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

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#131

Post by omginternets »

volumetric wrote: post #87
kayodelycaon wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know anything how to cook anything from fresh ingredients that takes just 15 minutes from entering the kitchen to going to the table to eat. It takes 7 minutes for my kettle to bring 1.5 L of water to boil. (Yay 120v…) Instant oatmeal I guess? Anything requiring dairy or eggs won’t work.

I've been cooking a long time and IME there's about a 95% chance that a recipe billed as "15 minutes" is only actually 15 minutes if you don't start the timer until all the veggies are processed, all the equipment is out, and all the ingredients are measured. Almost always the actual time for "15-minute meal" is 30-40 minutes—sometimes even longer. Not counting stuff like clean-up (any that you can't accomplish via c…

Agreed. This is precisely the issue with a lot of beginner-oriented cookbooks.

Fortunately, 15 min start-to-finish recipes exist. And once you have four or five under your belt, it becomes something of a pleasure to extend the 15 mins to 20 (or even 30) and make something better. At least, when you have the time, which for me is on Sunday.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#132

Post by Bancakes »

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…

Your body doesn't need ultra processed foods. It hasn't evolved to needing them. It has, in fact, evolved to surviving well on food within the horizon.

If you don't drink protein shakes, you will get as big as nature intended for your natural diet and genetics.

Cutting out ultra processed foods because they are not part of our evolutionary diet allows us to omit six or seven figures worth of grant money for science we don't need. Saves time for readers, too.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#133

Post by tjansen »

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…

If that's the case. shouldn't someone be able to find out which ingredients are harmful? It's unlikely all of them are.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#134

Post by doliveira »

gruez wrote: post #125
doliveira wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Obviously I don't think apples/oranges are in the same category as cookies/pizza. The reason why I said they fit the criteria for "ultraprocessed" is to show how absurd your rule is (ie. "something that feels engineered to please your tongue is usually ultraprocessed").

It's so absurd that you understood exactly what I meant.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#135

Post by tpoacher »

It always amuses me whenever the crux of an argument is "too much X is bad", where the definition of "too much" is assumed to be commonly accepted, but when pressed for a definition it decays to precisely that amount for which X is bad (i.e. a tautological argument).

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#136

Post by legulere »

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…

A thing common in ultra-processed foods is that they are heavily optimized to be palatable while also often losing its satiating effect. Those are things that can be measured only difficultly.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#137

Post by drooby »

omginternets wrote: post #122
drooby wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That's not exactly lab-grown meat. But to your question, it's hard to take bets on individual things, so I'll answer this way: I'll bet against anything lab-grown or highly processed (Meati included), and I expect to make money on average. Time will tell :)

How is it highly processed? They are mass producing a naturally growing fungus, not unlike farming mushrooms. They seem to be adding some seasonings and sodium before packaging but thats not "processing" exactly.

Re: Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

#138

Post by omginternets »

drooby wrote: post #137
omginternets wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not exactly lab-grown meat. But to your question, it's hard to take bets on individual things, so I'll answer this way: I'll bet against anything lab-grown or highly processed (Meati included), and I expect to make money on average. Time will tell :)

How is it highly processed? They are mass producing a naturally growing fungus, not unlike farming mushrooms. They seem to be adding some seasonings and sodium before packaging but thats not "processing" exactly.

It's transformed from its naturally-occurring aspect into something resembling the texture of meat. That is processing. I suspect that it's also a non-trivial amount of processing, but I could be wrong. Contrast this with grabbing a handful of chanterelles and putting them in a bag.
Post reply on HN