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

Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 437 posts

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#271

Post by BizarroLand »

cush wrote: post #213
AmVess wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, portion size, calorie density, frequency of eating high calorie foods are contributing to people getting a lot fatter a lot faster than before. We now have instant gratification in food delivery services. Get anything you want without leaving home. In fast food, people are eating a day's worth of food in one sitting. Triple burger, large fries, large drink. People are doing this once a day every day of the…

These people you describe are experiencing very real eating disorders. Even if they aren’t counting calories, they are keenly aware that they’re destroying their body. They aren’t silent, they’re addicted.

Socially acceptable eating disorders are the foundation of multiple hundred billion dollar companies.

Every junk and fast food company in America sells food that does not satisfy you, is unhealthy for you, has a "taste" that is not easy to replicate at home but that has been scientifically curated to prevent you from reaching the satiation point when you are eating them (like Pringles, "Bet you can't eat just one", but it's all of the foods all of the time), has less nutrition year over year despite artificial vitamin supplementation, and is just a hair less expensive than cooking it yourself with better ingredients.

It's not an eating disorder to eat junk food in America.

It's a symptom of a larger society wide dysfunction that any person who lived in a sane world and was suddenly subjected to would consider demonic/evil/abhorrent/terrifying.

Don't blame the victims. Recognize the blight for what it is.

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#272

Post by 317070 »

tugdual wrote: post #197
Kirby64 wrote: post #17

From the article: > Even if the results show conclusively that processing, and not just nutrients, leads to poor health, policymakers will face another difficulty: the definition of upfs remains woolly. The Nova classification has no tolerance at all for artificial ingredients. The mere presence of a chemical additive classifies a food as a upf, regardless of the amount. This can lead to confusing health outcomes—a r…

When Carlos Monteiro decided to operationalize UPFs by giving them a definition (laymans terms: UPF is one ingredient you wouldn't find in a traditional kitchen and wrapped in plastic) Kevin Hall from the US had the same reaction as you and decided to make a multi-million dollar experiment to disprove the definition proposed by Dr. Monteiro. Result: People who ate unprocessed lost weight, and the other group gained w…

A link for other people who are interested in this: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-study-find...

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#273

Post by [deleted] »

blablabla123 wrote: post #188
Kirby64 wrote: post #17

From the article: > Even if the results show conclusively that processing, and not just nutrients, leads to poor health, policymakers will face another difficulty: the definition of upfs remains woolly. The Nova classification has no tolerance at all for artificial ingredients. The mere presence of a chemical additive classifies a food as a upf, regardless of the amount. This can lead to confusing health outcomes—a r…

> This to me is the most damning evidence against the current classification of 'ultra-processed foods' being absolutely, totally worthless. It's quite funny that even 15 years after labeling UPF as such there's still a struggle to "officially" mark it as unhealthy and I don't understand why it should be challenged. I would think that most children growing up are being told that candy, fries and Gatorade aren't healt…

[deleted]

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#274

Post by nobody9999 »

johnyzee wrote: post #259
tourmalinetaco wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So homemade bread is ultraprocessed because the wheat was processed into flour?

You can process wheat into flour at home. You cannot process sugar cane into table sugar without an industrial plant.

>You can process wheat into flour at home. You cannot process sugar cane into table sugar without an industrial plant.

That statement seemed off, so I poked around a little and, yes you can make granulated sugar from sugar cane at home[0].

[0] https://shuncy.com/article/how-to-make-sugar-from-sugarcane-...

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#275

Post by tremon »

wnevets wrote: post #203
Kirby64 wrote: post #17

From the article: > Even if the results show conclusively that processing, and not just nutrients, leads to poor health, policymakers will face another difficulty: the definition of upfs remains woolly. The Nova classification has no tolerance at all for artificial ingredients. The mere presence of a chemical additive classifies a food as a upf, regardless of the amount. This can lead to confusing health outcomes—a r…

People don't understand that basic task like washing is "processing" the food and can be frustrating when talking to them about this subject.

That's not about understanding, that's deliberate obfuscation. If people cannot (or don't want to) distinguish between a faucet and a blender, there is no further discussion to be had.

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#276

Post by devchix »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #208
Kirby64 wrote: post #17

From the article: > Even if the results show conclusively that processing, and not just nutrients, leads to poor health, policymakers will face another difficulty: the definition of upfs remains woolly. The Nova classification has no tolerance at all for artificial ingredients. The mere presence of a chemical additive classifies a food as a upf, regardless of the amount. This can lead to confusing health outcomes—a r…

I think there's some fudging of the terms here. When the article is talking about "bread" being healthy- well, there's bread, and then there's bread. Supermarket bread (sliced, packaged) typically lists a couple dozen ingredients. Ordinary bread... you know, bread-bread, like the one some of us bake at home, is made of: flour, water, salt, leavening agent (yeast or sourdough for those as have the patience). Bread-bre…

I bake bread at home nearly weekly, it goes stale and crumbly in about 3 days at room temperature and moldy by 7. I bought some pita and didn't use it all up. It was still soft, pliant, mold-free after 2 weeks. I tossed the thing, never going to buy it again.

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#278

Post by mauflows »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #270
vel0city wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so when does a butcher shop become a factory? When does a fruit farm become a factory? Is candied bacon an ultra-processed food? And even then, things made in a bakery can be made at home so I don't get how your above standard still makes any sense. Is homemade bread with flour milled at home ultra-processed as well? Candied bacon can be made outside of a factory as well. If so, it's not really a "was it made in…

Ah yes, the ol' I can't tell a fruit farm from a factory shtick

Uninformed Average Joe here and I'm with GP. If bakeries are out of the question then I'd be questioning fruit and meat shops as well

Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad

#280

Post by aga98mtl »

atombender wrote: post #144
cynicalpeace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. You can't reliably draw any conclusions from them. You have to use common sense and rules of thumb.

But some are better than others. The NIH is currently running a study (N=36, expected to complete in 2025) on ultra-processed foods where the participants are sequested as inpatients at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's research facility and strictly monitored 24/7. They can't leave without a chaperone that ensures they're not cheating. They've done prior studies such as this one [2] (N=20) in 2019.…

>The participants were allowed to eat as much as they wanted, but the diets had the same amount of calories total, and the same calorie density. The results are striking; participants eating ultra-processed foods consumed more calories and gained weight while the other group lost weight. [1]

Did they eat the same amount of calories or more calories? People will eat more of tasty food and less of bland food. You could get the inverse result by giving bland ultra-processed food and tasty unprocessed food.

Post reply on HN