251–260 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tobacco, along with other drugs, is uniquely bad. How can it be "uniquely bad" if it's "along with other drugs"?
Not every drug has the same effects and side effects. For example, marijuana is much less dangerous than heroin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm glad we are finally getting some good, solid guidance around UPFs. Hey everyone, just buy "good stuff"! while it is quite funny how you turned around my "just spend way more money" advice as an actual suggestion, it really isn't particularly helpful because UPFs are a much, much broader category than "flavor-blasted" type products. A huge number of low/no-prep options are UPF, you just don't think so because they…
You cast doubt on using categorization because it has ambiguity. I think this is misleading and dishonest, which is why I am being direct. It is FUD.
> I think this is misleading and dishonest, which is why I am being direct.
Good save, everyone reading this totally thinks that's what you were doing and not just showing your whole ass while making my point for me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
https://preview.redd.it/yodjulpnhclf1.jpeg?width=1240&format... this is the chemical composition of a strawberry my phd-less grandfather will have to now avoid his favourite dessert :(
> ackchyually everything is made of things, checkmate ok, well continue eating dog shit products designed by megacorps for the sole purpose of profit maximisation then, what do you want me to tell you? We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.
That you will try and educate yourself in the nuances of a complicated topic like nutrition and wont advocate for anti intellectual and anti scientific shorthand doomerism that makes people less educated and capable of distinguishing healthy habits?
> We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem but 4 decades of processed food skyrocketed all of our lifestyle related health issues.
None of this is true. We have been dying of starvation, food borne illnesses and nutricional deficits for millenia, industrilisation and post war economies have replaced that with hyper caloric ultra processed food that hand in hand with more sedentary lifestyles have skyrocketed a limited amount of health issues like cardiovascular problems.
We dont die of iodine deficiencies because we added it to salt, we dont die of scurvy because citric acid is common and citrus fruits plentiful, varied diets and better agriculture means locusts, bad weather, insects and specific harvest destroying pathogens happen less often and dont kill all our crops.
Btw in our modern world places like italy, the basque country, japan still have incredibly healthy populations. They mostly eat veggies, fish, fatty oils and walk alot. Their portions are also smaller than in places like america. And its not like ultra processed food doesnt exist there, or that they dont use chemicals in their food production.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not that businesses have a fundamental right to buy people's attention. It's that people have a right to sell ad space that they own to other people to show messages on if they want to. I dont think its right to tell (example fake website) plumbersupport.com that they cant accept $500 from a plumbing saas product to put a banner ad on their site because advertising is bad. This kind of situation is win-win-win.…
So basically you're saying businesses have a right to sell peoples' attention. Of course for every seller there's a buyer but I do kinda see that how this framing would make a difference, ethically, for some.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These two categories are massively different. Tobacco, you could make the case that you're just hurting people. Industrial food conglomerates are necessary to feed the world. People would die without them. They also make plenty of nutritious food. When people eat non-nutritious food it's not because the conglomerates are pushing it on them. It's because they choose it.
> When people eat non-nutritious food it's not because the conglomerates are pushing it on them. It's because they choose it. Ah yes, the capitalist trick of blaming the consumer for structural failings. https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-... - food desert map. Especially in food deserts, sometimes the only places to buy food are from gas stations. Guess what they serve? Toxic shit that someh…
The store-classification criteria also tends to only count supermarkets and large grocery chains, artificially classifying neighborhoods with local, well-stocked stores as food deserts.
Supposing those methodological problems were resolved, proximity to a grocery store still only accounts for 10% of the variance in nutritious food consumption between groups. The other 90% is driven by buyer demand, as is shown in the cases where different demographics shop at the same store[1].
For the small group for which access is truly limited (further reduced to the 10% of those for which their purchasing decisions would actually change), other solutions — such as reducing grocery store "shrinkage" through better policing, therefore increasing grocery store availability in areas where elevated crime otherwise renders them economically unviable — are noticeably under-discussed in favor of the heavy handed solutions of the type you raised here.
All of which exemplifies the typical failure mode inherent to many "socialist" policies: 1. Misidentify a problem, or solution. 2. Increase government control/regulation. 3. Repeat — indefinitely, as the problem hasn't been fixed — forever tightening the ratchet of government control.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Tobacco, along with other drugs, is uniquely bad. How can it be "uniquely bad" if it's "along with other drugs"?
Not every drug has the same effects and side effects. For example, marijuana is much less dangerous than heroin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes it seems like the authors of this article are implying this is bad? I mean ultra-processed is a meaningless term but generally processed food lasts longer, is less perishable, often cheaper, etc.
It's absolutely not a meaningless term, it's a classification in the Nova standard: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification And regarding health risks, please ask your doctor about your consumption. You may be surprised.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course it's incomplete. Any explanation of nutrition that doesn't include mention of at least calories, macronutrients and micronutrients isn't useful for understanding what's actually going on or being able to make an effective nutrition plan.
There are hundreds and hundreds of studies linking ultra processed food to all kind of health issues, and not a single one linking ultra processed food to any kind of benefits, not a single one praising their nutritious values. The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience, better margins for the producers, etc.
If you have options when choosing food, a framework that helps you choose the better option is useful. The history of food production is mostly centered around developing options that provide, as a baseline, the three advantages you casually dismiss.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand the difference. Do you understand that the classification is not based on healthy/unhealthy but based on how much “processing” was done to the food?
You're so close. All you're missing is "and quantity of processing is correlated with being unhealthy, making it a useful metric".
How is the food unhealthy? By having lots of fats? Or high salt? Or high sugar? Is it perhaps the ingredients that make it unhealthy?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's horrifying to see the state of bread in some nations. I really don't get why/how one of the simplest processes known to civilization needs a stock ticker and a Hogwarts-worth of chemicals thrown into it. It's really quite baffling. The state of some of the processed packs of 'bread' I've seen/tasted shouldn't be allowed to trade using the name, tbh.
Is it really that baffling? People expect their bread to last more than two days, and it has to stay on the supermarket shelves longer than that. Of course you can cook your own bread and eat it quickly, but it's not very practical for a lot of people.