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

221–230 of 437 posts

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

#221

Post by Gibbon1 »

standardUser wrote: post #164
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…

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.

There is a lot of stuff I can't eat because the amount of added sugar is disgusting.

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

#222

Post by andybak »

r00fus wrote: post #217
andybak wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most people I know consider E-numbers as dodgy ingredients. (From a quick 30 second search) E300 is Vitamin C, E101 is Vitamin B2 And yes - I'm aware that vitamins that are naturally present are probably better than "fortifying" food - but still.

I've never seen Vitamin C listed as E300 on a label. So while you are correct, the heuristic (avoid E-numbers) works in practice.

OK but then why would a manufacturer ever use a E number - considering the stigma attached? Only when the other name "sounds worse"?

Is there a legal threshold where you have to use the E number?

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

#224

Post by klik99 »

disparate_dan wrote: post #207
klik99 wrote: post #205

Putting aside the vague hand wavy definition of what "highly processed foods" literally means, my suspicion is that there are two things making processed food worse for you. I've heard drinking juiced fruits is worse for you than eating the equivalent fruits, as the sugars in the fruit are wrapped in fiber that make the sugars "slow release" into your body, and those are broken down when juiced so the sugars hit you…

I agree. I think there is a third thing: processed foods are more likely to contain additives like colorants, emulsifiers, preservatives and stabilisers that humans have been eating for decades rather than centuries so we don’t have the same body of knowledge about them or their health-related impacts.

Great user name btw

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

#225

Post by roywiggins »

standardUser wrote: post #198
digging wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if the sugar is ultra-processed, yes it does, doesn't it?

No, it does not, since ultra-processed, though not a strictly defined term, does not include household ingredients like granulated sugar or brown sugar. If you happen to have a jar of HFCS in your cabinet then that would quality.

it's pretty processed compared to sugarcane at least

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

#226

Post by bityard »

PittleyDunkin wrote: post #129
tredre3 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 shoul…

> 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?

You mean, is there any evidence aside from every person who manages their diabetes through diet alone? Or the various pre-industrial human cultures who ate virtually nothing but fish and small game because their climate was notoriously resistant to agriculture and fruit trees?

> It's also wildly unhealthy if you don't have fat to burn. Only obese people should engage in that sort of diet.

You seem to be confusing the ketogenic diet with starving. That's not how it works. If you deplete your fat body's stores and get hungry, you simply eat some fat and then your body will burn it for fuel. If you decide to eat much more fat than your body needs, your body will store the fat as fat. But it won't do it quite as readily as with sugar/carbs, and you won't get food cravings mere hours after eating.

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

#227

Post by standardUser »

bityard wrote: post #212
standardUser wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe you can't imagine it, but lots of people do it all the same.

What you are referring to would be something akin to a hyper-strict keto diet, which I think nearly all medical professionals would consider ill-advised if not outright dangerous.

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

#228

Post by progbits »

pfdietz wrote: post #136
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

Eating most plant starches would be a terrible diet.

It's saying most of your food should be plants, not that most plants should be your food.

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

#229

Post by standardUser »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #221
standardUser wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is a lot of stuff I can't eat because the amount of added sugar is disgusting.

Yeah, but even a cup of celery contains a gram of sugar. Eating "no" sugar is preposterous. You could never eat any fruits or vegetables! But lots of people avoid excess sugar, me included.

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

#230

Post by bityard »

zby wrote: post #166
tredre3 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

To split hairs, "low carb" means different things to different groups of people. Lifelong adherents of the keto diet put the limit at around 20g of carbs per day. But you can find research studies and the like where they take a normal Western diet (75-90% carbs) and reduce it to say, 60% carbs and then refer to THAT as "low carb."
Post reply on HN