this post was submitted on 30 Jul 2024
22 points (95.8% liked)

New York Times gift articles

536 readers
68 users here now

Share your New York Times gift articles links here.

Rules:

Info:

Tip:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 7 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Some of the other reading I've done implys its the salt, sugar, and fats. These were historically much more rare in our diets so our bodies encouraged us to eat them. Now big food processors are using it to sell more junk foods.

I remember reading a similar study a while back that made claims eating processed foods from a young age trains your taste buds to crave them more in adulthood.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Right? The headline makes it sound like they're hunting for the mythical ”cravinol", but it's literally calorie density.

I recently had some homemade ice cream and I guarantee that was worse for me than the Ben and Jerrys dairy free I normally get.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

It's a lot more than calorie density.... it's the distribution of fats, sugars, and salts. Salt doesn't provide effectively any calories, but it's still basically the mythical "cravinol."

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

msg has entered the chat

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago

Aren't they designed to be irresistible?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 months ago

Would love to see a strong consumer protection administration straight up demand the proprietary research that pioneered this stuff and hold executives accountable.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 months ago

We need a study to understand the chemistry/psychology research the "food" manufacturers use to make the processed crap attractive to us?

Really?