Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy? • Hacker News Board

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#51

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:03 AM UTC

karmasimida wrote: post #37

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

I mean, they typically have their skin removed then are soaked in some kind of saline bath. At least half if not more of the fiber in a potato is remove when you skin it. Then oil based frying adds a massive amount of calories.

If you need calories to survive potatoes are a good option, once you've met those minimum requirements they are a pretty terrible food in the sense it's really easy to over consume them.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#52

Post by the_gastropod » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:03 AM UTC

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…

> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult.

This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"?

> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so

Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#53

Post by semiquaver » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:05 AM UTC

taeric wrote: post #50

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. :)

Are you talking about substances such as Olestra? Such non digestible oils are almost completely absent from most people’s diets, even those that eat lots of processed foods. Not sure why it would be a big factor if hardly anyone consumes it.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#54

Post by timClicks » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:06 AM UTC

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…

> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult.

That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence that you're offering. It could also be explained by vegans simply wanting more research on nutrition.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#55

Post by pixl97 » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:06 AM UTC

paulpauper wrote: post #12

All food is just macros, in the end. You can become obese eating healthy food, as many can attest. Plenty of overweight or obese vegans due to too much nuts or tofu.

It's about caloric density.

You can get overweight by eating high fiber food, but it's way harder to do so then eating a few bites that have 500 cals in them. And yes, nuts fall into the high caloric density category.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#56

Post by Terr_ » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:08 AM UTC

code_biologist wrote: post #31

coffeebeqn wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It seems like commercial interests are trying to muddy the waters for the definition of "ultra-processed food" in search results. The phrase as originally coined is a product of the Nova classification system [1]: The Nova classification is a framework for grouping edible substances based on the extent and purpose of food processing applied to them. Researchers at the University of São Paulo, Brazil, proposed the sys…

> The phrase as originally coined is a product of the Nova classification system [...] "in 2009"

That tracks, although I'd point out near-synonyms were already around quite a while before that, such as "heavily-" or "highly-" [0], and it's not guaranteed that everyone using "ultra-" knows or intends to refer to the Nova thing.

[0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=ultra-processe...

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#57

Post by p1necone » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:08 AM UTC

The term "Ultra Processed Food" is basically undefinable in any sort of sensible way, and because of that appears to just be used by the layman synonymously with "unhealthy food".

Trying to find out whether "Ultra Processed Food" is "unhealthy" then just becomes an excercise in unwrapping a tautology.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#58

Post by chimprich » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:08 AM UTC

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…

> What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data

Most of the people who make comments like this sound more religious than most.

> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so.

It's well established that processed meats containing nitrates, like bacon, are carcinogens.

> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans

That's completely backwards. Actually a lot of nutrition research is paid for by large multinationals who sell ultra-processed food. That's where all the cash is.

Who are these shadowy rich vegan organisations?

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#59

Post by throwawaycities » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:09 AM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #40

throwawaycities wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think yogurt is a great example of the problem. In its more natural form it is healthy, particularly as a probiotic with live cultures and enzymes. But that’s not what the majority of yogurts sold in stores are, they are heated and pasteurized killing live cultures, and then loaded with sugar added. It’s this yogurt product that more closely resembles a desert than a healthy yogurt that is bought/consumed and marke…

Aren’t there are a ton of live culture yogurts available in most supermarkets? Noosa, Siggis, Fage, Yoplait, and Chobani for example. They just genrally have too much sugar.

Yes, but even among those there is some deception.

Take Yoplait, it is made with pasteurized milk, so it doesn’t have the naturally occurring cultures. Like the added sugar they just add cultures/probiotics in, what’s important in this is that there are 1000s of species of probiotics and “added probiotics” is not the same as naturally occurring probiotics, which are generally limited to just a few species. In other words it’s a marketing stunt to market “probiotics” as if it were natural, but to reuse the word it is a bastardization of naturally occurring cultures.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#60

Post by karaterobot » Tue, Apr 30, 2024, 12:10 AM UTC

> Perhaps the problem with ultra-processed food is its energy density; or its texture, which may encourage people to eat too fast; or its alleged “hyper-palatability,” which is defined by specific combinations of sugar, salt and fat.

My hypothesis is that UPFs are not inherently less healthy, it's that they are cheap, convenient, and delicious, so it's easy to eat a little too much. I doesn't take much: fifty extra calories every meal is almost 20 pounds a year.