Excessively editorialized headline for the post to the point of trying to make the opposite point as the original.
Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
21–30 of 437 posts
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#22So 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 lithium grease[1].
The other thing that processed food does, partially discussed in the article, is sit on shelves much longer. I wonder whether we've detected the acute effects of spoilage (e.g. food-borne illness) but missed some chronic effect.
[1]: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2024/07/27/lithium-hypothesis-...
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#23Why 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!!"
Olive oil, steel cut oats, and dried beans, are processed. It's to differentiate from things like Coca-Cola or TV dinners.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#24Why 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!!"
Just as a side note/for info, there’s a specific definition (I think by the FAO?) used for them. The tldr is that when you’re extracting/reacting something to use as an ingredient (eg hydrogenated oil), it becomes ultra processed.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#25Looking 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…
There have been experiments that control for portion size, processed food still spikes glucose more, etc.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#26Seems 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. Here's one: if it couldn't be made outside of a factory, don't eat it.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
It's just as dumb though because the act of processing doesn't really mean anything.
If it didn't mean anything then why the findings in the article?
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#28From 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…
I agree it leaves a lot to be desired but i wouldn't say it's totally worthless. It's clearly identifying something and even a poorly understood adherence to avoiding UPFs would likely make the average person healthier. Overall though we obviously need to come up with better terms for this
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#29TLDR: According to the article, people eat more calories when they eat ultra-processed foods. The reason is unknown, one possibility is more calories per bite as manufacturers remove water and some other ingredients during processing.
Overall, a pretty underwhelming article. Not surprising, unfortunately -- I have been subscribing to the Economist for over 15 years since late 1990s until the slow erosion of quality made me drop it.
Re: Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad
#30My guess is water. Natural foods have a lot of water compared to processed foods.
Consider dried fruit. Quite minimally process wouldn't you say? Yet as snackable as candy.