Ideally the answers aren't just political soapboxing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 18 points 5 months ago (10 children)

That if something is marketed with health-based language or claims, it must be true. (or that things that are healthy offset other unhealthy activities/behaviors/consumption, i.e. "I might have eaten a ton of ice cream today, but I had a lot of protein so that'll make up for it")

Way too many people buy into "healthy" products, especially the very expensive ones, without doing so much as a single search regarding if it's even necessary for them, or if that particular product is even healthy in the way it appears.

People think anything with protein is inherently healthy, and the more the better, even if their body can't use all the protein they consume, so they'll eat multiple protein bars, have meat with every meal, and drink a protein shake every day.

Someone on social media says eating all raw meat and drinking raw milk is healthy, and they don't even look up how much more likely you are to get a disease from consuming them. (not to mention the impact on their wallet)

A drink will be advertised as a "wellness shot" and is just some fruit juice with ginger, but people will pay 8 bucks for it every day assuming it'll revolutionize their health, then drink a bunch of beer later that night and wonder why they feel awful later.

Hell, people will even take multivitamins or supplement powders that have 100's of %'s of their recommended daily intake, and just assume that if they get 500% of their recommended vitamin B, they'll magically become "healthy" by doing so, instead of "only" getting 100%.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 5 months ago (5 children)

    'Made with real fruit' is a perfect example...they almost never say how much

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago (2 children)

    They have to say the proportion in the ingredients.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    In the US the ingredients are listed in order but not with the actual quantity. So if they're listed as like "water, sugar, strawberry, ..." then you know there's more sugar than strawberry but not by how much. The nutrition label gives proportions of macro and micro nutrients, though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    Only kinda in the US. The ingredients must be listed in order of prevalence. They absolutely aren't required to tell you how much of which ingredient, because of "trade secrecy" laws so that you aren't able to recreate a "Big Mac,' for instance, despite the fact that you can totally find all that info in public domain, should you look.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 3 points 5 months ago

    "I might have eaten a ton of ice cream today, but I had a lot of protein so that'll make up for it")

    There is another one. In the end, you can see proteins as just another form of calories; if you don't exercise them off, a overabundance of them becomes fat. Proteins are not generally healthy or make muscles just like that.
    And btw, eggs are the best protein source. While of oats it's still around 10% accessible.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 5 months ago (1 child)

    I think some offsets are valid. For example exercise for ice cream. Especially if you do it while the sugars from the ice cream is still in your blood

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    Ehhh depends on the exercise and your goals. If you biked 5 miles to get the ice cream and now are biking 5 miles home you definitely have enough calorie deficit for the day that the ice cream is inconsequential. But if your goal is to lose weight, filling your calorie deficits from excercise with treats isn't very productive at all

  • source
  • parent