs instead of 2 to pay for microwaved food, that's not the end game.

> This is why I'm being a smart ass and why it's so frustrating to listen to excuses.

No, you are a smart ass because you are riding the personal responsibility trope to ignore fuck tons of external and internal reasons for why people are not robots and don't follow the perfect diet and lifestyle recipes. That's a simplistic nickelodeon outlook that helps no one.

One day you'll bump into a wall and maybe you'll realize your belief that your mind is free and your body a dumb machine to program to overcome anything is bullshit, like your stance that "we are all free so everything is our fault and anyone can do anything if only they apply themselves" is bullshit as well.

> You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it.

What a stupid and empty edge lord counter argument is this ?

Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.

> No one is going to pay you to complain.

If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.

[0] For real. And big food industries is part of this problem and we are trying to tackle it at work.

edit: dammit, I'll even play along:

> Then go innovate in that area. Find ways to reduce cost and time prep through new technology and business models.

What makes you think faster to cook or even healthier food can beat billions of €/$ poured in advertising and marketing at scale ? It's not working, that's the reality, that's the facts, this is the environment your purely intellectual vision of the problem doesn't want to account for.

Because it's easier to say "people are free so it's their fault" than admit "hey... that world is surprisingly hard to model and predict and understand, lots of things going on and parameters interacting with each other here...".

>This is so effing stupid to read. You don't innovate to reduce costs and time prep to squeeze out more time out of people so they can work 3 jobs instead of 2 to pay for microwaved food, that's not the end game.

Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that doesn't result in this outcome. This is false dichotomy. I'm not saying this is end game.

>No, you are a smart ass because you are riding the personal responsibility trope to ignore fuck tons of external and internal reasons for why people are not robots and don't follow the perfect diet and lifestyle recipes. That's a simplistic nickelodeon outlook that helps no one.

>One day you'll bump into a wall and maybe you'll realize your belief that your mind is free and your body a dumb machine to program to overcome anything is bullshit, like your stance that "we are all free so everything is our fault and anyone can do anything if only they apply themselves" is bullshit as well.

I'll reiterate that yes, it does come down to personal responsibility. Also a fallacious argument since you don't have to follow a perfect diet and lifestyle to achieve mostly optimal outcomes. Promoting the idea that we don't have personal sovereignty is insidious and wrong.

>Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.

Food systems account for 1/3 of global emissions. You act like there is some moral superiority tied to your own work while ignoring the low hanging fruit of food systems in climate change mitigation.

>If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.

I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out erroneous narratives and harmful mindsets.

>What makes you think faster to cook or even healthier food can beat billions of €/$ poured in advertising and marketing at scale ? It's not working, that's the reality, that's the facts, this is the environment your purely intellectual vision of the problem doesn't want to account for.

>Because it's easier to say "people are free so it's their fault" than admit "hey... that world is surprisingly hard to model and predict and understand, lots of things going on and parameters interacting with each other here...".

The same was said about transitioning away from fossil fuels and going against the billions of dollars poured into climate denial. Change will come. Maybe you should extend the scope of your imagination to entertain a better food system instead of rolling over.

But you'll keep believing what you believe, and that's fine. Keep resorting to edge cases to defend your claims, and accept that big food will maintain its grip on your free will. I'll still be here actually doing things that make a difference, not caving to the complexity of models, and maintaining ownership of my decisions.

Have a good day.

>> This is so effing stupid to read. You don't innovate to reduce costs and time prep to squeeze out more time out of people so they can work 3 jobs instead of 2 to pay for microwaved food, that's not the end game.

> Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that doesn't result in this outcome. This is false dichotomy. I'm not saying this is end game.

Maybe if you used a sliver of creativity you could think of a solution that is not tech based. Because, guess what ? The problem is not tech based. Moreover you claim it's about personal sovereignty and yet your solution is to ignore the core problem and jump to techno gadgets. Why would tech help if the solution is for people to take personal responsibility ? Talk about tunnel vision...

> I'll reiterate that yes, it does come down to personal responsibility.

And I'll reiterate that no, it does not come down solely to personal responsibility. I get it it's easier for you to think/believe people make bad choices willingly because it fits your narrative and is simple to understand but it's naive and short sighted. You won't get results or changes out of people if your framework is that narrow and limited.

> >Too busy working on climate change at the moment [0] if you want to know it all.

> Food systems account for 1/3 of global emissions. You act like there is some moral superiority tied to your own work while ignoring the low hanging fruit of food systems in climate change mitigation.

Moral superiority ? I think you are projecting because, too bad, I happen to put my skin in the game and you couldn't imagine that when you wrote You obviously see a problem in one our biggest industries. Go disrupt it. Do something about it. No one is going to pay you to complain. Who was trying to get the moral high ground ?

> >If you could stop complaining about "people's excuses" as well that'd be even better.

> I'm not complaining. I'm pointing out erroneous narratives and harmful mindsets.

You are pointing at the obvious and easy parts of the problem and reducing the problem to those parts only. See your comment I am sorry you lost your free will. Arrogant, not empathic and not helpful.

> The same was said about transitioning away from fossil fuels and going against the billions of dollars poured into climate denial. Change will come. Maybe you should extend the scope of your imagination to entertain a better food system instead of rolling over.

I don't understand how you came to the conclusion I don't believe change will come. Don't put words in my mouth.

Why are you now advocating for a better food system since you claimed it's all about personal responsibility ? Isn't what you said earlier enough ?

> Eat mostly whole food and move. Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.

> Buy food in the produce section. Buy food in the meat section (if you eat meat). Buy whole grains.

> But you'll keep believing what you believe, and that's fine. Keep resorting to edge cases to defend your claims, and accept that big food will maintain its grip on your free will.

Hey, you are the one calling on bodybuilders and (every athlete, bodybuilder, etc that wants to gain or lose weight can do so basically at will, on a set schedule they plan months in advance.... but all athletes and bodybuilders combined are the edge cases compared to the majority of people.

And again, just like personal sovereignty and free will absolutism are more often than not not enough to defeat bad habits it so happens that big food doesn't have total grip on people's free will (who said they totally controlled us aside from your straw man argument ?) . But they do have a huge budget to spend on marketing and lobbying that is at war with people's will and motivation.

> I'll still be here actually doing things that make a difference, not caving to the complexity of models, and maintaining ownership of my decisions.

I don't think calling people's personal circumstances "excuses* and being a smart ass with stupid one liners like * I'm sorry to hear about your loss of free will. * will help anyone and make any differences.

We can't blame big tobacco either. Let's remove taxes on tobacco and make tobacco advertising legal no matter what. Let's also stop subsidized detox clinics, those addicts have their own free will after all.

“It's not expensive”

Maybe whole grains are not expensive, but the outside walls of a grocery store (produce, meat, eggs, dairy) are very expensive, and have gotten a lot more expensive on the last two years. Especially if you are buying higher end (organic, pasture raised, etc..) stuff. Nuts and seeds, also very expensive right now. Good oils like olive oil also expensive.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s43016-022-00588-7

"The percentage of the population who can afford the least-cost diet adhering to food-based dietary guidelines (henceforth ‘a nutritious diet’) increases from 15% (at the median) in countries with rural and informal food systems to nearly 100% in countries with industrial and consolidated food systems (Fig. 1). We estimate that nearly all residents of industrialized countries and a median of 82% in countries with an emerging and diversifying food system are able to afford a nutritious diet"

Besides, the question is relative to what? What percent of your income is worth spending on healthy food? Put a number on it and then we'll talk.

A recommended diet is considered affordable if it does not exceed 63% of the median income

63% of income on food is expensive

the question is relative to what

Relative to the standard American diet, what you are suggesting is expensive. Processed foods may be bad for you, but they are unarguably cheap calories.

> To assess affordability, the CoRD is constructed by the median cost of the healthy diet compared to median incomes under the assumption that 63% of income is spent on food 11,13

Paper is baed on prices from 2020.

11. Herforth, A. et al. Cost and Affordability of Healthy Diets Across and Within Countries: Background Paper for the State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 (FAO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/cb2431en Return to ref 11 in article

13. FAO, IFAD, WFP & UNICEF. The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World 2020 (FAO, IFAD, UNICEF, WFP and WHO, 2020); https://doi.org/10.4060/ca9692en

Can free will bend inflation ?

And in my case, don't speedrun 100% grubhub for all the 100+ restaurants in the college town

I’m an All Tacos% runner myself

We're also fundamentally lazy creatures. Useless expenditure of energy does not promote survival. We're predisposed to do nothing. Couple that with our ability to amuse ourselves with endless entertainment and it's tough to get people moving.

The root cause for a lot of people is being addicted to the sugar hit. And for a reason: We like to perform. At first for baccalauréat, then for exams, then at work. I need my sugar hit, because I love being a good coder, focussed and in the flow. I love feeling clever. Sugar is a bit like cocaine, if I understand well, in terms of the way it works on dopamine. And our society demands a lot from us.

I wish I got into slow living, but I don’t have enough friendships to be happy with less work. Vicious circle ;)

This should be the diet. Let's eat less junk food and we'll be better

Coach potatoes spend approximately the same amount of calories as modern-day hunter-gatherers. The current thinking is that a body has an energy budget to spend. If one does not move, that energy is spent on other things like hormone synthesis. Conversely walking or even running for 5 miles each day will not decrease the weight.

So been overweight is really about eating too much. This does not mean that one should not move. That has a lot of benefits, it is just loosing wright is not one of them.

Except those that regularly take part in physically strenuous activities are often very much aware that excess weight makes those activities much harder (particularly if you're at all competitive), which provides extra motivation for being concerned with what and how much you eat. Anecdata, yes, but everyone I know that was overweight in the past and has now lost it and kept it off has done so by taking up some sort of sport/regular physical activity (mostly cycling). I don't know anyone who's done so just by dieting alone.

Just the opposite from yo: everyone I know who lost weight permanently did so by changing their diet exclusively (no changes on exercise). In fact some of the sports guys gained some weight with sports (lifting, gained muscle)

They've typically still lost fat though, even if they've gained weight.

I don't know what sort of stats there are comparing those who've lost weight and successfully kept it off (for, say, 10 years or so) via exercise/sports vs via dieting alone, though from what I know it's a pretty low percentage that do manage in the latter group. My understanding is that the initial weight loss is primarily down to diet changes, but exercise works better at helping maintaining a healthier weight/lifestyle.

Having more muscle mass increases BMR.

Having a higher cardiovascular capacity increases the number of potential calories you can burn per hour.

Weight loss strategies that don't include exercise can work, but it is silly to do so. Exercise improves longevity, mental health, and expedites weight loss. All things equal, if you add a 5 mile walk to your daily regiment, you will lose weight faster.

Cool. Glad that works for you. Not everyone can walk. These discussions are always very "me me me" and rarely of much value.

Over 99% of humans can walk. I don't think that's very "me me me".

> Over 99% of humans can walk.

Clearly not, even before considering particular disability; average age of children first walking is over a year, and the number of children under 1 is well over 1% of world population.

More relevant to the discussion, though, in the US, 13.7% of adults have a mobility disability with serious difficulty walking or climbing stairs. [0]

[0] https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/disabilityandhealth/infographic-d....

You know what. You are right. This is an excellent critique and I'm quite literally quivering in my boots at the sheer intellectual dominance exuding from your comment. I've learned my lesson and in the future will consider my opinions to be irrelevant and not useful. Please continue enlightening the world with your critical thinking prowess. I look forward to reading your future work.

> walking or even running for 5 miles each day will not decrease the weight

This is so wrong. Humans have come up with calories as a measurement of how the body burns fuel. Food is the fuel and burning that fuel is spending calories. You can reduce the calories consumed and/or increase movement to burn more. A quick google indicates 1 mile walking is about 100 calories burned for a 180lb person. So walking 5mi is burning roughly 500 calories and if done daily, this would mean 3500 per week which is roughly 1lb of loss. If you replace that 500cal loss per day with 500cal of ice cream then yeah you’re not going to lose weight. So if someone decided to just eat all the same stuff they currently eat but go walk 5mi day they would likely lose weight.

Calculating weight loss is mathematically very simple and software devs should be familiar with feedback loops. The simple formula is track calories, weigh yourself, adjust calories for loss, weigh self. Daily tracking works. The LoseIt app does this for you and adjusts calorie budget when you lose weight (less weight means lower budget).

> Maybe it takes time to prepare.

> Walk. Walk uphill. Lift if you can. Run if you can.

AKA waste half of your life to prolong it by 3%

What? Exercise does not take that long, and adds far more than 3%. It also improves the quality of life by 10X compared to not doing it.

> It also improves the quality of life by 10X compared to not doing it.

This is laughable.

> and adds far more than 3%

And this is simply not true. The increase is under 4 years, so under 5% https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3395188/

> "Physical activity reduces many major mortality risk factors including arterial hypertension, diabetes mellitus type 2, dyslipidemia, coronary heart disease, stroke, and cancer."

That's a lot more than just a few number of years.

> "This is laughable."

Really? Exercise is linked to decreased stress, increased stamina, clarity, and general well-being. Being physical and mentally capable and competent into older age is a good thing and a major improvement in quality of life. Not sure how this is "laughable".

> That's a lot more than just a few number of years.

No, the number of years is listed in the study. Your implication that reduced risk has any other impact is baseless.

> Really? Exercise is linked to decreased stress, increased stamina, clarity, and general well-being. Being physical and mentally capable and competent into older age is a good thing and a major improvement in quality of life. Not sure how this is "laughable".

You should check your clarity already, you seem to be deluded by "common sense".

From: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22368221/

> While there is an association between some indicators of PA and IQ, there was no consistent evidence that higher PA levels might lead to increased IQ scores.

Exercise is not solely about living longer, though an additional four years on average isn't exactly trivial.

The anecdotes abound about the positive impacts. Dismiss them in favor of scientific studies at your own peril.

My own anecdote: I lost 90 lbs and started lifting and it's done wonders for various aspects of my life. I recognize that my experience may not apply to everyone but it also seems reasonable given our evolutionary history that regular movement would have benefits.

I'm a bit in that bag. If you listen to doctors about how to live well, it's all stupid stuff:

    - move
    - eat fresh, few and varied
    - be around people or pets
    - sleep well

Now I'm not against filling in some gaps in case nature misses a spot (improving low level things like mitochondial health) ..

Reply on news.ycombinator.com