News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Eat Real Food. Parent comment

Re:Eat Real Food by cosmicgadget on Wednesday January 07, 2026 @05:53PM (#46534384)
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!

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Eat Real Food by ch4s3 on Wednesday January 07, 2026 @06:20PM (#46534666)
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...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Eat Real Food by cosmicgadget on Wednesday January 07, 2026 @07:04PM (#46535135)
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.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Eat Real Food by ch4s3 on Wednesday January 07, 2026 @07:58PM (#46535593)
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...

[ Parent | on HN ]