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

Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 138 posts

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#111

Post by linsomniac »

mattmcknight wrote: post #64

Whenever I see any nutrition article like this, I am extremely skeptical. The definition of "ultra-processed" is completely arbitrary as I read it [1]. The control diet is generally worse on non-processing related attributes. The processing angle really only serves to confuse the nutrition debate as the attributes of ultra-processed food (excess sugar, use of partially hydrogenated oils) are already well established…

Ultra processed foods are defined by the "NOVA" classification system. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#112

Post by drooby »

omginternets wrote: post #77
garettmd wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which direction are you betting on lab-grown meats?

I'm betting they go in the same direction as margarine.

Does Meati change your mind?

This startup is growing a specific species of fungus that is high protein and vitamin rich. I haven’t tried it but reviews so far are saying it cooks, tastes and feels like meat.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#113

Post by cortesoft »

sudden_dystopia wrote: post #94
cortesoft wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought this, too, until I had kids. I tried this... they didn't eat, then couldn't fall asleep because they were hungry, so stayed up all night crying because they were hungry. Tried again, they took a few bites then threw it all up. Maybe they would have broken after a few more days of starvation, but I didn't have it in me to do it.

What were you trying to feed your kids that they wouldn’t eat anything at all for days? I let my son choose breakfast and lunch, within reason. And then mommy and I choose dinner. If he doesn’t like dinner he can have some fruit or sometimes he makes a pb&j if he is hungrier. If he eats dinner we made, he can have a treat. No dinner, no treat. There is no fight or arguing, that’s just the established rules now and he…

I didn't make it multiple days, and it wasn't just a single food she wouldn't eat.. it was multiple options, but she refused them all.

We have gotten to a better place now. She still will rarely eat what we eat (unless it is on one of her 3-4 meals that she will eat), but there are some healthy (enough) staples that she will eat when we eat our meal... strangely, she likes plain, uncooked, beans from a can with plain rice. She eats berries, and likes to eat plain, uncooked, spinach. She is also more open to trying new foods now, although she almost always dislikes them; our only ask of her is that she at least tries something before refusing it. If it was up to her, she would eat nothing but pizza or chicken nuggets for dinner.

She is 6, and it is an ongoing process to get her to eat more things. She complains that most food is too 'spicy', even if it isn't spicy at all. I don't think there is some magic cure that would make her eat a wider variety of foods. Her grandfather is similar, he only eats the most bland food possible.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#114

Post by mattmcknight »

linsomniac wrote: post #111
mattmcknight wrote: post #64

Whenever I see any nutrition article like this, I am extremely skeptical. The definition of "ultra-processed" is completely arbitrary as I read it [1]. The control diet is generally worse on non-processing related attributes. The processing angle really only serves to confuse the nutrition debate as the attributes of ultra-processed food (excess sugar, use of partially hydrogenated oils) are already well established…

Ultra processed foods are defined by the "NOVA" classification system. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

Yes, the definition is at the link I posted. I find it arbitrary.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#116

Post by brightball »

drewcoo wrote: post #99
brightball wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've long been an advocate for a 4 year program that coincides with the entire high school experience. Students should grow, harvest and cook their own food. While doing so, every subject should be involved. Chemistry and Biology are the more obvious ones for sake of soil testing, plant biology, cross pollination, and composting. Chemistry also should be involved in cooking. Math and science classes for sake of grids…

My high school had vocational agriculture classes that included much of that. Well more mechanics and weather science than history or lit, but still . . . that exists. Pro tip: If they teach Vo-Ag in your area, look for the FFA (Future Farmers of America) kids. They fund-raise by selling wonderful produce.

Great to hear!

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#117

Post by mrob »

prewett wrote: post #109
vkk8 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. I hate the term "ultraprocessed" so much, because I have no idea what to look for if I try to avoid it. If I chop my potatoes before boiling them, is that processing? If not, which steps in cooking count as "processing"? And how many of those steps need to be included for the food to be "ultraprocessed"? How can I avoid accidentally "ultraprocessing" my food when I cook it at home?

The definition I heard (apparently by the Brazilian woman that did the first research) was "any ingredient that wouldn't be found in a regular kitchen". Not meaning things like rutabagas or mangosteen, but rather things like xantham gum, soy lecithin, and things with organic chemical names. So by definition you cannot ultra-process your food in your home kitchen. I think the name is lousy, but I think the reason is t…

Xanthan gum is sold in major UK supermarkets. I have some myself; I use it for thickening home-made hot sauce. It works well for this because it exhibits "shear thinning". It's viscous enough to hold everything in suspension when it's in the bottle, but when you pour it the viscosity decreases, so it's easy to get it out.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#118

Post by doliveira »

gruez wrote: post #58
doliveira wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultraprocessed for me means "truly delicious and dopamine-inducing". Not that I don't find other food tasty, but something that feels engineered to please your tongue is usually ultraprocessed.

>but something that feels engineered to please your tongue is usually ultraprocessed. That describes nearly all modern cultivars of fruits/vegetables.

I envy you if you feel that way about apples and oranges just like you feel about cookies and pizza

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#119

Post by s1artibartfast »

rendang wrote: post #15

As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later. What would prevent us from doing a study like this: take 1000 diverse subjects, assign each of them a lab assistant, and for 2+ years, diligently track everything they eat, their exercise, sleep, etc. You could pay each pa…

What do you think you could learn from such an expensive study?

It seems too short and unfocused to learn anything meaningful.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#120

Post by positr0n »

arnejenssen wrote: post #20
omarhaneef wrote: post #8

I wish I knew what was ultraprocessed. > "Ultraprocessed foods are defined as "industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," according to the study. But if I have a package that says it is whole grain or whatever, how do I know if it is or isn't…

The sorry state is that a chain is not stronger than the weakest link. And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives. Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup. It is more important to avoid the bad anti-nutrients than to eat a particular food for a certain "miracle" nutrient.

> Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup.

Would a granola bar sweetened with the exact same number of sucrose/fructose molecules from organic coconut sugar (or palm sugar, or date juice, etc) be any more healthy?

I currently do not believe it would be. Sugar is sugar. But I'm not 100% sure.

Post reply on HN