Hacker News Reader

Comment by object-a | Hacker News Reader

What should public health have done differently?

Treat junk food like cigarettes

Unfortunately in most countries the blocker is politics, not the desire of public health officials to do anything. See the current US admin going after vaccines while declaring open season for peptides.

People have tried. Any time the government tries to do anything a substantial portion of the electorate throws a childish hissy fit and tries to make out that the Bolsheviks are coming to make their fries less tasty for no good reason.

What's interesting is that it's different parts of the electorate that get upset. When Republicans wanted to make junk food/soda ineligible for food stamps, Dems got upset. And when Dems wanted to tax large sodas, Republicans/libertarians got upset.

I think the former makes much more sense than the latter, since it is literally being funded by the govt. That's a reasonable first step, or possibly only step, especially considering that most people on food stamps are also on govt-funded/subsidized healthcare (meaning taxpayers will end up footing the bill when they require expensive treatments resulting in part from an unhealthy diet).

This is a pretty insincere take.

Feel free to elaborate on my alleged insincerity. Was I insincere in noticing that there are partisan patterns at play, or insincere when pointing out that the govt should have more control over govt-run/taxpayer funded programs, as opposed to transactions between private parties?

I am sincerely curious to know your opinion.

And have a real conversation around Corn syrup.

Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating for thirst or a 'quick sweet treat' than the same brand/'flavor' using corn syrup, that includes both the big chains as well as the local names.

If I drink a soda with sugar in it, I usually wind up wanting water after. If I drink something with corn syrup, I usually just want more of whatever I just had.

Is there evidence supporting the idea that sugar is more satiating? My understanding was that they were equally unhealthy

No, the evidence is that there is no significant difference in satiety. HFCS is 55% fructose / 45% glucose, while sucrose is 50% fructose / 50% glucose.

yeah that was my understanding. for some reason corn syrup is vilified. the real problem there (as I understand it) is corn subsidies.

Ding ding ding. HFCS is a tax we all pay for no reason anyone in the general populace actually wants.

Well, There's at least this as a start... https://nutrition.org/sugars-created-equal-lets-talk-fructos...

Not saying Sugar itself is much better, however, yes, there is research indicating that the two are metabolized differently, so that difference in composition should be considered.

I am entirely unconvinced that a 5% difference in fructose vs. glucose is a meaningful difference.

They carry the same health risks if eaten in the same amounts. The only thing that corn syrup could be blamed for here is being too cheap so it shows up in greater quantity and in more products than cane sugar might otherwise.

HFCS is just one of those fashionable things to be "concerned" about so we can all miss the forest through the trees.

The difference is in the chemical bond.

Real sugar in your soda pop? What are you, a health nut? Must be a real my body is a temple sort.

Seriously though, it's a dogshit thing to consume whether it is sweetened with HFCS or sucrose.

"Even today, a Soda with 'real sugar', at least for me, is far more satiating"

Did you know that in the acidic environment of a cola, sucrose quickly degrades into fructose and glucose (and if it didn't, your enzymes literally immediately crack sucrose into them). You know, exactly the same fructose and glucose that would be added by HFCS. The proportions differ a tiny amount, but this notion that one is satiating and the other isn't should really send you down a path of self-discovery, where you determine how you fell for nonsense.

The idea that there’s some magic ingredient that makes soda a healthy choice is why discussion of “Junk food” Is so weird

I have thus far been unsuccessful at carbonating tea and coffee, and I have tried. Carbonated stuff tastes better, to me. And I love iced tea. However at night a diet caffeine free soda is much nicer to drink than decaf tea, and I always have said the day I drink decaf coffee is the day I give it up, as coffee isn't that delicious.

Degradation depends on how many amylase SNP you have - you might be very bad at digesting sugars which is nowdays a good thing.

Research results notwithstanding, my anecdata suggest that sugar soda tastes better, and I am not quite sure why. I think it might have better flavor overtones or better mouth feel or something. Less gluey somehow even though there shouldn't be any difference. Maybe the sugar recipes are better in ways unrelated to the sweetener (and bottled soda is also usually better than canned, but fountain sugar soda still seems better than fountain corn syrup soda) or maybe the processing is subtly different.

The production of corn syrup is disgusting and its weird we don't talk more about how it is made. Enzymes are for cheese and fermented foods not for subsidizing the manufactured food industry!

What is junk food? For example — are cheeseburgers and French fries junk food? What about when you make them at home, or at a fancy restaurant without artificial ingredients? Is it certain additives? If McDonalds makes a happy meal without additives, is it no longer junk food?

What does treat them like cigarettes mean? Tax them? Ban them within 15 feet of a building entrance? Put warning labels? Is giving or selling French fries to children a crime? Does this apply to food made at home?

(to all the boolean questions): yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.

Most of the time when people try to define healthy food vs. junk food in a fair and unbiased way, the line gets drawn at "whole foods" vs "processed foods".

A typical burger meal is definitely processed food because the meat is processed mechanically and mixed from different sources (usually with added fat); the bun is made from refined flour and refined oils; and the fries are thinly-cut potatoes blanched and fried in more refined oils. (Not to mention a whole bunch of chemical additives which are the norm rather than the exception; and "hyperpalatability" tweaks which means the food is formulated to taste unnaturally good.)

You could perhaps argue that a home-made burger meal made using whole cuts of meat, a lean wholemeal bread dough, and potatoes roasted in animal fat could count as a healthy/whole food meal, but it would taste different to the typical hamburger meal we all associate with fast food.

Fast food also has an enormous marketing industry behind it which pushes it in unhealthy volume, with maximum convenience, and at (until recently, at least) affordable prices.

Why does grinding the meat at home make a huge difference vs grinding it in a factory? Depending on the cut you choose, the condiments you add, and the portion size, a hamburger at home could be Lot less healthy than a McDonald’s burger. McDonald’s patties don’t have any fillers afaict.

The point is that “junk food” is a pretty amorphous and vague category. If you want to enforce portion or calorie restrictions you can do that, but it would have to be way more encompassing of a regulation than targeting “junk food”

The additives to the meat. Has to retain its color, be preserved, and they also add pink slime to it. McDonald’s adds soy, I believe, and there are all kinds of other things that go into it. If you grind your meat at home you’re going to get some delicious burger.

Heh, grind your meat

As of the last 10 years none of this is true for McDonalds. Their published ingredients say 100% beef with no additives, and they stopped using pink slime 10 years ago.

But we’d still designate McDonald’s as junk food, so it can’t be the additives that make the category

I don't think there's a neat categorisation. If I cook at home, starting with just vegetables and cuts of meat, at some point the food I'm making stops being "whole foods" and starts being "processed foods". But when is that?

If I cook bread at home, is that a processed food? How about if I make a steak sandwich with that bread? How about if I first pass the steak through a mincing machine? Still whole? Or processed now?

What if I add an egg, some crumbs from the bread I made earlier, and some salt and pepper. Still whole? And then I formed it into a patty and cooked it on a pan. Is it now processed?

When does it become processed and how does that look different to my stomach when I chew it?

Like cigarettes, simply ban the advertising.

> For example — are cheeseburgers and French fries junk food? What about when you make them at home, or at a fancy restaurant without artificial ingredients? Is it certain additives? If McDonalds makes a happy meal without additives, is it no longer junk food?

Yes, this is all junk food. It's not that difficult.

Eaten in moderation these things are fine. But they are highly palatable calorie dense meals that are not great for you over time and in huge quantity. A burger is generally speaking a burger, regardless of how fancy. Deep fried stuff is deep fried, regardless of the cut of the vegetable or how organically it was grown.

Your latter question is far more interesting to me. I don't have a solution for that really. Society gets what society demands. I don't know how you'd fix those incentives without seriously horrible second and third order effects.

Lean ground beef, bread, cheese, and a small salad are not “junk food” in themselves, but when you stack them into a cheeseburger they become junk food. Meanwhile salad entrees at several restaurants have more calories, sodium, and sugar than a Big Mac, but would be seen as healthy choices.

The reason point 2 is hard is because it’s really difficult to actually draw the line between normal food and junk/ultraprocessed foods in a way that can regulated. You can give guidelines on what a balanced diet should look like and warn away from excess consumption of certain foods, but bans or restrictions are hard.

Well, except for maybe sodas

Burger is not a burger nor deep-fried is deep-fried. Depends on meat used, and oil used, and cooking duration etc.

It can be perfectly healthy if prepared well, even frequently.

this is exactly right. We've got this society that readily accepts unpleasantness as what you need to do to get ahead(I'll question that but it's beside the point). People regularly accept suffering of all sorts. However, ask someone to eat a boring meal. that's a hard no. So, you've got large parts of society that won't accept that perhaps they shouldn't eat like children.

I basically sustain on junk food but my BMI is 19. I am a 35 year old male.

Tax fat people. No, I'm not joking. Especially in countries with some sort of socialist health system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com