Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

openmindmag.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 112 posts

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#41

Post by hnzix »

airstrike wrote: post #3

> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.” Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement. What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive?…

If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#42

Post by throwaway290232 »

coffeebeqn wrote: post #13
throwup238 wrote: post #7

IMO the problem is the definition. According to wikipedia UPF is "an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds. The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings." The Wikipedia features a photo of fruit loops breakfast cereal b…

It is a confusing definition. I wouldn’t consider most bread and pasta to be ultra processed but simply processed (except the bread that lasts for weeks). Ultra processed in my mind is when you take the source materials down to constitute parts and then Frankenstein a new food item out of it. Like Pringles. And then a traditional actual sliced potato chip is processed food because it’s a deep fried sliced potato. The…

[dead]

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#43

Post by Terr_ »

pixl97 wrote: post #32
tssge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or…

Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.

> Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO.

I don't think they forget, it's just not profitable to admit it or work it into their products.

That makes me think of a Pratchett quote:

> In fact, like a lot of [semaphore] towers, it was often manned by kids. Everyone knew it happened. Actually, the new management probably didn't, but wouldn't have done anything about it if they'd found out, apart from carefully forgetting that they'd known. Kids didn't need to be paid.

-- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett

For a bit more context, the semaphore towers in the plot are analogous to the early internet and issues of monopolies.

> They'd come and hang around and do odd jobs and maybe pick up the craft of semaphore just by watching. They tended to be bright, they mastered the keyboard and levers as if by magic, they usually had good eyesight and what they were doing, most of them, was running away from home without actually leaving.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#44

Post by pixl97 »

bitwize wrote: post #23
hintymad wrote: post #17

A trajectory question: have we have definitive answer to why the US now has so many obese people when before 70s not so many (or I just got the wrong impression from poor sampling of videos)? It's not like the US didn't have enough supply of food or people didn't have access to cars. The US was wealthy then and still wealthy now.

The most likely explanation is that back in the 70s, the dietary villain of the day was high-fat foods. So manufacturers switched to low-fat varieties and marketed them based on the lower fat content. But foods in which the fat was lowered tasted blander, so to compensate they added a potent flavorant -- sugar. Sugar was safe, right? It was a simple carbohydrate, not a fat, so it wouldn't make you fat... right?

Unfortunately I don't think there is any single villain here, but instead a cabal of them.

Fat to sugar was one of them, yet fat is very high calorie itself.

Another is that we've moved from jobs working on our feet to jobs sitting on our butts. Same with going outside and playing. Add to that in the US more people have moved to the southern part of the country with air conditioning and spend more time inside.

Mass removal of fiber from foods (hence the ultra processed part) make it far easier to over consume thousands of extra calories per day.

Another is the amount we go out to eat in the US. When I was young we might eat out a few times a month at most. Now the average is 4-5 times a week! Most places offer very large serving sizes so it's very easy to consume over half your daily calories in one meal.

I'd have to add in better marketing and placement of high calorie impulse foods in stores of all types.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#45

Post by m463 »

karmasimida wrote: post #37

I still don’t understand why French fries are considered UPF, it is just potato but fried.

I think one of the main healthy ingredient lost to processing is fiber. It is good for moving food through your digestive system, plus it moderates harmful glucose spikes which is very unhealthy.

Potatoes have a lot of fiber in the skin, but fries remove all that.

(I've also been told, eating potatoes are like eating a plate of sugar)

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#46

Post by hilux »

airstrike wrote: post #3

> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.” Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement. What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive?…

> AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake.

Two things:

- Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs.

- When we remove fat, what is replacing it?

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#47

Post by bcrosby95 »

hilux wrote: post #39

What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself. A few things I notice: - "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most lun…

The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art.

It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact.

Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#48

Post by marcus0x62 »

koolba wrote: post #14
nokcha wrote: post #9

> ultra-processed foods such as ... yogurts > Frozen and canned vegetables are often classified as ultra-processed I think this goes against the common usage of the term "ultra-processed".

Yes that’s kind of nuts to group those in the “ultra” group. All three of those are some of the healthiest things you can eat. Especially yogurt.

I’ve posted about this before and gotten downvoted, but, yeah, the Nova definitions are problematic. I think the issue is the data clearly shows something or somethings are causing problems, but nobody really knows what the troublesome ingredients are, or if any individual ingredients are problematic at all:

* Is it the emulsifiers? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven

* Is it the high calorie density/ease of chewing? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.

* Is it ? That, too, probably sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.

* Is it just the A/B testing? After a few rounds of optimizing for “do people eat more of substance a or substance b”, does it even matter what the ingredients are? Sounds plausible, but hasn’t been proven.

Meanwhile, to pick on one single example, you have jams in the Nova database that are “ultra processed” because they contain ”added” pectin.

The last time I brought this up, someone responded that they made homemade jam without adding any pectin at all, just by cooking the fruit for longer. So, clearly, Big Jam is making Frankenfood Jam by adding artificial pectin to thicken their product.

You’ll never guess how you extract pectin from fruit: apply heat.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#49

Post by tssge »

pixl97 wrote: post #32
tssge wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or…

Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.

>And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem.

I find palatability an odd thing in the sense that there's the phenomenon of acquired taste. In my experience acquired taste applies the most towards bitter foods and drinks.

I hated the zero-sugar low-fat yoghurt at first. It tasted horrible. The more I got into it however, the more I liked it's rather unique refreshing taste. It freshens the palate unlike any other food and as such I got used to the bitter taste and started to like it instead.

Same thing with beer, it seems everyone hates beer when they taste it the first time. The more you get used to it however, the more you find the taste refreshing I feel. Nothing more refreshing than a cold beer on a hot summer day.

>We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals

Fiber for me is somewhat similar. I really love fibrous, almost rock hard, full-grain rye bread. My jaw will get sore from eating that, but there's something to it to really have to chew it down. However I used to hate it and love soft bread in the past: the texture and it's chewiness is akin to an acquired taste.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#50

Post by taeric »

I'm convinced fake fats were absolutely terrible for us. Kind of feels like the rest is falling to scape goat territory. Probably not good, as it were. But not as terrible as fake fats.

I also think steering people away from salt is probably misguided. So, take my view with appropriate salt. :)

Post reply on HN