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

371–380 of 437 posts

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

#371

Post by lrem »

andybak wrote: post #222
r00fus wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never seen Vitamin C listed as E300 on a label. So while you are correct, the heuristic (avoid E-numbers) works in practice.

OK but then why would a manufacturer ever use a E number - considering the stigma attached? Only when the other name "sounds worse"? Is there a legal threshold where you have to use the E number?

Indeed, they’ll use E numbers to shorten the chemistry catalogue part of the list. Note the law requires sorting ingredients by weight, so these additives end up clumped together. You’ll end up with half a line instead of half a page.

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

#372

Post by throwup238 »

crazygringo wrote: post #358
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense if we're talking about yogurt. The sugary yogurts sold at super markets etc don't have sugar sprinkled on top, but mixed in. Normally, you can't do that. If you make yogurt the standard way [1] and try to add sugar to it while it's still a fluid, it will all sink to the bottom and then you'll just have some yogurt with a layer of sugar on the bottom. If you add it when it's not a fluid anymore, the…

> If you try to mix it up in between you'll break it up [2] and end up with mush; with sugar mixed in. Are you sure? Won't the sugar just dissolve into the water that is part of the yogurt? Or if a granule texture remained, just mix in sugar syrup? I've definitely mixed honey into yogurt and put it in the fridge and it was fine the next day, no separation or anything. Why do you think you'd need a stabilizer?

Honey contains oligosaccharides that act as stabilizers.

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

#373

Post by throwup238 »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #231
YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does make sense if we're talking about yogurt. The sugary yogurts sold at super markets etc don't have sugar sprinkled on top, but mixed in. Normally, you can't do that. If you make yogurt the standard way [1] and try to add sugar to it while it's still a fluid, it will all sink to the bottom and then you'll just have some yogurt with a layer of sugar on the bottom. If you add it when it's not a fluid anymore, the…

>The only way I can think of to add sugar to yogurt and ensure it is evenly mixed throughout its mass is to use some additive, probably some kind of stabiliser. I suspect that's what makes this kind of yogurt qualify for the ultra-processed category. What?? I can't be the only one that gets plain greek yogurt and adds a tablespoon of honey or agave syrup and mixing it evenly before adding some granola + fruit. It's n…

Honey and agave syrup have oligosaccharides that act as stabilizers. Fructans in agave, specifically.

As does molasses like when making refined sugar. Most unrefined sources of sugar naturally contain chemicals that act as stabilizers because it’s a side effect of many polysaccharides.

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

#374

Post by hgomersall »

illusive4080 wrote: post #327
djoldman wrote: post #320

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?

No you didn’t miss anything. Everyone is freaking out about “processed” and “chemicals” and ignoring the obvious answer: high calories and low nutrition.

The processed and chemicals may be a proxy for high calories low nutrition, but generally they are used to create hyper palatable foods that are low nutrition. In general, it's quite hard and expensive to produce high palatable foods using real ingredients; food engineering changes that and makes it easy for cheap food to mess with our senses. As far as I can tell, this is the generally accepted argument for the problems with UPFs - they make people want to eat more cheap crap food.

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

#375

Post by Aloisius »

tlb wrote: post #237
wyldfire wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most bread and yogurt in the average grocery store is pretty bad stuff, full of HFCS, hydrogenated oils, and hydrolyzed proteins. I eat a lot of (plain) yogurt. But my kids often eat sweetened yogurt, which I've suspected is not-at-all-healthy. So I went to check the ingredients of several sweetened brands. I could be wrong but I don't see any of those you're concerned about explicitly mentioned. I do see "fructose…

Added fructose seems bad for you. Specifically, a high ratio of fructose:glucose (which doesn't occur in nature) does something weird to your metabolism. Your gut uses some hack like detecting only glucose to trigger intermediate steps in the metabolism of both, and consumption of high fructose:glucose foods causes weight gain. More: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4145298/

High fructose:glucose ratios definitely exist in nature.

Agave syrup is 4:1. Apples and pears are around 2:1.

Moreover, high fructose corn syrup is a bit of a misnomer. Most HFCS used in food are 42% fructose, 58% glucose. The ones used in soda are typically 55:45.

That makes even the latter's ratio lower than say, watermelon, papaya, pears, apples, mango, blackberries, etc.

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

#376

Post by hgomersall »

paulpauper wrote: post #338
zahlman wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If I eat 1000 calories of whole oats, a lot of those calories are passing through my body. Humans are extremely efficient at extracting energy from food, regardless of the fiber content. We owe our survival as a species to it, as food was much less plentiful in the ancestral environment. I've heard of fiber meaningfully affecting insulin response to food, satiety, and some other things - perhaps even gut microbiome…

Yeah he's posting nonsense. If it were true you'd be passing huge chunks of undigested food and be sick. Very little of the calorie content of oats and other so-called fiber rich food is actually undigestible. Sorry...beating obesity is not as easy as eating cereal and oats all day. wish it were.

Your reading is overly simplistic. You're also feeding a huge diversity of disparate microbes when you eat, all of which produce a huge array of different chemicals during their normal life processes, all within our digestive tract. The question then is the interaction of all these different microbes and chemicals with the food and the human and the other microbes.

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

#377

Post by hgomersall »

snapcaster wrote: post #178
orev wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using a blender is also processing, but it doesn’t remove the fiber. It does, however, break open the cells and makes the nutrients and sugars more easily available separately from the fiber. Eating healthy is just as much about the shape/structure of the items being consumed as it is about the nutritional stats it has.

This is something not talked about enough. I think it's one of those things where people really struggling with weight should be told CICO (calories in calories out) just to get their head in the right place but it's not strictly true for all the reasons you mentioned and others

FWIW, this sort of thing is constantly being talked about on the Zoe blog: https://zoe.com/blog

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

#378

Post by lrem »

cgh wrote: post #252
swatcoder wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not a clear exception at all. Within some mental model, isolated protein powder is healthy because we generally treat high protein consumption as low-risk for most people and recognize that protein isolates can be very effective for professional and amateur athletes to consume a lot of while building muscle. In no way does that imply that these protein isolates are "extremely healthy" for the general public or…

Protein isn't bad for you and 4-5 chicken breasts is around 120g a day, a healthy amount for an adult. By way of comparison, indigenous people where I live ate hundreds of grams a day in their traditional diets. I've run into this whole "don't eat too much protein, oh man you will die!" nonsense meme before and I wonder where it came from.

Consuming high amount of animal protein was pointed out by the urologist as one of the things I should evade. Apparently that contributes to development of kidney stones. So there’s at least one way in which it’s bad for you.

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

#379

Post by quacksilver »

Kirby64 wrote: post #356
bobthepanda wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, that’s double the added sugar. The US recommends only 50g of added sugar per day. And you’re generally not eating only two slices of bread; in the US breakfast mainstay that is peanut butter and jelly, both the peanut butter and jelly also usually have sugar.

> And you’re generally not eating only two slices of bread; Aren't you? What meal typically has more than 2 slices of bread? A sandwich is two. Breakfast meals where toast is used is typically 2 slices. And, if we limit ourselves to the 50g of added sugar a day, I'd say 10% of that for a component of one meal is pretty reasonable.

I was regularly eating around 8 to 10 thick slices per day of bread at one point

* 4 for breakfast as toast

* 4 for lunch to make 2 sandwiches (1 sandwich would be too small and I would be hungry all afternoon)

* sometimes another 2 with soup or an evening snack.

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

#380

Post by ragazzina »

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

Do you need the picture of the person speaking in front of you to "calibrate their opinions" very often?

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

Post reply on HN