Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 345 posts

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#61

Post by syntaxing »

mrfusion wrote: post #28
AlexTWithBeard wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not the OP, but: to me the cut point was when I started writing the calories down. After some time (a week?) you get a pretty good idea of what takes what. An apple is 100. "Boring foods" like boiled potatoes are circa 100 calories per 100 grams. "Fun foods" like chicken breast or ikea meatballs are 200 calories per 100 grams. Oil - 10 calories per ml. And then you look at cheesy crackers and realize that something i…

It’s a good way to look at things. Someone on HN said you’ll easily lose weight if you stick to foods less than one calorie per gram. I believe it but I can’t find many foods ...

I found frozen veggies is the best and so convenient. This + an air fryer makes cooking so much quicker. Also good for fatty foods like wings since it bakes out the grease better than my oven.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#62

Post by jeromenerf »

jasode wrote: post #50
PragmaticPulp wrote: post #12

This statistic from the article is mind-boggling: > Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Note that they aren't just referring to processed foods. They classify ultra-processed foods as a step beyond what we typically think of as processed foods: > Ultra-processed foods and beverages ca…

>, but in my experience most people prefer these foods because they think it's more convenient. [...] Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store. It's amazing how many people don't know how easy and cheap it can be to prepare simple crock pot or stir-fry meals that are healthy and delicious. I'm a strict health food eater but I have to be realistic and concede t…

I totally agree.

As I was until recently working in a food startup, producing "ready to cook" products (organic fair trade delicious mixes of grain, dried vegetables and spices), I can testify of a strong society injonction towards healthier food AND at the same time a rejection of this pressure.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#64

Post by icandoit »

dragontamer wrote: post #55
watwut wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If half of our food is ultraprocessed, then that's a problem with the definition of ultraprocessed. Why? Just because we consume a lot of it does not mean it is not "ultraprocessed". We should be afraid of a name just because a lot of modern food falls into the definition.

* Are there bad foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Frosted Flakes) * Are there good foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Grain Berry) * Are there good foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Brown Rice) * Are the bad foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Pork Belly) If "ultraprocessed" fails to distinguish good from bad, then the word itself is worthless.

What if the processed-food percent of a persons diet predicts their health outcomes as well as questions like "do you exercise regularly?".

Aren't we more interested in health outcomes associated with food rather than moralistic rules or labels?

The leap from "this general rule has some exceptions" to "this is worthless" is unwarranted.

You still personally expect people that eat less processed foods to be slimmer on average than those that eat more, right?

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#65

Post by implements »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #54
xnx wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure what approach syntaxing used, and "processed" is a fuzzy term, but bread and pasta have a lot more in common with twinkies and oreos than fruits and vegetables.

> bread and pasta have a lot more in common with twinkies and oreos than fruits and vegetables. Not if you make your bread yourself from unbleached flour. It's cheaper (except for the really industrial sliced junk) and better than most that you can buy and if you let it ferment overnight there is not work involved in kneading it. My usual recipe is 500 g plain flour (flour here is about 11.5% protein), 400 g water, 8…

Sounds good - though you can also use a Breadmaker to automate the same(ish) quality natural ingredient loaf.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#66

Post by dragontamer »

icandoit wrote: post #64
dragontamer wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

* Are there bad foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Frosted Flakes) * Are there good foods that are ultraprocessed? (Ex: Grain Berry) * Are there good foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Brown Rice) * Are the bad foods that are unprocessed? (Ex: Pork Belly) If "ultraprocessed" fails to distinguish good from bad, then the word itself is worthless.

What if the processed-food percent of a persons diet predicts their health outcomes as well as questions like "do you exercise regularly?". Aren't we more interested in health outcomes associated with food rather than moralistic rules or labels? The leap from "this general rule has some exceptions" to "this is worthless" is unwarranted. You still personally expect people that eat less processed foods to be slimmer on…

> You still personally expect people that eat less processed foods to be slimmer on average than those that eat more, right?

Not if you consider low-fat low-sugar cereals like "Grain Berry" as "ultraprocessed". All you're doing is making it harder for people to craft a useful diet.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#67

Post by SilasX »

froasty wrote: post #49
SilasX wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hot Pockets are a rebranding of meat pies, which have been around since medieval times.

Hot Pockets are not a rebranding. Hot Pockets are economically adulterated putrescence masquerading as a meat pie. Ingredients: ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, MALTED BARLEY FLOUR, NIACIN, IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), WATER, COOKED BEEF PATTIE CRUMBLES (BEEF HAMBURGER, WATER, TEXTURED VEGETABLE PROTEIN [SOY FLOUR, CARAMEL COLOR], SOY PROTEIN CONCENTRATE, LESS THAN 2% OF THE FOLLOWING: SALT, SPICE…

Was all-caps necessary? Or maybe a link instead?

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#68

Post by blakesterz »

twic wrote: post #53
icandoit wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me personally: if (foodItem.ingredientList.size()>9) {return false;} else if (foodItem.inventedYearsAgo() So I can eat a baguette prepared traditionally, and a few brands of prepared bread from the grocery store.

But not ciabatta?

"Ciabatta is an Italian white bread made from wheat flour, water, salt, yeast and olive oil, created in 1982"

NINETEEN EIGHTY TWO!?! I had no idea that was so new. That's interesting. I wonder what else is out there I just assume has been around forever like that.

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#69

Post by dragontamer »

chubot wrote: post #60
dragontamer wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If half of our food is ultraprocessed, then that's a problem with the definition of ultraprocessed. Breakfast cereal is "ultraprocessed" by the definition of the article. But Grain Berry cereal is going to be grossly different from a nutritional perspective than Frosted Flakes. For both to be lumped into the same category of "ultraprocessed" is a bit ridiculous. ----------- Its not like "processing" makes something m…

pork-belly contains a ton of fat and is just innately unhealthy Citation needed. Not all fats are created equal. For example Inuits consume 50% of their calories from fat [1]. They do not have the "western diet disease" (obesity, heart disease, etc.) It really IS the processed fats that are bad for you. You can see this all over the world when Aboriginal peoples are introduced to industrial cooking / ultra-processed…

> Citation needed. Not all fats are created equal.

Filipino diet, consisting of fresh chicken, fresh pork, fresh fish, and fresh rice will lead to heart attacks at relatively young ages.

Nothing against my family or heritage. But these things are known. Balancing it out with some "processed" canned veggies for +Fiber intake can grossly help and improve overall health. And cutting out the fatty Lechon (aka: "Island Pork" with the apple in the mouth) helps too.

Also bad air quality, bad water quality, etc. etc. lead to other issues. But diet is clearly a problem IMO. Even if it is a fresh chicken and/or fresh Lechon/Pig (which really is quite tasty, and barely processed at all)

Re: Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

#70

Post by AnimalMuppet »

syntaxing wrote: post #2

I mentioned this before on HN but it still blows my mind how much weight I lost by simply not eating processed food. Thanks to COVID, I cook most of my meals now and I lost a considerable amount of weight even though I didn't cut my portions. I think the biggest problem is that processed food makes me crave food even though I'm not hungry and the stuff used is just so packed in calories (fructose syrup).

> ... processed food makes me crave food even though I'm not hungry...

That is, processed food doesn't satisfy. We keep thinking it's going to, but it doesn't. (Or rather, it does, but only for a very short time. Then we want more. I've started to sometimes question whether I should take the first hit, because I know what's going to happen.)

A cynic might suspect that the primary point of the processing is to make the food sell more of itself.

Post reply on HN