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

341–350 of 437 posts

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

#341

Post by zby »

bityard wrote: post #209
zby wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually carbs are necessary and carbs are sugars. In the past people with diabetes tried to live on a completely carb free diet - but you cannot do that for long. Personally I am not sure I am buying the narrative about fructose - but it is plausible that it might be bad - but glucose you'll have in your blood even if you don't eat any sugar - because your own body produces it if you don't get it from the food direc…

> Actually carbs are necessary This is NOT true. Carbs are ONE form of energy that the body can use for fuel. Fat is the other one. > people with diabetes tried to live on a completely carb free diet - but you cannot do that for long. I guess you're saying I don't exist? For about 10 years, I haven't eaten carbs beyond the VERY rare cookie or two every other month and the insignificant trace amounts in above-ground l…

OK - I stand corrected on the point of consuming carbs.

But our body produces glucose anyway - so consuming or not does not change much. Brain needs glucose.

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

#342

Post by paulpauper »

mchannon wrote: post #49

The article name is "Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad for you", the opposite of this thread's title. Everyone's ignoring the elephant in the room: fiber. Fiber locks up calories and makes the body miss a lot of them, or absorb them later in the digestion process. If we reduce the word "processed" to a single action, it's removing fiber. It's turning wheat berries into flour. It's ripping off…

Yeah this is wrong. Very little of oats and other grains is indigestible fiber. Otherwise you'd be shitting it out undigested.

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

#343

Post by Aloisius »

binoct wrote: post #307
Kirby64 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nova makes this distinction already. “Freshly made” bread is considered category 3 (processed). That said, what distinguishes supermarket bread from freshly made bread? Literally the only difference is typically some sort of preservatives, some added vitamins, and possibly a dough conditioner. In general, bread is just not that healthy if you make the fluffy white kind. The preservatives and slicing have little to do…

The biggest nutritional change in bread in what type of flour is used (and if any other grains/seeds are used). The bran and germ of the wheat berry contain a decent part of it's nutritional value in protein, fat and insoluble fiber. The more refined a flour is the less of those parts it contains. Even unbleached white flour naturally has a decent micro-nutrient profile of vitamins from the endosperm. What really set…

> Even unbleached white flour naturally has a decent micro-nutrient profile of vitamins

That doesn't match my experience, at least in the US. Per 1/4 cup:

KA organic unbleached white flour - 0 vitamins or minerals

Arrowhead Mills organic unbleached white flour - 5 mg calcium, 36 mg potassium

Bob's Redmill organic unbleached white flour - 7 mg calcium, 41 mg potassium

Caputo 00 - 9 mg calcium, 0.2 mg iron, 48 mg potassium

These levels aren't remotely close to decent.

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

#345

Post by antihero »

makeitdouble wrote: post #53
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.…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

When industrial food producers decided their priorities are making stuff extremely cheap that appeals to our more addictive side so they can make as much money as possible, without any regard for our health, this is quite obviously going to create a problem.

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

#346

Post by cmiller1 »

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

Here you go: https://imgur.com/M3xoe2c

My opinions:

The amount of "processing" or "chemicals" is a red herring and it really comes down to prepared meals and snacks that have been engineered to make people want to eat more of them. We've gotten so good at this that it seems to override the natural hunger/satiety system which causes people to gain weight.

I eat a mostly vegetarian diet with lots of protein, massive amounts of sugar in the form of fresh fruit, and lots of whole grains.

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

#348

Post by bdangubic »

bobthepanda wrote: post #335
Kirby64 wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lack of whatever mythical micro-nutrition you speak of in bleached white flour is not going to meaningfully make any difference in folks dietary outcomes. It's certainly not what is making people fat, or what is making them crave to eat too much bread.

the root cause, at least for bread, is pretty simple; US supermarket bread has a lot more sugar than freshly baked bread, because sugar is a preservative.

most definitely not. sugar doesn’t even make top-10 list

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

#349

Post by vel0city »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #290
mauflows wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uninformed Average Joe here and I'm with GP. If bakeries are out of the question then I'd be questioning fruit and meat shops as well

Bakeries load their goods with sugar. Typically you don't mix sugar with meat. Though I think that practice is unfortunately becoming more frequent.

> Typically you don't mix sugar with meat.

You're joking right? There's tons of meat dishes with fruit sauces in them dating back thousands of years. It's almost Thanksgiving, think adding cranberries to turkey is really just a product of 1950's marketing?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fesenj%C4%81n

http://historicalrecipes.blogspot.com/2017/02/patina-de-pers...

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

#350

Post by gdjskshh »

This touches on, and then completely ignores, one of the most probable areas of concern - additives. Emulsifiers that disrupt your intestinal lining, artificial dyes/flavors/sweeteners, fillers, consistency changers, and all the other tools in a food chemist's toolbox. Those should be individually investigated and problem ingredients eliminated (e.g brominated vegetable oil).

Also, fiber. The standard american diet is lacking fiber and protein.

Post reply on HN