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

241–250 of 437 posts

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

#241

Post by swatcoder »

pizzathyme wrote: post #236
blablabla123 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's not a clear exception at all.

Within some mental model, isolated protein powder is healthy because we generally treat high protein consumption as low-risk for most people and recognize that protein isolates can be very effective for professional and amateur athletes to consume a lot of while building muscle.

In no way does that imply that these protein isolates are "extremely healthy" for the general public or even for anyone in the long term. There's just not any data to say that specifically (it's too niche to perform those kinds of studies), and far too little reason to make that assumption with confidence.

(And it's almost certainly a terrible idea for most people to eat 4-5 chicken breasts per day -- or a comparable amount of protein isolate powder. Please remember that most people are not living a gym bro lifestyle and shouldn't be following gym bro nutritional advice in the first place.)

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

#242

Post by goalieca »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #208
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…

I think there's some fudging of the terms here. When the article is talking about "bread" being healthy- well, there's bread, and then there's bread. Supermarket bread (sliced, packaged) typically lists a couple dozen ingredients. Ordinary bread... you know, bread-bread, like the one some of us bake at home, is made of: flour, water, salt, leavening agent (yeast or sourdough for those as have the patience). Bread-bre…

> But supermarket bread? I don't think so.

Why? The point of the quotation was to question if this was a problem in the quantities listed. I know I’d rather eat whole grain enriched supermarket bread than refined white flour bread from some low protein source wheat.

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

#243

Post by loeg »

bee_rider wrote: post #52
taeric wrote: post #19

Looking 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…

What’s special about Japan in this context?

Much lower rate of obesity. Like 5% instead of 40% (US).

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

#244

Post by blurri »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #26

Seems 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.…

And yet science doesn't have an clear answer here. Just conjecture and theories like the ones you stated.

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

#245

Post by jimbokun »

0xcde4c3db wrote: post #153
formerlurker wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I went to Japan recently and one of the most striking things to me was how easy it was to walk to places. Their infrastructure astounded me because it was set up with people in mind and not car companies.

My understanding (albeit only gathered from blogs/YouTube videos/Google Maps) is that the biggest difference is parking. On-street parking is mostly not allowed, free parking at businesses is mostly limited to car-centric ones like mechanics and dealerships, and you can't register a car without proving that you have a place to park it. Tens of millions of Japanese people living in less-dense areas have no problem wit…

When I worked in Japan for a year and lived in the company subsidized dormitory, a coworker half-joked that it cost more to house his car in a payed parking spot than it did to house himself in the dorm.

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

#246

Post by bluGill »

autoexec wrote: post #175
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I need something so that when I go get some food I know if it is good or bad for me. Bad is a range, somethings are bad enough to never eat, some are fine as a treat. Some are good in specific circumstance but bad in others. Somehow I want to cut through all that to know how to eat.

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

#247

Post by bluGill »

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?"

The sample size doesn't concern me as much as what does that force on their lifestyle and in turn do they apply. They probably are not getting the same exercise as a normal person (which runs the range from "gym rat" who gets too much to "couch potato" who barely walks).

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

#248

Post by bluGill »

atombender wrote: post #195
dekhn wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

I don't know enough about medical statistics to say, but I often see small sample sizes in studies where the effect size is expected to be high. That may be the case here.

There are too many variables in diet. If they study steak every meal vs rice and beans every meal they can come up with one. However most people are not that one-tracked either way. Sometimes the rich eat rice and beans, sometimes even poor manage to afford steak. For steak, did I mean beef, lamb, goat, pork... - this might or might not matter. There is also chicken, turkey, snake, deer, elk - and dozens more animals people eat which might or might not be healthy. OF each of the above there are different cuts (does it matter?), different fat levels (does it matter?). And that is just meat, how many varieties of beans are there, what about rice? What about all the other things people eat?

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

#249

Post by Sohcahtoa82 »

throwup238 wrote: post #152
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…

> 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 week.Then they go home and order more high calorie food with high calorie drinks and constant snacking. The UK had a reality TV show called Secret Eaters where they signed up people to be monitored 24/7 by cameras and private investigators which tracked eve…

I'd love to see that happen with people that are keeping a food diary and see how much they're being honest with themselves.

Though their behavior would probably change if they knew they were being recorded.

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

#250

Post by aidenn0 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #11
snapcaster wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's partly due to the people (this site is full of them) that would read any other term and go "what is processing? Cooking and cutting is processing hurr durr"

I have had this exact argument on HN at least a half dozen times.

Someone will have to explain to me why so many people claim that honey is not a "refined sugar." If bees do the refining than it doesn't count?
Post reply on HN