Scientists are learning why ultra-processed foods are bad • Hacker News Board

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

#391

Post by crazygringo » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 1:59 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #385

crazygringo wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 sinkin…

Thanks for the info! Fascinating. It's the explanations like these that keep me on HN.

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

#392

Post by flocciput » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 2:21 PM UTC

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.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/ebiom/article/PIIS2352-39...

> Moreover, epidemiological studies show that a high intake of animal protein, particularly red meat, which contains high levels of methionine and BCAAs, may be related to the promotion of age-related diseases. Therefore, a low animal protein diet, particularly a diet low in red meat, may provide health benefits.

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

#393

Post by cmiller1 » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 2:41 PM UTC

4gotunameagain wrote: post #390

cmiller1 wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ? :)

Cottage cheese, tofu, edamame, greek yogurt, seitan, whey isolate.

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

#394

Post by specialist » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 2:43 PM UTC

feoren wrote: post #124

0xEF wrote: post #66

Living in the US, my takeaway is this: Food manufacturers do not care if we stay healthy, but they're also not interested in harming us on purpose. Their goal is to maximize profit, which usually means cheapest ingredients with addictive properties produced as quickly as possible by low-cost labor. But they also know this only works if the market allows it. If nobody bought their snack cakes (random example), they wo…

This game theory problem, where consumers are buying unhealthier options because they're cheaper, and companies are producing unhealthier options because they're more profitable, is exactly what regulation is for. I don't understand why we've all collectively forgotten why regulation exists and become so cynical that it can actually work! Actually I do understand: it's industry interests spending hundreds of billions…

Yes and: "regulations" is just a scary words for "rules".

Yes and: Policy proceeds rule making. Rules try to encode incentives and disincentives to achieve those policies. For better or worse.

Yes and: Surplus, and therefore overuse of, unhealthy foodstuffs (eg HFCS) is the result of pro Big Ag policies. Which are often in opposition to public health interests. So we (taxpayers) are paying to create lifestyle diseases at the same time we're paying to mitigate those same diseases.

I know you know all this. I hate to go meta on the UPF debate; but there really is an easily identified root cause.

The very first priority to mitigating lifestyle diseases should be:

Stop making it worse.

/rant

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

#395

Post by djmips » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 3:05 PM UTC

setopt wrote: post #381

zby wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tha…

I saw this randomly the other day - what do you make of it?

https://www.ualberta.ca/en/folio/2020/10/excessive-ketone-me...

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

#396

Post by presentation » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 3:11 PM UTC

nightski wrote: post #32

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.

Plenty of stressed and work obsessed people in Japan too, and yet the obesity rate is tiny.

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

#397

Post by presentation » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 3:12 PM UTC

AmVess wrote: post #113

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…

In the US, portion size, calorie density, frequency of eating high calorie foods are contributing to people getting a lot fatter a lot faster than before. We now have instant gratification in food delivery services. Get anything you want without leaving home. In fast food, people are eating a day's worth of food in one sitting. Triple burger, large fries, large drink. People are doing this once a day every day of the…

As someone who lives in Japan I can attest that portion sizes are smaller, and seasoning is much less rich and sweet than it is in the USA - this checks out for me.

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

#398

Post by gdjskshh » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 3:30 PM UTC

AmVess wrote: post #113

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…

In the US, portion size, calorie density, frequency of eating high calorie foods are contributing to people getting a lot fatter a lot faster than before. We now have instant gratification in food delivery services. Get anything you want without leaving home. In fast food, people are eating a day's worth of food in one sitting. Triple burger, large fries, large drink. People are doing this once a day every day of the…

As someone that often eats one large meal a day, I appreciate large portion sizes ar restaurants. If its the only thing I eat that day, a 3000 calorie meal is what I need.

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

#399

Post by johnisgood » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 3:48 PM UTC

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #208

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…

I think there's some fudging of the terms here. When the article is talking about "bread" being healthy- well, there's bread, and then there's bread. Supermarket bread (sliced, packaged) typically lists a couple dozen ingredients. Ordinary bread... you know, bread-bread, like the one some of us bake at home, is made of: flour, water, salt, leavening agent (yeast or sourdough for those as have the patience). Bread-bre…

Where I live, our supermarkets bake "bread-bread" every morning and once in the afternoon! We also have bakeries here that do the same.

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

#400

Post by epcoa » Wed, Nov 27, 2024, 4:12 PM UTC

neomantra wrote: post #386

epcoa wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> chemically altering the corn syrup.

And where does corn syrup come from? From squeezing corn? The sugars in corn don’t start as glucose either (they’re starches).

Besides, at home, bakers easily make “HFCS” themselves by adding any weak acid to table sugar to make invert sugar (an HFCS 50 equivalent).

> We process glucose and sucrose differently

Tell that to some southerners about their sweet tea. This simple distinction isn’t that metabolically interesting for day to day life (or explaining the prevalence of obesity and metabolic syndromes). Concentrations in a serving and mode of delivery are far more important. You can pretty easily get metabolic syndrome from excess glucose as well as sucrose. Altering smell and moisture content are more impactful variables.

Sucrose readily hydrolyzes to glucose and fructose via sucrase in the small intestine, it and HFCS become equals (no, Mexican coke isn’t healthier you dumb hipsters, just eat a piece of fruit already). If it wasn’t you’d get massive diarrhea from eating it. So sucrose vs HFCS isn’t nearly as distinct.

> and it affects taste, satiation, digestion, and more.

The most important distinctions go beyond the relative concentrations of the simple sugars. A fresh fruit doesn’t have the same insulin spiking and metabolic syndrome inducing potential as plain Karo syrup or a (Mexican) Coke, even though its relative percentage of fructose is higher or similar.