281–290 of 304 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide a citation? Plenty of beers have nutrition information labels.
The assertion used to be true, but is out of date. The beer industry negotiated with the FDA and now they can include nutrition labels. The wine industry is still working on it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"health" as quantity of nutrients doesn't really make sense. pretty much everything we eat is good in some quantities, and bad in others. so there's no nutrient that you can name that makes food unhealthy (there are some like trans fats i guess, but mostly). then what makes some food "healthy" and other food "unhealthy"? there is actually a simple answer to this question: foods which lead you to overeat them are unhe…
But your definition of processed foods has now shifted to being one of hyperpalitability and likelihood of overeating. Those are two completely different categories. The first is, ostensibly, about the processing done to the ingredients to make the final product. The second is about the outcome that the product has on those consuming it. If you remove the overconsumption angle, what is left of processed foods? And if…
that's a very small shift. the two are very closely linked
> why have this proxy at all
very simple reason: if i am in the supermarket i can tell immediately looking at a food how highly processed it is.
we have spent many decades telling people "just don't overeat" and it hasn't worked at all. we have also spent many decades telling people that "unhealthy" can be established by looking for a particular ingredient, say sugar, or fat, and it again hasn't helped.
the heart of the advice we would like to give people is that a healthy diet isn't one that has the exact right nutrient balance, but rather one that causes your body to naturally pick the amounts it needs. and we would like to communicate this advice in a way that makes it easy for people to make purchasing decisions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes, which are an illegal but widespread cottage (garage) industry where one summer, one of the thousands of manufacturer-enthusiasts made a forum post about the innovation of maybe using vitamin E acetate as a thickener. Experiments were performed, positive results were obtained, and products went out to distributors. The hazard to heavy user…
> The lipid pneumonia outbreak was a thing exclusively associated with THC vapes Not true, see the above link.
https://www.inverse.com/science/59207-vitamin-e-acetate-thc-...
https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/58581-dank-vapes
All you need to defend a Wikipedia claim staying in the article is a journalist writing something, and journalists with zero idea of what they were talking about outnumbered informed writers a thousand to one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't say ultra processed foods are healthy. I said the entire idea of ultra-processed is vague and incoherent.
It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though. The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed"…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not meaningless. "Processed" means that ingredients had to be manipulated to produce the food (e.g. most recipes). Most of what you make at home is "processed". "Ultra-processed" means food produced using industrial processing, using additives (perhaps not typically considered "food" in an of themselves) for emulsifying, flavor, shelf stability & preservation, color, etc. That's a clear distinction. Whether or n…
That's not a clear distinction at all, since now you have to define "industrial". Why would mixing with an industrial blender lead to unhealthier food than a kitchen blender? Why would flour made with a gristmill be less healthy than a mortar and pestle? There's no theoretical basis.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s more than marketing, they’re applying cigarette processing principles to food processing: choosing specific flavor chemicals and additives to produce maximum addiction within the varied neurophysiological profiles of different consumer cohorts They’re essentially engineering food to produce subtly mind-altering effects.
I mean that would seem to apply to nearly all packaged foods that aren't plain bagged fruits and vegetables. If you sell food, you want it to taste good and want people to want to eat more of it. Whether its doritos, chili dogs, apple pie, bread, jam, or whatever else. Nobody makes a mix of peanut butter, finds it bland and unappealing, but then doesn't change either the ingredient proportions, ingredient sources, or…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's true, some people do lack the language skills to understand vague or ambiguous terms, even in context. Ultra-processed is certainly a vague term. "Incoherent" is a trait on the recipient's end rather than a trait of the term though. The solution is to improve our education system so these people can understand ambiguous language. Not only will this resolve arguments around the colloquial use of "ultra-processed"…
No, the label itself is incoherent. If we had a better education system, we probably wouldn't have quack science like this being accepted.
The insight I offer, is that for many, a term may be both vague and lack a rigorous scientific definition, while still being meaningful and useful. This is a foundational concept and if you manage to internalize it I suspect that "ultra-processed" will be only one among many things that will begin to appear coherent to you.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
>We've been eating veggies and fruits for hundred millions of years without any problem That's impressive considering humans have existed for about 300,000 years. Also famine and starvation was a fact of life for much of the population until recently, but I guess that's not a real problem.
Right, I guess before that we simply did not evolve from anything at all, we just popped into existence a monday afternoon 300k years ago. I can't believe how dense this forum became, the energy spent in bad faith arguing that ultra processed food actually is good for us, are you paid for it at least ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh there is a very well defined and accepted definition in science, but for some reasons geniuses on this forum, and online in general, like to pull their best "ackchyually" broscience definitions. btw feel free to open a dictionary and discover that a lot of words have multiple definitions, it doesn't mean they're meaningless...
"Meaningless" doesn't mean everyone fails to find meaning, it means that there is no general consensus on what it means. As you pointed out before, everyone holds their own pet definition. It means something to most everyone, but there isn't a shared understanding of what it means across the general population. While it is true that words often have multiple meanings while remaining meaningful, they do not have multi…
I guess climate change doesn't exist either then. If by everyone you mean everyone except science, then sure, but that's why we have the scientific consensus...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Sustenance is a health benefit. Shelf life is a health benefit. Convenience is a health benefit. 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.
Then why don't we pickle or ferment things anymore ? Ah right because it's not as profitable.
Listening to you guys it seems like Americans in the 80s were starving and we should praise microwave meals for saving us from extinction.