Reddit Reddit reviews Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us

We found 30 Reddit comments about Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Business & Money
Biography & History
Company Business Profiles
Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Salt Sugar Fat How the Food Giants Hooked Us
Check price on Amazon

30 Reddit comments about Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us:

u/Foxxie · 67 pointsr/Pizza

Since the 1970s, the USDA has strongly encouraged the increased consumption of cheese in an effort to reduce the amount of surplus milk and cheese the government is obligated to purchase. Part of this strategy involved lobbying private industry to increase the amount of cheese included in fast and processed foods. Consequently, average cheese consumption has increased to 33 pounds per person per year, a threefold increase since the 70s.

It's hard to say for sure if this is the main cause of the difference you noticed, but it seems that it is a sign of a larger food trend.

Source: Salt, Sugar, Fat

u/colloidaloatmeal · 43 pointsr/fatlogic

Not to mention the fact that a lot of junk food is specifically designed to override those signals to stop eating. Food companies do NOT have our best interests in mind and their only objective is to sell more product. Add in some insidious marketing schemes that target us from childhood and you've got a recipe for disaster.

~Listening to your body~ is a great idea in theory but in practice it easily falls apart in the face of overwhelming social pressure to overeat high-calorie foods. People may think they're making intuitive decisions when they give in to their cravings but so many of these cravings are engineered by outside forces. Sugar Salt Fat is blowing my freaking mind right now (haven't finished it yet), highly recommend! Children are literally more sensitive to certain tastes (like sugar, obvs) and if you can get them accustomed to higher levels of it young, well of course they're going to think they've just always had a raging sweet tooth and they'll keep needing more, more, more.

It is absolutely every individual's responsibility to take care of their health. Nobody else can do it for you. But I do also think we need to lay some blame on Big Food, and recognize that going against everything you've been taught/sold is really freaking hard. I can't remember where I read the saying but it was somewhere along the lines of "it's not a diet, it's a protest." That's the kind of messaging that I think could really get through to some FA types. I know because I used to be one of them. They want to be angry at something/someone...fuck, get angry at these food giants for hijacking your bodies and your minds!

u/EtherBoo · 27 pointsr/nottheonion

Looks like the bottom of the thread is where any meaningful discussion is happening.

What a shit article; lumping clear scientific issues, controversial scientific issues, and morality issues in the same categories. First, how is Favoring the use of animals in research a "scientific" question? What's there to study about whether this is right or wrong? It's a question of morality, not a question of science.

Secondly, they how are evolution and GM foods the same? Evolution is pretty cut and dry with no other non-religious studies to offer a different origin story. There's no corporate interests driving evolution discussion (it's mostly political). GM food studies are typically funded with corporate interests, so getting a clear picture is difficult.

(Tangent here, sorry)
Do I think the scientist is full of it? No, they typically perform the study as directed. The person I don't trust is the one interpreting the results and translating them to layman terms. The food industry is terrible at this, they'll get a study to test something under a very specific set of circumstances, then claim the results are broad and across the board. Does this mean the scientist is wrong? No, they're just doing their job. The problem is with whoever is deciding to twist the results to fit their agenda. That's not thinking "scientists are full of it", that's understanding holes in the scientific process when funded by corporate interests. I recommend reading a great book called Salt, Sugar, Fat; How the Food Giants Hooked Us for some great examples of this.
(End Tangent).

Anyway, here's an example. Last year it was found that glyphosate was much more present in human breast milk than years prior (especially in the US). Glyphosate is the active ingredient in Roundup, and Monsanto assured us that it just passes through the system. Well, now that it's showing up more in samples of breast milk, are we supposed to believe that it's safe? What does this mean for GMOs?

I think most reasonable GM skeptics will agree that GM foods aren't inherently bad. Changing a plant so that it can grow in conditions where it normally wouldn't isn't necessarily a bad thing. If they could make a GM Haas Avocado that could grow in Florida (they don't grow here, I've tried pit after pit after pit :-(, only the FL avocados will grow) I'd probably jump right on it. What's bad is when you make it resistant to plant poison (herbicide) and basically drown your crops in said herbicide. Then you (the corporation) fund studies to tell me it's safe and I'm supposed to believe you'd publish a study that says your product isn't safe? Yeah, we've been down this road before with tobacco companies. How about HFCS (something Reddit generally doesn't really agree with scientists about)? Last "obesity rates" thread I saw had everyone blaming HFCS, yet a quick Google search indicates that science doesn't think that it's any worse for you than sugar.

Food science changes all the time. Years ago margarine was the bomb, now it's going to kill you with partially hydronated oils. Who remembers high fat diets being bad for you? Now that's apparently not the consensus.

So basically, this article is combining some really gray issues with morality issues. Additionally, saying scientists agree when there's a only a slight majority is a pretty disingenuous way to make your point. Furthermore, it's good to be a skeptic. If we just straight out believed science's current consensus (especially on issues where there's only a 65% consensus), are we any better than religious fundamentalists? Science SHOULD be doubted because that's how it makes itself better.

u/lesleh · 18 pointsr/worldnews

It's pretty similar. Take a look at Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us. It talks about how foods are engineered to be as addictive as possible. With things like the "bliss point", where when you keep adding sugar, it tastes better, until certain point, and after that it declines. So the optimal amount of sugar is where the bliss point is.

u/Gigantic_Brain · 12 pointsr/fatpeoplestories

>use subliminal messages and chemicals

Partially true... but those "subliminal messages" are really just advertising to kids so they beg their parents and the "chemicals" are salt, sugar, and fat. It's not much of an excuse though.

I only say this because I'm working my way through a book on the subject written by a food journalist. I think a lot of people will extrapolate their own meaning out of this saying "I can't do it because I'm addicted" or w/e. All I've gotten out of it so far is how hard-wired our biology is to loving that shit, not that anyone is "addicted".

It's actually been motivating me because if I crave something while staring at a vending machine I can rationalize that I don't really want it, my body just wants it because it's what I've been conditioned to like after years of not really caring. I'm no hamplanet at 6' and 183 (down 7 from 190 this month) but I've had more than my share of shit food.

u/beetus_wrangler · 11 pointsr/fatlogic

Oh, god damn. And the same bullshit headline about the weight loss "industry." Doesn't she know that food is also an industry? Like, a kajillion dollar industry?

u/bc2zb · 8 pointsr/AskCulinary

Wikipedia has a decent little article about the bliss point. The food industry has entire divisions devoted to determining the bliss point for every item they put on the shelf. Check out Salt, Sugar, Fat if you want more information.

u/jeepers222 · 8 pointsr/loseit

>I tried using really disgusting pictures as my background to make me lose my appetite or pictures of hot girls to remind me how gross and unattractive I'm going to feel after eating

One of the main things that's helped me with my weight loss is shifting my mental approach to food to be less extreme. You shouldn't feel gross or unattractive after eating, you're going to be eating for the rest of your life. You shouldn't shame yourself for craving something salty, sugary, or fatty - a major industry is built around designing and marketing food to create just that sense of craving!

What I do is make deals with myself: if I still want that food tomorrow, I can have it as long as I log it. No shame, no moralizing. I can have it tomorrow if I want. While I sometimes do still want that food tomorrow, and I eat and log it, most of the time I no longer do. Knowing that I am in control and can have that craving whenever I want removes a lot of the intensity and power of the craving, and helps me handle it more productively.

u/GreenStrong · 5 pointsr/offbeat

The book this is excerpted from looks good. Another excellent, and better known book on the topic is Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us, which is a #1 New York Times bestseller.

The book in the Salon article may be just as good as the bestselling one, but published a few months later. At any rate, Salt, Sugar, Fat is the one that defines the discussion on the topic.

u/slugsnot · 4 pointsr/conspiracy

I'm not saying this to be argumentative - but that is a very difficult comparison to make. Obesity is certainly not a positive thing - these people are losing decades off their lifespans. And it's not because of poor choices exactly, there is a scientific formula that harnesses the right combination of sugar, salt, and fat that triggers pleasure centers in your brain without delivering nutrients - to chemically induce addiction. They discovered this in 1975. look at what happened immediately afterward.

It's quickly becoming a global problem. Worldwide obesity has doubled since 1980. England is already there today.

u/fingerskin · 3 pointsr/fatlogic

There are a lot of scientists who get paid a lot of money to design processed foods such that people will eat them more often and eat more in a sitting. It's more than just "X ingredient is/isn't addictive," there is serious research being put into how to make people crave food, and that's happening because there's so much money to be made from selling those foods. It's not an excuse for being overweight, at the end of the day you're still a human with willpower and the ability to pay attention to what you eat and exercise, but junk food is absolutely designed to be addictive (keeping in mind that "addicted" doesn't necessarily mean "physically dependent.")

If interested (because it really is fascinating), I highly recommend "Salt, Sugar, Fat" by Michael Moss. Great read if you're interested in how that (figurative and sometimes literal) sausage gets made, or just want to have a better idea of the health aspects of processed foods.

u/bojancho · 3 pointsr/videos

This was read by Michael Pollan who wrote a book (The Omnivore's Dilemma) which is a pretty good narrative and comparison in what actually happens in industrial food (from the grain, to the meat, to the table), organic industry, sustainable farming and hunting/gathering your own food. It's well researched and very well written.

Another book that's also similar in topic, but specific to the history and current operations of industrial foods is Salt, Sugar, Fat. I would recommend both.

Edit: I think a lot of people are missing the point of the video. It's not about industrial food = bad. It's about having a relationship with the food that you eat, to treat it as an experience rather than calories. Seriously, try cooking! It's very rewarding when you happen to make something delicious and enjoy it by yourself or with others.

u/Captain-Popcorn · 2 pointsr/intermittentfasting

I should do a better job at archiving studies. Quite a few were posted within the last 6 months. I think this video provides a lot of medical evidence supporting fasting. Might also check out The Obesity Code book.

IF Success Stories

Here are some recent people that had success with IF that posted recently. Seeing these real people experiencing life changing weight loss is pretty amazing!


    Calorie Restricted CICO

    Why don't I think traditional calorie restricted diets (CICO) work? Because it has been the mantra for the past 40 years+. This was the result or a nationwide study:

    Our country is now 40% obese. You may be one of the few that have bucked the trend. But for most Americans, obesity is a worsening problem and people just can't control their weight. They want to, but don't have the tools.

    Opposition to Fasting

    Not everyone is in favor of reducing obesity. Because a lot of companies and people that run those companies make a lot of money by selling food, drugs, and services to the obese population. Be it sodas, cookies, cereal, chips ... insulin, statins, diet pills ... Dr visits, hospital stays, medical procedures ...

    The food industry makes a ton of money selling insanely expensive (relative to their cost to produce) foods designed to make people crave them. And they have plenty of money to influence medical research (which they definitely do) in their favor. Good studies are expensive. And its typically the food companies that fund such studies. And studies they approve and fund are 7x more likely to have favorable results for them. Studying fasting is not high on their lists of studies to fund - unless they introduce variables to try to give them an edge.

    One of the favorites is to have short term monitored studies. For example, two groups. One does IF and one does traditional calorie restricted diet. They eat exactly the same things. A month later they both lose the same amount of weight. Bingo - they're equally effective. But then you read in the notes that the IF folks remarked they weren't hungry and that the non-fasters complained they were constantly hungry. Is this relevant? I'd say that study proves IF is going to make it much easier to lose weight. Guess its all in the spin. And they headline is they are equally effective.

    Is the food industry just an innocent player providing safe healthy food to a nation? You might want to read this New York Times Bestseller from a few years back. Follow the link and click the look inside and read the first chapter for free.

    (TL;DR - They knew the their food is what makes children obese more than 6 years ago. They collaborated secretly and decided to ignore it because of the impact to their profits)


    People don't need a triple peer reviewed longitudinal falsifiable studies that definitively prove IF works to give it a try. If they need to lose weight, let them try it for a months or two. Doesn't work, what have they lost? It's free to try.

    The benefits don't end with losing weight. Look into autophagy. It might help prevent Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and cancer. And fasting makes your body do it. Fasting is anti-inflammatory. So many health issues are related to inflammation.

    Here's my story.

  • lost 50 pounds in 5 months and maintained it for 9 months (so far)
  • never get hungry
  • eat big delicious meal every day til I'm full
  • have a lot of energy and feel great
  • exercise every day because I can and my body wants to
  • Dr is thrilled. My resting pulse is in the 40s and My LDL dropped by over 60 points into the normal range. (He was so surprised he wanted to understand what I did. I explained while is pudgy nurse listened in. A few months later the pudgy nurse was slim and trim - she did OMAD and dropped her weight! She was very appreciative!)
  • achy knee isn't hurting anymore and I can run 5k
  • haven't had a sinus infection or illness that has sent me to the Dr (while before I was going at least twice a year)
  • my toe nail fungus is cured after 2 years trying to get it to go away - better circulation and a stronger immune system
  • dentist is thrilled with my teeth and gums (I guess if you're not eating so often, there's not much food bacteria on your teeth)
  • love eating and living this way - going back to food addicted eating multiple times a day would be a huge step backwards for me.

    I'll mention one other thing. Life has been especially stressful recently. None of your business but it a very sick child and some very complicated decisions that are largely out of our hands. My wife and I aren't sleeping very well. (Reddit is a nice distraction.) Its very easy to turn to food at times like this. And my wife has been. But I have not been craving food outside my eating window even in this state. If I were, I might succumb to be honest. I do eat well every day. A few more carbs? Probably. But weight staying within my normal 5 pound range. If I can do this with the current level of stress in my life, I can't imagine anything derailing me.
u/toothpanda · 2 pointsr/loseit

Two books I have found very helpful are The Hungry Brain by Stephan Guyenet and Salt Sugar Fat by Michael Moss. The Hungry Brain goes really in-depth into the neurobiology of how our non-conscious mind influences decisions and regulates eating behavior. The modern food environment triggers some very primitive responses in our brains and makes us want to eat far more than we should. Salt Sugar Fat is about the food industry’s part in that. Food companies (very understandably) want us to buy and eat as much as possible, and they spend an immense amount of time and money designing foods that tap into the brain circuits Guyenet talks about to get us to do it. Together the books have been pretty motivating, and I feel like knowing what’s going on in my head has helped me put together a way of eating that’s sustainable.

u/falafel1066 · 2 pointsr/HealthyFood

I just read Salt, Sugar, Fat by Michael Moss and he has a chapter about Todd Putnam (the guy interviewed in the article). Putnam is a former Coke executive who went a South American country to promote Coke products and realized how unethical it all was. So he developed snack packs for baby carrots and is now doing this, taking what he learned from Coca Cola and applying it to healthy foods. Pretty cool stuff. I highly recommend the book.

u/490A · 2 pointsr/DotA2

Hi Purge. Big fan of your stuff.

That aside, the human body (particularly the tongue) reacts very nicely to salts (required for basic neurological function/homeostasis), fats (mass-wise energy efficient, a trait inherited from our ancestors who ate fatty meats in large quantities when they could as a more abundant food source, in comparison to grains and fruits which originally required frequent foraging for. a point established by /u/alf666.), and sugars (glucose <--gluconeogenesis+cori cycle/glycolysis+krebs cycle--> ATP, required for virtually all functions in the body.)

Sugar in particular is interesting because typically it take a while for the body to pull glucose into the blood, which is then stored in the liver if in excess as glycogen(like a zip file for glucose). But until sugar levels in the blood rise high enough, the body is okay with eating more and more. Which is the problem with sodas and sugary snacks. Your body doesn't have the opportunity to say "It's time to stop." until its too late.

As a result, food companies (well, not just food companies but a good case in point) has used increasing quantities of salt, fat, and sugar in their products. It's just appealing to most humans, and caters to their basic physiological needs for this trifecta.

This is a good book as a reference.

Also video with same author.

Edit: Some additional detail.

u/SoddingEggiweg · 1 pointr/zerocarb

Food scientists have mastered exploiting our dopaminergic reward system with processed foods.

Back when cigarettes were being demonized, Phillip Morris (a leading tobacco company) purchased Kraft and other food companies to repartition profits (and save their asses). These companies combined forces to sell people cheap and addictive convenient processed foods. As families got busier, and their incomes weren't keeping up with inflation, and the stay at home mother was an endangered species, both parents had no choice but to work, and whole food home cooked meals turned into processed convenient foods.

All the while Phillip Morris was branching out into other countries, a western diet imperialism, assailing their cultures and damaging their health getting everyone in the world hooked on processed foods. This was a recipe for worldwide health deterioration as well as a huge influx of profits for the once prominent tobacco company who now had their hands in our foods all over the world. Silent weapons for quiet wars.

The consumption of vegetables and other antinutrient foods over the decades more or less just exacerbated the already malnourished populace.

Check out the book: Salt Sugar Fat: How the Food Giants Hooked Us

u/commiefromthefuture · 1 pointr/DebateCommunism

> name one area I'm saying we should oppress

Your support of capitalism is support for oppression - especially your own.

> I've done my research...

You've swallowed your propagandist dogma.

>and the fact that youre refusing To do research totally doesn't surprise me

What do you need me to research? How you can be so obtuse?

> there's a reason people were trying to escape the soviet block to the west, and it's not just prosperity, but freedom.

I responded to this, but you chose to block it out because you can't think, just vomit dogma. Read back.

>You've called me a slave to production and consumption. Explain that, how the heck does that take away my freedoms

You are being forced to produce and consume at the behest of the capitalists, at their discretion, for one purpose, to maximize their profit - not yours.

You are manipulated to eat crap they misname food, that only addicts and sickens you. They have a habit of tricking you into buying crap you don't even want.

>I'm here to have a discussion to try and understand why the heck people would support communism despite completely and utterly failing wherever its tried.

You would have to acknowledge what we do support, not what your owners tell you what communism is. I have explained this yet you hold on to your lies.

u/half_dozen_cats · 1 pointr/relationships

I know my comments are going to get buried under all the other ones. I think that's a good sign because you have obviously tapped into a very real and significant issue.

I was a picky eater, by most standards I still am. I didn't try a green pepper until I was 26 because my mom worked a full time job and I was alone at home with nothing but a microwave. When I met my gf/wife I lived on Domino's (they had a special named after me :( ) and bagged salad.

15 years later I now eat a lot more variety and make sure to include veggies with every dinner/breakfast for a more balanced diet. I can eat most anything raw but cooked veggies send me heading for the hills (there is a video of my trying cooked broccoli trying not to wretch).

Here's my point...I came around because as I read and learned more I knew I was basically poisoning myself with crap processed food that was high in fat and salt (BLISS POINTS!) I eat a lot better now and if my wife who is a SAHM puts food in front of me I damn well eat it. ;)

In reference to kids try this. Go out and catch a possum then strap it into a high chair and try to feed it mushed peas for a while. Kids are already hard enough to feed without a united front (not to mention the concerns with in utero...crap in crap out). My kids will eat anything because we don't make faces or act up in front of them if we don't like it. Hell my wife is Vegan but still makes meat for all of us and she doesn't say jack shit about it.

My point is I think your concern is valid. I think if she at least showed signs of being open to change you'd probably feel differently. I too had a great metabolism at 25...not so much now at 40. Plus again all that processed food is basically a death sentence.

These books are good reading IMHO:

u/JesFineSaysBug · 1 pointr/todayilearned
u/unconformable · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> What does that have to do with anything?

Capitalists put off costs on others, they don't pay them, they don't take them in to account. Do you not know what externalities are? Google when you don't know what a word means.

>Or do you think that nothing will ever be dirt cheap to produce and it is only possible because of avoided externalities?

It's not a socialist problem. To capitalist will always take their absurd cut.

>Wait, how can you maximize profits by misallocating and wasting your own resources?

By overpricing and selling crap that the consumer doesn't want or need, but are manipulated to buy, rather than produce something useful that the capitalist would have to sell at an affordable price.

The crap they call "food" is the perfect example: Read this sometime.

>So you're saying that third world citizens are getting rich of the back of third world citizens? That's kinda the point!

Either you don't know what "off the backs" means, or you are admitting capitalism is nothing but thievery. Which is it?

>People are suffering becuase maximalists ...

You need to get off reddit, away from inhuman white boys to see that you are only aligning yourself to the 1%, subjugating yourself. You can't get more extreme than that.

> economic laws, human nature or even common sense!

Capitalist dogma, there is no such thing as following human nature when people have reason(some of us do have reason). How many women do you rape today? That's your nature, to spread your seed, and you are very uncommon, except on reddit.

>I think that engineers of most major tech companies will disagree with that.

You don't think. You only vomit back dogma.

>You must invest to have growth, and people are not going to invest, unless they are able to profit off this investments. You remove interest - you remove half the incentive for growth.

Only in capitalism. Can't you get out of that little box you've crammed yourself into? Only capitalism has loans and interest. Only capitalists gouge innovators and entrepreneurs so they can steal the worth of their labor.

In socialism natural resources belong to everyone. The only thing needed is to decide if someone's ideas benefit society and is viable to choose to designate resources for that project.

You don't have a clue what you're talking about. Stop being a smartass and actually learn something, rather than spewing nonsensical dogma and blocking out new ideas.

Unless you insist on being a slave.

u/Rovanion · 1 pointr/sansat

Artikel [1] har lite tveksamma källor, bara en primärkälla. Dessutom går inte siffrorna i tabellen på sida 4 inte riktigt ihop, om det nu inte är jag som är dum.

Vidare läsning:


u/pier25 · 1 pointr/reallifedoodles

Those companies invest millions researching what works which is why they are so successful. Here is an awesome book about that.

u/almostelm · 1 pointr/loseit

Here's all my favorites! For books:

Fast Food Nation.

In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto.

Food Rules: An Eater's Manifesto.

Salt Sugar Fat.

"Pandora's Lunchbox: How Processed Food Took Over the American Meal".

For movies/documentaries:

Fed Up,

Fast Food Nation,

That Sugar Film,

Food Fight,

Forks Over Knives,

The Future of Food,


I believe all of these are on Netflix!

u/ABillionYearsOld · 1 pointr/CapitalismVSocialism

> There are plenty of cites in this book.

A journalist's pop book is not demonstration of a conspiracy by every corner of the food industry to get people addicted to anything.

> You're mirroring. Reread your mistakes and let me know when you correct them.

Mmmmm yeah I kind of figured it was going to go this way eventually. A lazy attempt to source something you said and then running away.

AH well, maybe the 5th time I try to get you to clearly state what you're trying to say will be the charm.

u/mewfasa · 1 pointr/Random_Acts_Of_Amazon


Cool contest :) Happy cake day!

u/tmt_game · -7 pointsr/EatCheapAndHealthy

OP seems to be think being Swedish makes IKEA a 'saint'. IKEA is in the business of making you hooked to their 'food'. They are not in the business of promoting health and nutrient. See why it is salty.