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

161–170 of 437 posts

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

#161

Post by nox101 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #35
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…

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.

"use common sense" lol - the same common sense that people use when confronted with dyhydrogenoxide? the same common sense that people used if asked about sodium chloride? The same common sense about that tomato, mushroom, seaweed extract called MSG?

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

#162

Post by zby »

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…

Actually carbs are necessary and carbs are sugars. In the past people with diabetes tried to live on a completely carb free diet - but you cannot do that for long. Personally I am not sure I am buying the narrative about fructose - but it is plausible that it might be bad - but glucose you'll have in your blood even if you don't eat any sugar - because your own body produces it if you don't get it from the food directly.

I wonder why nobody has started sweetening stuff with glucose as a 'healthy sweetener'. It is maybe 3 times more expensive than normal sugar - but I guess this is mostly because it is not a common product - cane sugar in Poland is of the same price - and the impact on the price of the end product would be marginal.

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

#163

Post by standardUser »

sabbaticaldev wrote: post #133
mint2 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That doesn't make any sense. If I have a bowl of oatmeal, and I sprinkle sugar on top, it does not magically become ultra-processed.

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

#164

Post by standardUser »

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…

If you don't eat sugar directly your body will produce it. And unless you plan on eating no fruits or vegetables I can't imagine a diet devoid of all sugar.

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

#165

Post by orev »

xnx wrote: post #91
mchannon wrote: post #49

The article name is "Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad for you", the opposite of this thread's title. Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room: fiber. Fiber locks up calories and makes the body miss a lot of them, or absorb them later in the digestion process. If we reduce the word "processed" to a single action, it's removing fiber. It's turning wheat berries into flour. It's ripping off…

Agree completely. "Processing" is mainly the act of removing fiber so more food can be eaten faster and more often. Fiber satiates, which is not a good thing for companies that are trying to sell as much product as possible.

Using a blender is also processing, but it doesn’t remove the fiber. It does, however, break open the cells and makes the nutrients and sugars more easily available separately from the fiber.

Eating healthy is just as much about the shape/structure of the items being consumed as it is about the nutritional stats it has.

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

#166

Post by zby »

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

That article starts with

> The ketogenic diet is a high-fat, adequate-protein, low-carbohydrate dietary therapy

Keto diet is low-carbs - not completely carbs free.

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

#167

Post by JoshTko »

kelipso wrote: post #147
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…

> breakfast cereals, bread and yogurt, were instead linked to lower risks for cardiovascular disease Breakfast cereals? That sugary stuff? Someone else said 40-60% of nutritional studies are not replicable. Sounds more like the whole field is BS. Scream naturalistic fallacy all you like but I would absolutely avoid all chemical additives and go natural all the way. If humans haven't been eating it for thousands of ye…

This is the best advice. Also proportion should match historical proportion, ie. very little sugar most of the time.

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

#168

Post by snapcaster »

makeitdouble wrote: post #93
xooxies wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Avoiding manufactured food is absurd to a level I didn't think needed explanation. Even from a logistics POV we're 8 billion on this planet, concentrated in cities. Everyone following that philosophy would bring a food chain collapse.

If we were on less censored forums would just ask you to "post body". Since that's not considered a valid argument here instead i'll just gesture to the countless innovations that have been developed by humans that turn out to have massive negative health consequences. What gives you the confidence that our current food manufacturing techniques won't turn out to be one of those things? Would you have made this argument about cigarettes in the 20s?

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

#169

Post by thimkerbell »

wyldfire wrote: post #141
tlb wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most bread and yogurt in the average grocery store is pretty bad stuff, full of HFCS, hydrogenated oils, and hydrolyzed proteins. But yes, I'd rather have a classification that clearly separates Coke and Cheez Doodles from actual foods. There are some multi-billion dollar lobbies to prevent that happening, though.

> Most bread and yogurt in the average grocery store is pretty bad stuff, full of HFCS, hydrogenated oils, and hydrolyzed proteins. I eat a lot of (plain) yogurt. But my kids often eat sweetened yogurt, which I've suspected is not-at-all-healthy. So I went to check the ingredients of several sweetened brands. I could be wrong but I don't see any of those you're concerned about explicitly mentioned. I do see "fructose…

Contains added sugar.
Post reply on HN