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

121–130 of 437 posts

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

#121

Post by formerlurker »

makeitdouble wrote: post #75
bee_rider wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s special about Japan in this context?

Japan isn't special IMHO, but overweight rate is on the low side. Now, trying to understand why is can of worm (social pressure and bullying probably plays a role for instance, which have other adverse effects possibly worse than just being overweight)

I went to Japan recently and one of the most striking things to me was how easy it was to walk to places. Their infrastructure astounded me because it was set up with people in mind and not car companies.

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

#122

Post by PittleyDunkin »

marcuskane2 wrote: post #90
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I highly doubt these extra sweetened breakfast cereals are a net positive for health. You can't really evaluate this outside of a metabolic context. That goes for a lot of things, but you're a lot more likely to burn the sugar more or less immediately early in the morning, particularly before a workout. Sugar is a necessary nutrient (i.e. healthy by any sane meaning of the word, if such a meaning exists) and we've…

Sugar is absolutely not "a necessary nutrient" and we haven't gone far enough in demonizing it. Literally every study, from rats to humans and from obesity to cancer to gut microbiome to mood to oral health to chronic inflammation shows that dietary sugar is harmful. Modern Americans eat unprecedented amounts of refined sugar compared to any point in history. Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol, no…

> Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol, not pumped into every product at every meal.

Sugar is naturally occurring in basically all the food we consume. Good luck ripping it out. Good luck getting a functioning body without consuming carbohydrates, either.

> Literally every study, from rats to humans and from obesity to cancer to gut microbiome to mood to oral health to chronic inflammation shows that dietary sugar is harmful.

The body also requires dietary sugar to function :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

> Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol,

Alcohol is a literal poison that you should not consume at all. Sugar is a basic dietary requirement. Of course, all nutrients should be consumed in moderation, but that's not unique to sugar in any way.

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

#123

Post by taeric »

burnte wrote: post #111
taeric wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that some of what this article was challenging?

I don't believe so, I felt it was we know it does just not why yet.

I mean, that is the headline. The thrust of the article was that a lot of the common things people offer for why don't have any real evidence. All we seem to have is that people eat more calories when doing processed foods.

Specifically, the RCT showing that people eating ultra processed foods eat an average of 500 more calories per day is what I was looking at. Seems to basically align far more heavily with it being the volume of food than it is other qualities. Though, my memory was stronger in what that paragraph claimed.

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

#124

Post by feoren »

0xEF wrote: post #66

Living in the US, my takeaway is this: Food manufacturers do not care if we stay healthy, but they're also not interested in harming us on purpose. Their goal is to maximize profit, which usually means cheapest ingredients with addictive properties produced as quickly as possible by low-cost labor. But they also know this only works if the market allows it. If nobody bought their snack cakes (random example), they wo…

This game theory problem, where consumers are buying unhealthier options because they're cheaper, and companies are producing unhealthier options because they're more profitable, is exactly what regulation is for. I don't understand why we've all collectively forgotten why regulation exists and become so cynical that it can actually work! Actually I do understand: it's industry interests spending hundreds of billions of dollars on intentional misinformation and government capture for a half century.

A reasonable counter-argument is "but the science is extremely muddy here, so effective regulation is especially difficult", which is unfortunately true, but I'd point out that the science is extremely muddy largely because of industry efforts to intentionally poison our understanding of nutrition.

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

#125

Post by slowmovintarget »

Given standard home kitchen equipment and techniques, could you prepare this item? Yes -> not UPF; No, requires a factory -> UPF.

This is kind of like the Jeff Foxworthy jokes.

If you remove so many of the nutrients that you have to try to spray vitamins back on... you might make a UPF.

If your product has ingredients where there is no evidence that those ingredients can actually be digested by the human body... you might make a UPF.

If you have to add dyes so your product doesn't look like sawdust or poop, you might make a UPF.

...

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

#126

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #119
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Olive oil, steel cut oats, and dried beans, are processed. It's to differentiate from things like Coca-Cola or TV dinners.

It's funny that it's only the high IQ types that have difficulty distinguishing beans from coca cola.

It's what I like to call being so smart they're stupid. Everyone strives to be the smartest most pedantic one in the room around here.

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

#127

Post by philipkglass »

s3p wrote: post #37

>...people in Brazil were buying less sugar and oil than in the past. Yet rates of obesity and metabolic diseases were still rising. This coincided with the growing popularity of packaged snacks and ready-made meals, which were loaded with sugar, fats and other additives. What. So they were buying less sugar and fat. But they were actually buying more sugar and fat?

They were buying less sugar and oil as ingredients to cook at home with. They were substituting home cooking by buying more ready-made foods and snacks that contained fat and sugar as components.

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

#128

Post by tredre3 »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #122
marcuskane2 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sugar is absolutely not "a necessary nutrient" and we haven't gone far enough in demonizing it. Literally every study, from rats to humans and from obesity to cancer to gut microbiome to mood to oral health to chronic inflammation shows that dietary sugar is harmful. Modern Americans eat unprecedented amounts of refined sugar compared to any point in history. Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol, no…

> Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol, not pumped into every product at every meal. Sugar is naturally occurring in basically all the food we consume. Good luck ripping it out. Good luck getting a functioning body without consuming carbohydrates, either. > Literally every study, from rats to humans and from obesity to cancer to gut microbiome to mood to oral health to chronic inflammation shows tha…

> Good luck getting a functioning body without consuming carbohydrates, either.

The body doesn't need carbohydrates to function.

> The body also requires dietary sugar to function :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate

Again, the body does not :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet

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

#129

Post by PittleyDunkin »

tredre3 wrote: post #128
PittleyDunkin wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sugar should be consumed in moderation akin to alcohol, not pumped into every product at every meal. Sugar is naturally occurring in basically all the food we consume. Good luck ripping it out. Good luck getting a functioning body without consuming carbohydrates, either. > Literally every study, from rats to humans and from obesity to cancer to gut microbiome to mood to oral health to chronic inflammation shows tha…

> Good luck getting a functioning body without consuming carbohydrates, either. The body doesn't need carbohydrates to function. > The body also requires dietary sugar to function :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbohydrate Again, the body does not :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketogenic_diet

Sure, if you like being constantly fatigued and stupid and have a constantly decaying body, you can strip all carbs from your diet. I'm not sure you can survive this; is there any evidence to the contrary?

Ketogenic diet doesn't mean stripping all carbs from your diet (which is, again, effectively impossible). It just means burning fat. It's also wildly unhealthy if you don't have fat to burn. Only obese people should engage in that sort of diet.

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

#130

Post by bee_rider »

bilekas wrote: post #63
bee_rider wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s special about Japan in this context?

They do have a particularly high life expectancy. https://data.who.int/countries/392

This is a lagging indicator though, right? I wonder how the diets of Japanese people ~50 years ago compare to the Americans of today.
Post reply on HN