Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist • Hacker News Board

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#11

Post by theteapot » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 7:45 PM UTC

zug_zug wrote: post #8

Tagbert wrote: post #7

Can we start with an actual definition of "ultra-processed". I've seen studies that defined any product with more than five ingredients as "ultra-processed" which seems both arbitrary and broad. Has anyone shown actual harm from these foods or is it more a correlation where people that each ultra-processed have a lot of other factors that contribute to unhealthy outcomes?

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#12

Post by matthewdgreen » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 7:49 PM UTC

theteapot wrote: post #11

zug_zug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Deep fried instant noodles are extremely bad for you. It’s possible to buy baked (non-fried) varieties and the only difference I’ve noticed is that the cooking time goes up by a few minutes.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#13

Post by ideonexus » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 7:54 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #4

ideonexus wrote: post #3

It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrat…

What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?

Just a few examples:

1. Sugarless Protein Bars: just last week I found one they claimed 30 grams of protein on the front of the package, but hidden in the nutrition facts is that it has four-times the daily recommended saturated fats. These will give you heart disease and are found in the health food section of convenience stores.

2. Pretty much all advertised "health food" snacks will make you exceed your daily saturated fats and sugar limits. If it's not a food in its purest form, it will have added sugar and fat. How many products slap a "high in fiber" sticker on their package, when in reality they have very little fiber or are selling you that fiber with a huge dose of sugar and fat?

3. "lean" meats: This one shocked me. Advertised as high in protein, health youtubers promoted it to me all the time, but actually very rich in unhealthy fats and getting more fatty every decade as cows and chickens are bred for more fat.

4. Rice, Pasta, and other simple carbs: I started monitoring my glucose and these had to go after watching incredible spikes in blood sugar after eating them.

What do I eat now? Whole grains and Legumes daily, leafy greens daily, fresh and frozen fruits, and fish three times a week. My blood sugars are stable, my lipid profile is great, and I'm getting the best sleep of my life as tracked by my fitbit. I look around me at the epidemic of metabolic disease and then I look at how 95% of every grocery store contributes to that and I want to see public policy change on this issue.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#14

Post by hollerith » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 7:55 PM UTC

theteapot wrote: post #11

zug_zug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

I am just guessing here, not having studied the issue in depth, but someone whose ancestors lived in South East Asia (or East Asia), where rice has provided the majority of the calories for thousands of years, can probably remain healthy on a diet high in refined carbohydrates, a diet that is clearly unhealthy for me, whose ancestors come from Northern Europe where keeping cows and later pigs was a large part of the agricultural economy for the last 6,000 years or so (and before then there was a large supply of large animals available for hunting -- large animals that specialize in eating grass and therefore are not loaded with parasites the way that animals that sometimes eat meat are). I do much better when most of my calories come from fat and protein.

But I do not partake in the ketosis fad: I eat a small amount of carbs with almost every meal, and if I don't, I get heart palpitations. (And I've seen studies showing the ketosis is a strain on the heart.)

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#15

Post by stavros » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 7:58 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #4

ideonexus wrote: post #3

It's not just the UPFs, we need scientifically-backed truth-in-advertising for all foods. For years I thought I was eating very healthy, but then my blood tests got worse and worse until my doctor wanted to put me on medications. I asked for six more months, and spent that time reading the labels on all the "healthy" foods I was consuming. It was eye-opening. So much added sugar, saturated fat, and simple carbohydrat…

What did your “very healthy” diet consist of? Why did you consider it healthy, and in what specific way were you wrong?

If your food comes with a label, it's not healthy.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#16

Post by ianburrell » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 8:00 PM UTC

theamk wrote: post #6

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made onl…

The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins.

If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad. I haven't seen argument that the preservatives and making things on industrial scale is the problem.

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#17

Post by hollerith » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 8:05 PM UTC

matthewdgreen wrote: post #12

theteapot wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Deep fried instant noodles are extremely bad for you. It’s possible to buy baked (non-fried) varieties and the only difference I’ve noticed is that the cooking time goes up by a few minutes.

Noodles don't need to be fried or baked, and I would think that baking them would produce nasty acrylamide in even greater quantities than frying them does unless perhaps the baker is using carefully-controlled low temperatures, which it is unrealistic to assume an economically-motivated producer would do.

But then maybe noodles do need to be fried or baked to have a long shelf life in hot weather when refrigeration is not available? But even in a hot climate, white flour has a long shelf-life, and a person without a refrigerator can make noodles from scratch like the Italians like to do. (The Italians tend to add eggs, but I am guessing grandparent has regular access to eggs.)

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#18

Post by Ekaros » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 8:06 PM UTC

ianburrell wrote: post #16

theamk wrote: post #6

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made onl…

The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad…

Depends on preservatives. Nitrites/Nitrates used with cured meats seem to be less than ideal... On other hand they also increase food safety...

Which also opens up question of what factors we balance. Removing too many preservatives from food likely will increase waste. Which then have corresponding impact emissions and resources in general...

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#19

Post by _DeadFred_ » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 8:10 PM UTC

theteapot wrote: post #11

zug_zug wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We can, but it's going to be technical. The layman's definition is -- "things we eat that bear little resemblance to the food we have evolved on" but wikipedia says that Nova defines it as: Industrially manufactured food products made up of several ingredients (formulations) including sugar, oils, fats and salt (generally in combination and in higher amounts than in processed foods) and food substances of no or rare…

So .. instant noodles are UPF? Please say no. That's basically 50%+ of what I eat (with veggies etc) and I think that's probably true for an entire generation of low income persons across South East Asia these days.

Are they made from brown rice and keep the bran and germ portions or from heavily processed white rice? Are they made from whole grain flour or processed white flower?

Re: Ultra-processed foods need tobacco-style warnings, says scientist

#20

Post by esd_g0d » Thu, Jun 27, 2024, 8:10 PM UTC

ianburrell wrote: post #16

theamk wrote: post #6

I just wish there were a good definition of "ultra-processed food", because most of the ones I saw basically equivalent to "I'll tell you when I see it". Like wikipedia [0]: "An ultra-processed food (UPF) is an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds." But this describes almost any prepared food. For example take an good cheese, something made onl…

The definition is clear but it produces weird results. And isn't useful for determining harm. The UPF categories with most harm are processed meats and sugary beverages. But some are healthy, like whole grain bread cause of fiber and vitamins. If sugar is the problem, then fruit juice should also be the problem and processing doesn't matter. Highly processed corn syrup may be worse, but regular sugar is almost as bad…

Yeah, to me the whole discussion of "UPF = unhealthy" is based on a romanticization of "natural" that breaks down if you try to make sense of it.

If you use the right words, you can make even cheese and butter sound ultra processed. So the concept of UPF itself is shaky.

Additionally, there is nothing inherent in the "food processing" process that makes the material "unhealthy" -- whatever those words mean. So even if we could define UPFs, there wouldn't be an inherent correlation with unhealthiness, as pointed out in the example of fruit juice -- a personal favorite of mine, because the natural crowd loves fruit juice (don't get me wrong, I love it too, but I'm aware it's just candy)