7 ms·

It's a little dishonest of this article not to point out that junk food is engineered- I mean literally engineered, by teams of scientists running controlled ex

• foota 10y ago
  Is it possible to engineer healthy and addictive food?
  • chrisfosterelli 10y ago
    I like to think diet pop can fit into this category... but then there's the backlash of "unnatural chemicals" which sceptics believe must obviously be bad for you.
    • nommm-nommm 10y ago
      Diet soda is not healthy. At the very best it's ideally neutral, neither unhealthy or healthy. However, some research has been coming out lately that suggests diet soda (more specifically artificial sweeteners) may have various negative effects on health. Nothing conclusive but enough to make me avoid artificial sweeteners entirely.
      • zeroer 10y ago
        The carbonation in soda is bad for your teeth and bone health, regardless of the sugar vs. non-calorie sweetener debate.
        • AstralStorm 10y ago
          Carbonation is unimportant. You won't get bone problems from drinking carbonated water. The phosphoric acid is the problem - the cola drinks contain a large amount.
      • bfuller 10y ago
        sorbitol is a laxative, pretty sure taking a laxative every single day is not great for you
        • nommm-nommm 10y ago
          However, sorbitol isn't an artificial sweetener it's a sugar alcohol and it occurs naturally in food. When most people talk about diet soda they mean artificially sweetened carbonated beverages.
    • TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      It's not a backlash, it's science. See e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2892765/ While there's no conclusive proof diet soda definitely causes weight gain, there's absolutely no evidence at all that it helps with weight loss. Sugary or not, there's no rational basis for considering sodas of any variety "healthy."
      • mixedCase 10y ago
        Diet soda does not cause weight gain. Diet soda makes you hungrier, and that makes you eat more and gain weight.
        • nitrogen 10y ago
          Root cause vs. proximate cause. If artificial sweeteners prime the body to expect calories that it doesn't receive, and (or by some other mechanism) this causes later overeating, then it's fair to say that diet soda does cause weight gain. As an aside, I have a hypothesis that naturally focusing on proximate vs. root causes is actually a big contributor to the divide between major segments of the population.
        • AstralStorm 10y ago
          Control being pure water, unsweetened coffee or caffeine solution? Give me proper science.
      • chrisfosterelli 10y ago
        > there's absolutely no evidence at all that it helps with weight loss I didn't claim this. "Healthy" food is a subjective term, and to most people does not mean "something that makes you loose weight". Compared to non-diet pop, it is a healthy alternative. If you're trying to loose weight, stick with water. If you are managing your weight fine and enjoy pop, diet is better than non-diet. The studies you linked to support this.
    • djrogers 10y ago
      > the backlash of "unnatural chemicals" which sceptics (sic.) believe must obviously be bad for you. You mean like the fact that they inhibit beneficial intestinal flora [1], or that numerous studies have found that people have a higher risk for diabetes if they drink diet soda [2], or that people gain weight when they switch to diet sofa from regular [3]? Yeah, those wacky skeptics - they'll believe anything... [1] http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/apnm-2016-0346#.WDxeChIrKRs http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/doi/10.1139/apnm-2016-0346#.... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23364017/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23364017/ [3] http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0167241#sec020 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal....
      • ClassyJacket 10y ago
        It's literally impossible to gain weight from drinking diet soda. It doesn't have food energy. It can't break thermodynamics. It can only be explained by other factors like people over compensating with other calorie consumption.
        • bowersbros 10y ago
          Could things such as chemical imbalance or just the chemicals themselves affect metabolism / digestion, causing weight gain?
          • AstralStorm 10y ago
            That requires some good research to prove. What is known is that suddenly cutting caffeine after large regular intake will cause weight gain.
      • spullara 10y ago
        On the other hand, I stopped drinking all diet sodas and just drank water / carbonated water the last year. Absolutely no difference. Didn't even notice the lack of caffeine going from 6 diet dr peppers per day down to 0.
  • Filligree 10y ago
    Most likely not. The unhealthy components are addictive because they were rare in the ancestral environment, and useful, which is also the reason why they're unhealthy in large quantities.
  • tropchan 10y ago
    That would change the game.
• sandworm101 10y ago
  If the market is incapable, it is time for government to step in. We already have innumerable regulations re food safety and content, would it be inconceivable for us to regulate the salt content of potato chips? Or the calorie content of something labeled a "meal deal"?
  • wincy 10y ago
    This kind of thing scares me. As someone who lost 70 pounds eating bacon and eggs for six months, and eating about 5x the recommended daily amount of salt that whole time, I'm worried the government stepping in will make all our food taste like cardboard. Sugar is the enemy, but so often fat and salt are demonized when in a proper diet these aren't unhealthy at all.
    • TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
      The effects are cumulative, not instant. They only really become obvious in actuarial studies. Medical cause and effect is a slippery thing. You can't argue from individual experiences because some people are lucky, or they live in a healthier environment or have a healthier lifestyle, or they're less susceptible to certain conditions because of genetics. Salt and sugar won't kill you instantly. What they actually do is increase the statistical occurrence of common medical conditions across entire populations, in ways that aren't usually obvious until later in life. You may be lucky. Or you may have undiagnosed high blood pressure and something bad will happen tomorrow. There's no way to be sure. But if you have an interest in longevity, dietary discretion is a wise choice.
    • fotbr 10y ago
      As someone who could stand to lose (more than) a few pounds, this bacon and eggs diet sounds interesting. Was this part of a low/no carb diet? Something else?
      • blatherard 10y ago
        It sounds like a keto diet, which I adopted about a year ago and have lost about 50 pounds on (from ~185 to ~135). I learned about it most from /r/keto on reddit.
• Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  It's coordination problems all the way down. I'd prefer the ability to purchase the products I choose, and suffer the consequences.
  • chipperyman573 10y ago
    Yes, but based off the fact that you visit HN you are an informed and educated consumer. A lot of people (more than many realize) don't even understand how bad a bag of doritos is for their health. "Oh, it's just one bag" is a common saying. You probably will portion control, read the nutrition label, etc and make a decision. Most will see a delicious bag of doritos and eat it.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    • jimmaswell 10y ago
      A bag of Doritos really is just a bad of Doritos. When an average person eats a bag of Doritos, or even eats Doritos habitually, the rest of their life goes on no differently than if they'd never eaten Doritos. I'm sure an overwhelming junkfood addiction will have negative health consequences, but the vast majority of people who occasionally to semi-oftenly eat junk food are just fine.
• massysett 10y ago
  When scientists want to engineer healthy food to be healthier and more inexpensive--a.k.a. genetic modification--they are met with superstition and FUD.
  • gajjanag 10y ago
    The thing is that such engineering of healthy food is not really needed in developed countries with reasonable income levels. Yes, if one wants cheap processed food that is healthy, one needs significant engineering. The raw ingredients that are part of classical preparations are extremely cheap. For example, in the United States, rice can be had at ~ $0.50-$0.75 a pound, or in my favorite normalization, < $1 per 2000 calories. Beans can be obtained for ~ $1.00 a pound, or ~ $1.50 per 2000 calories. On the other hand, bread is far more expensive at standard grocery stores, and typically comes in at ~ $3 per 2000 calories. The above is an illustration with respect to carbohydrates, there are similar easy examples with respect to protein/vegetables/fruits that allow significant optimizations as compared to the average diet. The end result is that (dependent on location) balanced meals requiring a minimum of preparation work out to roughly $2.50-4.50 per adult per day. As for preparation time, again with some thought one can minimize effort (pressure cooking is one concrete example). The point is that if people thought a bit more deeply about their food choices and the cost tradeoffs made, healthy food budgets should really be very minimal as compared to far more expensive things, like health insurance, rent, etc. Most media outlets instead spread a lot of disinformation - the standard "working" assumption is that healthy food is organic, is found in expensive stores like Whole Foods, and that one needs to pay more for healthy food. A fun experiment that illustrates this point: try looking at the labels of marketed "healthy/organic" stuff at a store geared towards such things and examine the sugar content in them. And this is why such places get away with ridiculousness regarding their prices on basic items.
    • darpa_escapee 10y ago
      I've found that the caloric, ingredient and nutritional breakdown for almost all processed, boxed and frozen foods at Whole Foods are close to or exactly the same as their grocery store counterparts. Nutritionally, produce is produce; so to me the real value of Whole Foods and their ilk are their selection of meats.
• KKKKkkkk1 10y ago
  In my view this headline is analogous to "Philip Morris wants to sell running gear, consumers want tobacco." Well duh, of course selling human catnip is more profitable, but you're giving your customers diabetes and heart disease.
• saidajigumi 10y ago
  > junk food is engineered It's worth mentioning that there's a science behind this, called food reward. Stephen Guyenet is a (white-hat) researcher in this area with a fairly interesting blog. A recent post of his[1] is probably one of the better capsule introductions to the topic. He also has a book on the subject, intended for a general audience, in the works. A caveat: his blog posts vary between widely accessible and commentaries on specific research results that can be hard, frustrating even, to interpret without a lot of additional context. Go easy with what you take in here until you've got enough background. [1] http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/11/this-is-your-brain-on-pumpkin-pie.html http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2016/11/this-is-your-b...