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

311–320 of 437 posts

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

#311

Post by dekhn »

atombender wrote: post #297
dekhn wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the most common example would be clinical trials for drugs and other medical treatments- often have thousands of patients (with recruitment being the limiting factor). There are tons of ways that studies can go wrong, for example when patients don't take the treatment and lie (this is common) or have other lifestyle factors that influence the results, which can't be easily smoothed out with slightly larger N. I…

From my reading, that's not generally true. It all depends on the methodology. Safety or feasibility studies can use very small sample sizes. I've been reading safety studies on monoclonal antibodies like Cimzia, for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29030361/ (N=16) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28814432/ (N=17) https://ard.bmj.com/content/83/Suppl_1/1145.2 (N=21) Of course, these are not nutritional studie…

You should try reading the FDA approval for the drug; it was already approved before these publications (which aren't so much clinical trials as just medical research). The FDA approval has a whole paragraph about how the effect size was too small to demonstrate statistical significance, and the trials had n=300.

It's also indicated for use in a disease we don't understand, for people who didn't respond to all the previously approved drugs. Not a good example at all.

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

#312

Post by chrchr »

ifyoubuildit wrote: post #94
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…

> others, like breakfast cereals, bread and yogurt, were instead linked to lower risks for cardiovascular disease. This surprises me. A lot of breakfast cereals and sweetened yogurts are basically candy, and I would have assumed are heavy contributors to poor health.

Wait until you learn about The Ice Cream Paradox:

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2023/05/ice-cre...

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

#313

Post by dzhiurgis »

adamparsons wrote: post #300
willy_k wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole grain bread is definitely preferable, but it is still very likely to have added oils, gums, and/or preservatives. I think their main point is that supermarket bread is rarely made of just bread. There are exceptions but that requires one to first take the time to identify them and then fork up the extra dough (punintended).

In Australia, our supermarket bread almost always has “vegetable oil” in the ingredients. They can’t even be bothered sticking to one type of vegetable oil or listing which ones they use. I’ll take the home bread

In NZ pretty much every supermarket bakes their own bread which to me seems same like bakery or home bread.

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

#314

Post by snapcaster »

GuB-42 wrote: post #306
snapcaster wrote: post #170

From reading these comments, i wish nobody was allowed to post on threads like this without posting a pic of their body so we can calibrate their opinions

And what will it tell you? Let's say you have one guy who is morbidly obese, another who is visibly in top shape, a seriously underweight fashion model, and an average guy. Who are you going to trust the most? The obese guy obviously has some problem with nutrition, but he may also the one who is most interested the subject and the most knowledgeable. Obesity is also a mental disorder and while he may know a lot abou…

I think you're misunderstanding why posting the body would be useful. It isn't so we know who to listen to, it's so we know who _not_ to listen to

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

#315

Post by andreareina »

adamparsons wrote: post #300
willy_k wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole grain bread is definitely preferable, but it is still very likely to have added oils, gums, and/or preservatives. I think their main point is that supermarket bread is rarely made of just bread. There are exceptions but that requires one to first take the time to identify them and then fork up the extra dough (punintended).

In Australia, our supermarket bread almost always has “vegetable oil” in the ingredients. They can’t even be bothered sticking to one type of vegetable oil or listing which ones they use. I’ll take the home bread

Because they use the oil for how it changes the texture, not for the taste. So corn oil is just as good as soy oil is just as good as canola... and they're going to use whatever is cheapest.

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

#316

Post by chrchr »

wnevets wrote: post #203
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…

People don't understand that basic task like washing is "processing" the food and can be frustrating when talking to them about this subject.

Food that is merely washed might be processed, but is not ultra-processed according to the Nova classification [1]. There's an actual criteria that's being applied in these studies that concern ultra-processed food.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

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

#317

Post by navaed01 »

leptons wrote: post #308
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.

Oats also don't grow as individual flakes, they are processed too. Separating and concentrating a single ingredient is "processing" it. If you want the healthiest oats, you probably need to grow them yourself and eat them directly off the stalk. I'm joking, of course - sort of.

There is a difference between processing an oat and the derivative ‘ingredients’ that are used to simulate the mouth feel of ‘ice cream’ - which includes a type of mold.

I agree the distinction is murky and can be easy to mock but at the end of the day something associated with these foods is making societies deeply sick and that should encourage us all to care about a solution. Even if you take a libertarian approach to diet, the economic cost of caring for a society with rampant obesity and diabetes impacts us all

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

#318

Post by op00to »

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.

A high-protein diet can increase calcium and uric acid levels in the urine, raising the risk of urinary stones. I have experienced this, and got the cystoscopy to prove it. It sucked

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

#319

Post by atombender »

dekhn wrote: post #311
atombender wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From my reading, that's not generally true. It all depends on the methodology. Safety or feasibility studies can use very small sample sizes. I've been reading safety studies on monoclonal antibodies like Cimzia, for example: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29030361/ (N=16) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28814432/ (N=17) https://ard.bmj.com/content/83/Suppl_1/1145.2 (N=21) Of course, these are not nutritional studie…

You should try reading the FDA approval for the drug; it was already approved before these publications (which aren't so much clinical trials as just medical research). The FDA approval has a whole paragraph about how the effect size was too small to demonstrate statistical significance, and the trials had n=300. It's also indicated for use in a disease we don't understand, for people who didn't respond to all the pr…

I'm not comparing these to the FDA approvals process, but to your claim that trials use thousands of patients. These three studies are ascertaining the pregnancy safety of a drug, irrespective of whether we understand the disease or what the response rate is.

Cimzia has been well-studied, and we understand why it works on autoimmune diseases like inflammatory arthritis. It has 6 FDA approvals for different indications, so your description of the drug itself is incorrect.

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

#320

Post by djoldman »

Seems like the cited studies confirm things we already know: when humans are given tasty high caloric-density foods, they consume more calories than when not given those foods.

I didn't see a cited study showing that these ultra-processed foods led to worse outcomes when caloric intake was held constant. Did I miss something?

Post reply on HN