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

91–100 of 345 posts

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

#91

Post by megameter »

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…

A very common pandemic meal in our household has been "taco night" - fry some ground beef with onions, throw some tortillas and cheese in the microwave, simmer a can of pinto beans, then add salsa, cream, avocado, tomatoes, etc. It tastes good, it's simple and can scale up and down to the effort, energy and tools available.

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

#92

Post by syntaxing »

mrfusion wrote: post #78
syntaxing wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Usually broccoli (tossed in a small amount of oil, garlic powder, and pepper). Another amazing choice is fries. Without the additional soaked oil, the calories is surprisingly close to just eating a baked potato.

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

#93

Post by dcolkitt »

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…

> Yes, cooking healthy may be "easy" but it's still more work than junk food.

One advantage of intermittent fasting is that it's much less burdensome to make a single, large healthy than it is to make three healthy meals plus snacks.

(Though this can be a double-edge sword. If you wind up eating junk food, like pizza, for your large meal, then it becomes the equivalent of eating junk food for breakfast, lunch and dinner.)

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

#94

Post by icandoit »

Junk_Collector wrote: post #85
watwut wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

It's only useful it it allows you to reason correctly about stuff in contemporary stores. The argument is that the label does not supply information that is actually relevant to crafting a healthy diet.

It is sufficient information. Replace processed food (candy bar) with less-processed (granola bar without added sugar) or non-processed (apple).

People don't like ultra-processed in an partake-abstain framing (like many do with illegal drgus), but they could just apply a how-often, or frequency framing, (like they do with alcohol).

People are just uncomfortable with the responsibility being theirs and are exercising their denial.

The demand for a narrative about evil-FDA or evil-food-corp is HIGH. Everyone could just eat like the healthiest among their friends and family, but you can't sell a story without a villian.

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

#95

Post by kwhitefoot »

implements wrote: post #65
kwhitefoot wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I have a bread maker and it is more ish than same; perhaps it's not a good one. The long fermentation of 'my' recipe means that the gluten develops better giving a better crumb and the cooking method gives a better crust both in structure and colour.

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

#96

Post by pkaye »

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…

So would a beyond meat be ultra processed while ground meat is not?

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

#97

Post by dcolkitt »

dragontamer wrote: post #22
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…

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…

> Its not like "processing" makes something more or less poisonous

I completely agree with this. There's nothing inherent to processing food that makes it less healthy. In fact it could potentially make it even more healthy, e.g. adding fiber or protein to a starch. Heck, even just like at the original processing technique. Cooked vegetables are more nutritious than raw vegetables.

But the reality is that 99% of processing is directed at making foods hyper-palatable, calorically dense, and easy to digest. Because that's what consumers crave. If someone's investing the capital necessary to process foods, it would not be smart to do it such a way to make their product less appealing.

So the reality is that avoiding processed foods in favor of whole foods winds up being a pretty good heuristic. The only real exception I can think of are products marketed explicitly as health food, and even a lot of times they're not actually that healthy.

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

#98

Post by tobyhede »

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.

The second ingredient of Grain Berry cereal is sugar.

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

#99

Post by dragontamer »

icandoit wrote: post #94
Junk_Collector wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only useful it it allows you to reason correctly about stuff in contemporary stores. The argument is that the label does not supply information that is actually relevant to crafting a healthy diet.

It is sufficient information. Replace processed food (candy bar) with less-processed (granola bar without added sugar) or non-processed (apple). People don't like ultra-processed in an partake-abstain framing (like many do with illegal drgus), but they could just apply a how-often, or frequency framing, (like they do with alcohol). People are just uncomfortable with the responsibility being theirs and are exercising…

Except you might replace processed food (Low Fat / Low Sugar cereal) with non-processed (Pork Belly + Lard).

Which is non-helpful. A stir-fry dish from Panda Express and/or Noodle's and Co is entirely "group 2 unprocessed" by this designation. Is eating Panda Express all-day, every day healthy?

You can literally see them cut the veggies and meats as they make the stir-fry. Its fresh and out in the open.

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

#100

Post by KittenInABox »

DevX101 wrote: post #6
KittenInABox wrote: post #3

Does anyone have information on the impact and credibility of the publication (BMJ)? I'm a complete layperson in nutritional science so even though this speaks to me as a genuinely important perspective when it comes the bias of nutritional science I'd like to know if this is going to have any influence in the future. Additionally, how does this affect common meal replacements like soylent, huel, etc? Can we trust th…

One of the most prestigious general medical journals in the world.

Great, thank you! I'm not a medical person so I didn't know.
Post reply on HN