11–20 of 437 posts
Why do we need these kinds of sensationalist names for things? Why is it so important that they be "ultra-processed" foods? Can't they just be "overprocessed" or perhaps use some other more neutral term? It's like the 90s when everything had to be "EXTREME!!"
I think it's partly due to the people (this site is full of them) that would read any other term and go "what is processing? Cooking and cutting is processing hurr durr"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's partly due to the people (this site is full of them) that would read any other term and go "what is processing? Cooking and cutting is processing hurr durr"
I have had this exact argument on HN at least a half dozen times.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309818/
My personal feeling is that I can eat like a king every day of the week. If I only had access to one kind of dessert, I'd be fine. I'd get tired of it. Oh, vanilla ice cream again.
But we have access to a wide variety of highly palatable foods, each with distinct flavor profiles; and advertisements reminds us how much better we'll feel after a snack!
Big recommend for Guyenet's "The Hungry Brain"
(randomly chosen podcast interview)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have had this exact argument on HN at least a half dozen times.
yeah people still do it but at least adding the "ultra" indicates is not something a person cooking for their family would be doing to food
> 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 recent observational study from Harvard University, for example, found that whereas some upfs, such as sweetened drinks and processed meats, were associated with a higher risk of heart disease, others, like breakfast cereals, bread and yogurt, were instead linked to lower risks for cardiovascular disease. Dr Astrup warns that the current classification risks “demonising” a lot of healthy food. Insights from Dr Hall’s work could therefore help refine the understanding of upfs, paving the way for more balanced and useful guidelines.
This to me is the most damning evidence against the current classification of 'ultra-processed foods' being absolutely, totally worthless. I look forward to the study noted in the article comparing high-density vs. hyper-palatable. I strongly suspect the study will show its a combinatorial effect... but we'll see.
I think it is a cheap observation, such that I expect people to push back on me, but it is hard to ignore portion sizes. Will try and take a dive on some of the data around that. But a personal level, it is hard to grapple with the fact that I just got less food per place that I went.
And it is frustrating, as getting the food, I would want a large burger/sandwhich/whatever. But waiting a small amount of time after a small snack/meal works.
Which itself ties into other systemic incentives. Processed food is shelf stable, fresh often is not, so it's friendlier to logistical systems that deliver everything we eat, which means less of it gets wasted, which means the prices are lower and availability is virtually guaranteed. Put simply: it is far easier and more profitable to ship, stock, and sell potato chips than it is to sell potatoes, and because everything in our system is profit driven, the better things map onto that, the more they occur. Ergo we're drowning in potato chips and still starving.