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

71–80 of 345 posts

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

#71

Post by AlexTWithBeard »

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…

ok, slightly reformatting the above and excluding "2% or less" ingredients for the first approximation we get:

- flour, water, beef, soy, cheese, ketchup, corn syrup, vinegar, salt, onion.

- the rest is "2% or less" which we can ignore for the first order approximation

To my taste it's too much salt and I also don't like sugar in my food, but other than that the ingredients are pretty benign.

It's 250 calories per 100 grams, close to my personal upper limit of "reasonable foods".

If eating one or two of these for breakfast make you feel full and happy until lunch - why not?

(edit: reformatting)

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

#72

Post by phonypc »

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…

I'm no fan of hot pockets, but what exactly is the point here? That the list of ingredients is long?

Most of the list is regular food ingredients or vitamins/minerals added to the "enriched flour". The stabilizers and emulsifiers with scary chemical names are present in tiny amounts regulated by various health departments.

If hot pockets are unhealthy, it's because of the qualities they might share with a homemade meat pie; too much or too little of some nutrients. Not because of some magical consequence of being too processed or having too many ingredients.

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

#73

Post by AnimalMuppet »

dilap wrote: post #27
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, pasta, fruits, and vegetables: all things we've been eating for at least a couple thousand years; no fat or mostly saturated fats. Twinkies and Oreos: signicant quantities of novel ingredients that have only existed in the last 150 or so years; high quantities of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats.

True, but there's also a distinction to be made among kinds of carbohydrates. I think of it in two categories, coal and jet fuel. Coal is stuff like potatoes - it's fuel, but it lasts a long time. Twinkies, white bread, and even white rice are jet fuel - they burn really fast, and then they're gone.

Eat carbs that are coal, not jet fuel.

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

#74

Post by watwut »

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.

You can actually eat pork belly without it having bad effect on your health. You just have to avoid to do it too much. Is grain berry in the amount that satiate you actually good for you to be eaten every day for breakfast?

It is puzzling to me why low-fat cereal would be some kind of win or automatically should be considered great thing. You get energy from fat, sugar and proteins. Healthy human can and should eat all three, but I really dont understand why specifically amount of low-fatness of some cereal box would be advantage.

The issue with nutrition is that it is complicated. Food is rarely straight in the "good" and "bad" category. If distinguising between processed and ultraprocessed allows us to simplify it enough to reason about stuff in contemporary stores, then it is useful.

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

#75

Post by AnimalMuppet »

aitchnyu wrote: post #18

They had me. I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars! I also assumed the public knows sodas contain a nauseating amount of sugar. How will this "research" benefit Coca Cola as a soda company?

If calories in the bars are equal, and if your body can absorb the same number of calories from the food, and if your metabolism stays the same on the different kinds of foods, and if you have the self-discipline to eat only the same number of calories when the sugar rush from the chocolate bar wears off and you want another.

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

#76

Post by Junk_Collector »

notdang wrote: post #13

The article states that : 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. I've never lived for more than 1-2 months in any of these "high income countries". What does it mean to consume "ultra-processed" food? Can someone give an example how the daily dietary intake can be 50% processed foods? Wh…

Well to start with ultra processed as defined by the article would include...

All cured meats

Meat that has been shredded ground and or blended such as hamburger or meatballs

Breads and pastries

Yogurts, cheese, and ice cream

Anything with a roux or other thickening agent

Candy

Most fried foods

Anything with preservatives added

Anything including alcohol

Anything that has been artificially colored

It's not hard to see how those add ups.

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

#77

Post by dilap »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #73
dilap wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bread, pasta, fruits, and vegetables: all things we've been eating for at least a couple thousand years; no fat or mostly saturated fats. Twinkies and Oreos: signicant quantities of novel ingredients that have only existed in the last 150 or so years; high quantities of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats.

True, but there's also a distinction to be made among kinds of carbohydrates. I think of it in two categories, coal and jet fuel. Coal is stuff like potatoes - it's fuel, but it lasts a long time. Twinkies, white bread, and even white rice are jet fuel - they burn really fast, and then they're gone. Eat carbs that are coal, not jet fuel.

Definitely differences, but I'm not convinced it matters so much, at least in healthy people.

E.g., lots of people eat a whole lot of white rice and seem to do quite well on it. The Hadza, a tribe in africa, at certain times of the year, get about half their calories from honey, and they are very healthy. And fruit would certainly also have to be in the rocket-fuel category, no?

(If you're already unhealthy (e.g. type II diabetic), there seems to be a lot of benefit in going very-low or no-carb.)

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

#78

Post by mrfusion »

syntaxing wrote: post #61
mrfusion wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What kind of frozen veggies do you put in an air fryer?

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

#79

Post by jriot »

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…

Cooking in general is time consuming. You and I appear to eat vastly differently, yet we both make our own food from scratch. For breakfast I eat 10oz whole milk, 2 - 3 strips of bacon, 2 - 3 eggs, and grits with butter (at time I'll have potatoes or toast depending). Our other other meals will include roasted vegetables, potatoes and meat.

Preparing each meal everyday is time consuming but I view as the best investment in my family's life. We rarely get sick, if so its a day cold when the weather changes. We sleep a solid 8 hours a day, and only go to the for our yearly health check-ups. We also highly naturally so this factors into it.

Now I do live in Louisiana and Mardi Gras is right around the corner which means King Cake. Is this healthy for me? No, not at all. But it's once a year and we buy them from the local bakeries, where each bakery has their own recipe. Does this it make anymore healthy? Probably not, but they are good.

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

#80

Post by jriot »

Junk_Collector wrote: post #76
notdang wrote: post #13

The article states that : 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. I've never lived for more than 1-2 months in any of these "high income countries". What does it mean to consume "ultra-processed" food? Can someone give an example how the daily dietary intake can be 50% processed foods? Wh…

Well to start with ultra processed as defined by the article would include... All cured meats Meat that has been shredded ground and or blended such as hamburger or meatballs Breads and pastries Yogurts, cheese, and ice cream Anything with a roux or other thickening agent Candy Most fried foods Anything with preservatives added Anything including alcohol Anything that has been artificially colored It's not hard to se…

Roux is an odd one as that is butter (oil) and flour at a 1:1 to ratio cooked over heat until the desired color is reached. It's the key ingredient in gumbo which has been made since at least the early 1800s.
Post reply on HN