Hacker News Reader

Comment by repsilat | Hacker News Reader

The submission title is a little misleading. The article does not indicate that these foods have been linked to reduced chronic disease, but

1. Studies have linked several nutrients to protection against chronic disease, and

2. The article has identified these foods as being rich in those nutrients.

View on HN

Yeah the title should be something like "Study identifies the most nutrient-dense foods". Of course, I doubt that would get upvoted as much.

This submission broke the HN guidelines, which say to use the original title unless it is misleading or linkbait.

We missed this one because of the "occasional evening off" bug.

(Submitted title was "Foods most strongly associated with reducing chronic disease risk".)

Not following your distinction. Are you intimating that b/c the nutrients are in these foods, they might not be absorbed correctly and therefore it would diminish their benefits? (btw- the title was taken almost verbatim from the text)

I think post is pointing out that the foods haven't been tested to reduce chronic disease directly. The assumption that they would is because they have certain nutrients, and consumption of those nutrients has been associated with a risk reduction.

BWT, density can be defined as nutrients per kg or per cal, when defined per cal this is what you get.

It's easy to say that if you eat a serving of X food every single day you'll get enough of a specific nutrient. It's not easy to eat a serving each of A,B,C...J foods every single day. You can't ignore the need to remove other nutrient-containing foods to stay within your calorie budget. That's the difference between 'nutrients' and 'food with nutrients'.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com