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

411–420 of 437 posts

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

#411

Post by singularity2001 »

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…

this is why I'm always very astonished when European regulation is frowned upon by reflex

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

#412

Post by s0sa »

marssaxman wrote: post #404
Kirby64 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that speaks more to your diet than anything else. Regardless of the amount of added sugar, that’s an absurd amount of carbs to be getting just from bread and cannot be particularly healthy, no matter the type of bread.

That is a surprising assertion, given that eating the majority of one's calories in the form of bread was the normal human experience for thousands of years - practically since the beginning of agriculture - throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa! "Give us this day our daily bread", the old prayer goes: because bread was food, and everything else was accompaniment.

What is your point? That doesn’t mean it’s healthy. Thousands of years is literally nothing on an evolutionary scale. Modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years.

Bread became ubiquitous because it didn’t require hunting or gathering, i.e. it supported ever growing communities of stationary humans. Not because some ancient nutritionist decided it was good for you.

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

#413

Post by Kirby64 »

marssaxman wrote: post #404
Kirby64 wrote: post #401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that speaks more to your diet than anything else. Regardless of the amount of added sugar, that’s an absurd amount of carbs to be getting just from bread and cannot be particularly healthy, no matter the type of bread.

That is a surprising assertion, given that eating the majority of one's calories in the form of bread was the normal human experience for thousands of years - practically since the beginning of agriculture - throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa! "Give us this day our daily bread", the old prayer goes: because bread was food, and everything else was accompaniment.

Let’s not use thousand year old traditions based on poorly understood nutritional science to guide today’s practices.

If you get the majority of calories from bread then you are, at best, eating far from the optimal amount of protein and lacking some useful nutrition. At worst, you’re eating a poorly balanced diet that will lead to overeating or malnourishment (or both).

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

#414

Post by marssaxman »

s0sa wrote: post #412
marssaxman wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is a surprising assertion, given that eating the majority of one's calories in the form of bread was the normal human experience for thousands of years - practically since the beginning of agriculture - throughout Europe, the Middle East, and North Africa! "Give us this day our daily bread", the old prayer goes: because bread was food, and everything else was accompaniment.

What is your point? That doesn’t mean it’s healthy. Thousands of years is literally nothing on an evolutionary scale. Modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years. Bread became ubiquitous because it didn’t require hunting or gathering, i.e. it supported ever growing communities of stationary humans. Not because some ancient nutritionist decided it was good for you.

My point? If you think a staple food vast numbers of human beings have relied on for literally all of recorded history (not to mention thousands of years prior) is "not particularly healthy", then perhaps your definition of "healthy" is a little too exalted for everyday use.

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

#415

Post by s0sa »

marssaxman wrote: post #414
s0sa wrote: post #412

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is your point? That doesn’t mean it’s healthy. Thousands of years is literally nothing on an evolutionary scale. Modern humans have existed for at least 100,000 years. Bread became ubiquitous because it didn’t require hunting or gathering, i.e. it supported ever growing communities of stationary humans. Not because some ancient nutritionist decided it was good for you.

My point? If you think a staple food vast numbers of human beings have relied on for literally all of recorded history (not to mention thousands of years prior) is "not particularly healthy", then perhaps your definition of "healthy" is a little too exalted for everyday use.

Again, “literally all of recorded history” is literally meaningless. I also find it bizarre that you would find something as simple as a well balanced diet (i.e. one humans enjoyed for hundreds of thousands of years prior to the agricultural revolution) as an “exalted” definition of healthy.

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

#416

Post by cmiller1 »

tremon wrote: post #405
cmiller1 wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

To circle back to your first assertion: tofu is also one of the most "processed" foods you can find. You go from beans to milk to cheese to solid cake, that's more processing for a single ingredient than you need to get from e.g. wheat to naan bread.

The whey isolate is also a super processed food product. I think the key is to ask "why was this processed?" Whey isolate is processed to make it easier to get quick digesting protein, Doritos are processed to make them more addictive, more shelf stable, and cheaper to produce; only one of these products will contribute to a tendency to overeat.

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

#417

Post by ProfessorLayton »

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.

Right, but honey and agave syrup can also act as mild adhesives. I'm not sure anyone would consider them an adhesive any more than they would a stabilizer.

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

#418

Post by Suppafly »

johnyzee wrote: post #409
Suppafly wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You cannot process sugar cane into table sugar without an industrial plant. That's obviously false.

The refined sugar you buy in the store ('table sugar') is clarified with phosphoric acid and bleached using a number of other chemicals. In addition to this, it goes though a number of other industrial processing steps that you would not be able to perform at home. Hence, it is 'highly processed'.

So you can make it at home using scary chemicals that you can easily buy online. You can't just say 'industrial processing' and 'chemicals' and be believed.

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

#419

Post by [deleted] »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #417
throwup238 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Right, but honey and agave syrup can also act as mild adhesives. I'm not sure anyone would consider them an adhesive any more than they would a stabilizer.

[deleted]

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

#420

Post by syntaxless »

shafyy wrote: post #204
syntaxless wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In the past people with diabetes tried to live on a completely carb free diet - but you cannot do that for long. What is “long?” There are people living years on no carbs at all.

Who is living years without any carbs?

People on zero carb and carnivore diets.
Post reply on HN