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

31–40 of 437 posts

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

#31

Post by lifeisstillgood »

I sometimes wonder if there are lessons from British period of WWII rationing. Huge numbers of people were enabled to have for free the right amount of nutrients instead of the malnourishment of the 1920s/30s. And millions more found it hard to get the excess sugars and fats.

If we created a new rationing, with no processed foods, feeding the whole population what would happen tomorrow and in ten years?

Imagine how unpopular the Prime Minister who started this would be. Then imagine ten years later when he would be the guy that got millions of people thinner, fitter and having more sex (I am told that’s what thinner fitter people do!)

Imagine that election :-)

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

#32

Post by nightski »

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…

I honestly think stress and work obsession along with sedentary lifestyles has a lot more to do with anything health related than ultra processed foods.

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

#33

Post by thrawa1235432 »

csours wrote: post #13

Nobody knows = there is wide disagreement https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33309818/ My personal feeling is that I can eat like a king every day of the week. If I only had access to one kind of dessert, I'd be fine. I'd get tired of it. Oh, vanilla ice cream again. But we have access to a wide variety of highly palatable foods, each with distinct flavor profiles; and advertisements reminds us how much better we'll fee…

I always take "Nobody knows!" "Nobody could have predicted!" as a warning for either something really dumb, biased, or uneducated take is about to follow.

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

#34

Post by makeitdouble »

The jump from a Brazilian doctor classifiying food to a British study tracking consumption under that classification, to end on a US study with 20 adults, waiting for another one with 36 members ending next year, kinda illustrate how hard it is to come with relevant data.

And now that we've more and more ultra-processed diet food, we'll need a few more decades to have an idea of their actual effect at any scale.

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

#35

Post by cynicalpeace »

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…

40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated.

You can't reliably draw any conclusions from them. You have to use common sense and rules of thumb.

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

#36

Post by snapcaster »

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.…

"if it couldn't be made outside of a factory, don't eat it." i follow this as well it's a great rule. I have no idea on the internet, but in real life nobody who's ever been the smarty pants saying "aren't cooked carrots processed?" has health or a body i'm envious of

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

#37

Post by s3p »

>...people in Brazil were buying less sugar and oil than in the past. Yet rates of obesity and metabolic diseases were still rising. This coincided with the growing popularity of packaged snacks and ready-made meals, which were loaded with sugar, fats and other additives.

What. So they were buying less sugar and fat. But they were actually buying more sugar and fat?

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

#39

Post by rsynnott »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

Why do we need these kinds of sensationalist names for things? Why is it so important that they be "ultra-processed" foods? Can't they just be "overprocessed" or perhaps use some other more neutral term? It's like the 90s when everything had to be "EXTREME!!"

Well, it's only _over_-processed if we assume it is _bad_. A consensus does seem to be emerging that it _is_ bad, but building that right into the name seems unhelpful. And as alluded to in the article, what the point is after which something is 'over'-processed is not particularly clear.

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

#40

Post by TheBigSalad »

psunavy03 wrote: post #6

Why do we need these kinds of sensationalist names for things? Why is it so important that they be "ultra-processed" foods? Can't they just be "overprocessed" or perhaps use some other more neutral term? It's like the 90s when everything had to be "EXTREME!!"

Proce-X'ed foods
Post reply on HN