From reading these comments, i wish nobody was allowed to post on threads like this without posting a pic of their body so we can calibrate their opinions
Smokers are often experts on why cigarettes are bad for you.
Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
171–180 of 437 posts
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#172The 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…
Another way to say this: Eat foods with low glycemic index. Avoid foods that spike blood-sugar levels.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#173Earlier 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…
> 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.
How do you go from "Sugar should be consumed in moderation" to "Sugar should be ripped out of all foods and the body doesn't need carbohydrates"?
Why jump from a reasonable and sound observation to some ridiculous extreme nobody asked for?
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#174From reading these comments, i wish nobody was allowed to post on threads like this without posting a pic of their body so we can calibrate their opinions
Smokers are often experts on why cigarettes are bad for you.
I don't meet smokers arguing smoking isn't actually bad though...
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
Strong agree. The Nova classification is extremist and heavily useless. Yes if you come up with two classifications and one includes McDonalds burgers and the other doesn't you'll be able to show a health effect. Doesn't mean your categorisation is useful.
The poor categorization may be a purposeful obfuscation. If you have bad labels it becomes easy to have poor studies that are easily criticized, and entire movements or research fields for food safety can be dismissed. Instead of labels we need transparency on every last ingredient and process applied.
> Instead of labels we need transparency on every last ingredient and process applied.
Why not both? Let's list every ingredient on the label along with info on the processes involved.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#176So when I mix whey protein isolate into pineapple juice with plain Greek yogurt, is that considered an ultra-processed food? It seems like it would be, but I doubt the criticisms of UPFs really apply here. My understanding is that these are healthy ingredients, in a blend that's fairly optimal for strength training, despite one of them being highly processed.
Is there actually anything wrong with whey protein? Or can we find a better definition of the problematic UPFs?
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Well if the sugar is ultra-processed, yes it does, doesn't it?
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is something not talked about enough. I think it's one of those things where people really struggling with weight should be told CICO (calories in calories out) just to get their head in the right place but it's not strictly true for all the reasons you mentioned and others
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#179Seems pretty obvious to me. Humans didn't have factories until a couple hundred years ago. This means we are not adapted to factory made food. This entire debate is hilariously overcomplicated by smarty pants "show me the study" or "aren't cooked carrots processed?" types. 40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. It's called the "replication crisis". Google it. Rules of thumb are greatly underrated on HN.…
[flagged]
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#180So even beyond the factors in the article (calorie density and hyper-palatability) there's other contributing factors in processed food. First of all, the processing itself introduces several factors: mechanical and heat energy changing the structure (but not composition) of the food, usually into smaller particle sizes; and the potential introduction of new contaminants - one that has been discussed before is lithiu…
This is a great point and one that I think would change many minds. If you say "more calories" or "hyperpalatable", many people will think "I can control that with portion control - I just won't binge them." But if you say "it changes the physical form of the food" or "it has contaminants in it," it's clear that no amount of portion control can fix that.
Well that depends on what the form change does. Most form changes are just fine.
And whether portion control can fix contamination depends on what the contaminant is. A lot of things are only potentially harmful above a certain level.