Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by ProfessorLayton » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:45 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #202

standardUser wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does make sense if we're talking about yogurt. The sugary yogurts sold at super markets etc don't have sugar sprinkled on top, but mixed in. Normally, you can't do that. If you make yogurt the standard way [1] and try to add sugar to it while it's still a fluid, it will all sink to the bottom and then you'll just have some yogurt with a layer of sugar on the bottom. If you add it when it's not a fluid anymore, the…

>The only way I can think of to add sugar to yogurt and ensure it is evenly mixed throughout its mass is to use some additive, probably some kind of stabiliser. I suspect that's what makes this kind of yogurt qualify for the ultra-processed category.

What?? I can't be the only one that gets plain greek yogurt and adds a tablespoon of honey or agave syrup and mixing it evenly before adding some granola + fruit. It's not that hard, and it's definitely not ultra-processed.

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

#232

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

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…

Almost correct, except sugar consumption has been declining for decades. The peak was prior to 2000 IIRC

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

#233

Post by whtsthmttrmn » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

bityard wrote: post #209

zby wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 direc…

> Actually carbs are necessary This is NOT true. Carbs are ONE form of energy that the body can use for fuel. Fat is the other one. > people with diabetes tried to live on a completely carb free diet - but you cannot do that for long. I guess you're saying I don't exist? For about 10 years, I haven't eaten carbs beyond the VERY rare cookie or two every other month and the insignificant trace amounts in above-ground l…

> In the 1960s, a man named Angus Barbieri fasted for over a year under medical supervision and suffered no ill effects afterward. Unless you want to believe the whole thing is a hoax and he was secretly snarfing donuts on the sly, he is proof that humans don't NEED carbs.

Read a little about this on Wikipedia, that's insane! I'm still being stubborn and halfway refusing to believe there were no bad side effects, though lol

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

#234

Post by carlosjobim » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:47 PM UTC

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…

> sold cheaper than an alternative like a healthy fruit and nut mix

Sorry for sniping, but the alternative is to not buy a snack. You don't have to eat snacks.

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

#235

Post by Fricken » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:48 PM UTC

chrisweekly wrote: post #159

AmVess wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the US, portion size, calorie density, frequency of eating high calorie foods are contributing to people getting a lot fatter a lot faster than before. We now have instant gratification in food delivery services. Get anything you want without leaving home. In fast food, people are eating a day's worth of food in one sitting. Triple burger, large fries, large drink. People are doing this once a day every day of the…

Sedentary lifestyles are a huge factor too.

Many elite athletes devour ultraprocessed foods. Elite cyclists have pushed their performance limits by eating as much sugar as their digestive systems can handle. They eat sugar until they puke and it trains their guts to tolerate more sugar in the future.

Sugar and other simple carbs are quick burning fuel. You don't want to be flooding your blood stream with fuel when your body doesn't need it, but when it does, well, it's fuel, it gets into your system fast, and it makes you go.

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

#236

Post by pizzathyme » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:53 PM UTC

blablabla123 wrote: post #188

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…

> This to me is the most damning evidence against the current classification of 'ultra-processed foods' being absolutely, totally worthless. It's quite funny that even 15 years after labeling UPF as such there's still a struggle to "officially" mark it as unhealthy and I don't understand why it should be challenged. I would think that most children growing up are being told that candy, fries and Gatorade aren't healt…

The best exception is high quality protein powder. Additional protein consumption is extremely healthy for you, short and long term. But it's technically an ultra-processed food.

It's probably better to each 4-5 chicken breasts per day instead of protein powder. But as far as I know there hasn't been a measured difference.

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

#237

Post by tlb » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:54 PM UTC

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…

Added fructose seems bad for you. Specifically, a high ratio of fructose:glucose (which doesn't occur in nature) does something weird to your metabolism. Your gut uses some hack like detecting only glucose to trigger intermediate steps in the metabolism of both, and consumption of high fructose:glucose foods causes weight gain.

More: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4145298/

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

#238

Post by duckmysick » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:54 PM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #191

atombender wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some are better than others. The NIH is currently running a study (N=36, expected to complete in 2025) on ultra-processed foods where the participants are sequested as inpatients at the National Institutes of Health Clinical Center's research facility and strictly monitored 24/7. They can't leave without a chaperone that ensures they're not cheating. They've done prior studies such as this one [2] (N=20) in 2019.…

Even though I'm a scientist and thoroughly trained in statistics, the idea that we can to sequester 36 people and monitor diet 24/7 and made general conclusions doesn't sound completely right to me. Partly in the technical sense and partly in the "why do the folks working on human health get away with sample sizes that would be laughed about in any other field?"

Do these other fields also study humans in controlled experiments?

I think it has to do with the sample to staff ratio. It's not enough to observe human subjects. You have to actively prevent them from going off the rails. It doesn't scale well when you increase the sample size. I guess we could replicate a similar experiment n-times and then do a meta study, but it's not ideal either.

How would you tackle the logistics of scaling up the above experiment?

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

#239

Post by tourmalinetaco » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 9:55 PM UTC

roywiggins wrote: post #225

standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So homemade bread is ultraprocessed because the wheat was processed into flour?

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

#240

Post by slt2021 » Tue, Nov 26, 2024, 10:01 PM UTC

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…

not all cereals have added sugar, I dont buy 40% added sugar, but rather 0% and 14% added sugar cereals