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

381–390 of 437 posts

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

#381

Post by setopt »

zby wrote: post #341
bityard wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Brain needs glucose.

That is actually incorrect, just a common misconception. You might want to read up on ketogenic diets, and specifically the state of ketosis itself.

If you have an ultra-low carb diet (Interestingly, you then notice that the “low blood sugar” mental haze disappears as your brain switches over to ketones, and you kinda avoid the rollercoaster between mental highs and lows throughout the day that you usually get with a carb-based diet – instead, mental energy is kinda just at a constant “medium” throughout the day. It’s also easy to measure more objectively, if you pick up a glucose monitoring device + “keto sticks” from a pharmacy.

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

#383

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

throwup238 wrote: post #373
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

Also "Greek yogurt" is normally strained so it's already stabilised and is less subject to syneresis.

Note that even with the stabilising effect of straining and honey, real Greek yogurt (the stuff without additives) is never sold with admixtures. Once you mix stuff in you really are changing the consistency of the product and therefore its storage and transportation profile.

There's a scene in Silicon Valley [1] where Elrich Bachman is complaining that people keep taking his narrow spoons that he needs to mix in the jam in the little tub attached to his "Fa-Yeeh yogurt" (spelled "Fage". Surprisingly he pronounces it right! I'm Greek).

Bachman is talking about this product, Fage's split-cup Total yogurts:

https://gr.fage/total-2-split-cup

The reason there's a little tub and you have to tip it in and mix it up after you buy it is exactly because once you've disturbed the yogurt by mixing things in it, you don't have yogurt anymore but a gloopy goo with the consistency of thick cream and that just doesn't travel very well, especially if you want to be exporting your yogurt from Greece (where Fage has its plants) to the US (where Bachman complains about his spoons).

Also that gooey gloop is not what yogurt is supposed to be like. But I suppose that's just a matter of habit.

_______________________

[1] https://youtu.be/ZR_taax1TUc?si=1TQM0vPrJY-9184l

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

#384

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

standardUser wrote: post #211
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…

There are many brands of yogurt with "fruit on the bottom" or otherwise unmixed that use plain sugar. Not every store-bought product is the worst possible version of a store-bought product. There's a huge variation.

>> Not every store-bought product is the worst possible version of a store-bought product.

I agree with that for the general case but my intuition is that if someone's selling you something ready-made and pre-packaged, that you can easily make yourself (yogurt with fruit mixed in), then that's because they want to charge you extra and force you into a choice -of ingredients- you possibly wouldn't make.

For example, the yogurts with fruit I've had in the UK were just not very good yogurts, and the fruit were just not very good fruit. The yogurts were the thin and tasteless stuff that seems to be typical of anywhere outside the Balkans (I'm Greek) and the fruit were basically preserve, with added sugar. Why do you need added sugar with fruit? Because the fruit is under-ripe and probably too sour to eat in the first place.

You have to think of the economics a bit. Yogurt is cheap to make and most people won't pay a premium for it. Also it's sour and many people (again, outside the Balkans) don't like that. So companies will add sweeteners and sweet admixtures, like jam, honey or fruit to make it more palatable. And of course to make that financially viable they have to drop the quality of the ingredients. And that's where the additives come in: they improve packaging, transport and distribution, even as they degrade taste and nutrition.

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

#385

Post by YeGoblynQueenne »

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?

>> 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?

Nope. The fluid you're trying to mix the syrup in is milk, already a stable emulsion of proteins, sugars and water. Try mixing sugar (well, corn) syrup in that and see how long it stays mixed in. Once you stop mixing and the mixture comes to rest, the syrup starts sinking to the bottom. Better drink fast, and it sure sets faster than it takes for yogurt to set.

Check out the ingredients on any chocolate milk. There's always a stabiliser, usually a caragenaan. That's to keep the corn syrup and chocolate powder from separating from the milk. Back Home in the Old Country (when I was a kid in Greece) the stores sold a chocolate milk which was just milk with cocoa and some sugar. When you bought it from the store you could see that the milk and solids had separated, and there was a darker layer at the bottom, where all the chocolate and sugar had set. So you had to shake it well before drinking. Nobody makes that anymore, now all the chocolate milks have a stabiliser, so you don't need to expend your precious energy shaking the bottle. All those wasted calories. We don't want that. I guess.

For similar reasons, when you mix honey in your tea you need to keep a spoon in to stir it often, or it all goes to the bottom.

>> 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?

Because I know yogurt. I basically eat yogurt every day. I even make it myself some times (see my recipe above). Are you sure your yogurt did not have stabilisiers in it?

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

#386

Post by neomantra »

epcoa wrote: post #269
standardUser wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it does not, since ultra-processed, though not a strictly defined term, does not include household ingredients like granulated sugar or brown sugar. If you happen to have a jar of HFCS in your cabinet then that would quality.

Well then it is a worthless term. Both granulated sugar and HFCS are processed foods. Corn syrup is a household ingredient. No idea why you think a bit higher percentage of fructose changes anything.

Corn syrup and high-fructose corn syrup are two different ingredients, although they share some words. One is 100% glucose and the other also contains fructose (usually 42% or 55% fructose), produced by chemically altering the corn syrup. We process glucose and sucrose differently and it affects taste, satiation, digestion, and more. I agree that the terminology is useless, by institutional intention.

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

#387

Post by teleforce »

I'm surprised the article and nobody here is mentioning the popular the usage or the abuse of Boric Acid and Borax in processed foods mainly for preservation purposes [1].

In most countries they are banned but process food manufacturers have been using since forever.

[1] Abuse of Boric Acid and Borax in Foods:

https://www.cfs.gov.hk/english/multimedia/multimedia_pub/mul...

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

#388

Post by snapcaster »

ragazzina wrote: post #380
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

Just on this topic, it's a great filter to know whose opinion you can discard without consideration

edit: also posting a link to a logical fallacy on wikipedia really makes you look like a dork would recommend avoiding it

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

#389

Post by snapcaster »

makeitdouble wrote: post #260
snapcaster wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we were on less censored forums would just ask you to "post body". Since that's not considered a valid argument here instead i'll just gesture to the countless innovations that have been developed by humans that turn out to have massive negative health consequences. What gives you the confidence that our current food manufacturing techniques won't turn out to be one of those things? Would you have made this argume…

People are forgetting we had famines a few centuries ago in the west, and still have famines in many places. Sure, they are also usually associated with governing issues and other complicating factors, but still. The number of peoole being alive is my answer to whether food manufacturing is a net negative or not. While the pendulum has swung way past the equilibrium for us, rejecting whole categories of food that ten…

Not necessarily since BMI doesn't take into account muscle mass. But, 22 does mean that we can't just discard your opinion out of hand

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

#390

Post by 4gotunameagain »

cmiller1 wrote: post #346
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 am…

A quick mention of your staple vegetarian protein sources ? :)
Post reply on HN