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

131–140 of 437 posts

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

#131

Post by bee_rider »

formerlurker wrote: post #121
makeitdouble wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I wouldn’t be surprised if keeping moving contributed more to not dying than diet specifics.

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

#133

Post by sabbaticaldev »

mint2 wrote: post #79
hu3 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. I highly doubt these extra sweetened breakfast cereals are a net positive for health. So perhaps they should be more specific when it comes to mentioning breakfast cereals.

Likewise breakfast yogurt could be either yoplait “yogurt” or plain unsweetened actual yogurt, or anything in between. One is basically gelatinized sugar and the other is pretty healthy. If one’s classification doesn’t easily distinguish those two, that’s absurd.

one has added sugar and the other not, it’s clear which one is ultra processed

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

#134

Post by aboodman »

feoren wrote: post #124
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…

It's even (often) in company's selfish interest to have regulation so that they aren't forced into a race to the bottom.

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

#135

Post by sabbaticaldev »

cogman10 wrote: post #115
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…

While I generally agree with the sentiment that we should be cutting added sugar. I have to point out that sugar is naturally occurring in most whole foods. Nearly everything will have at least a little sucrose, glucose, or fructose in it. Most of the body's natural way of generating energy involves turning macronutrients into glucose and later into ATP. sucrose and fructose just so happen to have very short and very…

> That fast path is what I think makes sugar particularly problematic

there is no way to separate the discussion, doing so it’s just to avoid solving the issue that is to regulate refined sugar

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

#136

Post by pfdietz »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43
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.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

Eating most plant starches would be a terrible diet.

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

#137

Post by 4gotunameagain »

taeric wrote: post #19

Looking at the amount of processed food available in Japan, it is hard to think it is just the processed food that is to blame. 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…

You cannot imo use Japan as an argument for anything. There are so many unique and localised factors at play in Japan, that it could be something as obscure as incredible self limiting eating due to fear of social stigma.

Japan is a basket case.

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

#138

Post by vel0city »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #107
drcongo wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brit here: the idea that "ultra-processed foods" are really bad for you is definitely something that's entered the general consciousness here, but I don't think I know anybody who has any kind of meaningful answer to what "ultra-processed foods" actually are.

If it couldn't be made outside a factory, it's ultra processed.

At what point does a bakery become a factory?

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

#139

Post by cynicalpeace »

vel0city wrote: post #138
cynicalpeace wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it couldn't be made outside a factory, it's ultra processed.

At what point does a bakery become a factory?

I personally would avoid pretty much everything that comes out of a bakery.

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

#140

Post by adamredwoods »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43
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.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

(Michael Pollan) https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...
Post reply on HN