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

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#61

Post by hilux »

the_gastropod wrote: post #52
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.

That's fine. Then show me controlled studies on bacon being bad. I have no problem with that. That's what science should be.

Don't lump bacon in with "processed foods" like all that sugary crap.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#62

Post by Eisenstein »

bobthepanda wrote: post #10
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's interesting that the definitions are so varied. what i've seen, is that UPF is usually defined as "a high proportion of the ingredients do not exist naturally in that form." so for example, the ingredients of an Oreo > INGREDIENTS: UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, PALM OIL, SOYBEAN AND/OR CANOLA OIL, COCO…

Are you counting ingredients by proportion of weight or by total number of them in the list?

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#63

Post by Eisenstein »

throwawaycities wrote: post #59
dahdum wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Where are you getting unpasteurized milk that you could make yogurt with it? I don't know anyone who has eaten yogurt made from raw cow's milk and wouldn't know where to get it.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#64

Post by NoPicklez »

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".

On the NOVA scale, these wouldn't be considered ultra-processed. Yogurt would be considered minimally processed and canned vegetables would be considered processed but not ultra processed

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#65

Post by code_biologist »

p1necone wrote: post #57

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.

The term comes from the Nova food classification system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification Do you think the groupings are not sensible?

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#66

Post by WirelessGigabit »

code_biologist wrote: post #18

Contra this article, I'd highly recommend the book it mentions: Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken. It collates a lot of good studies and evidence that highly processed food is less healthy in and of itself, even if macro- and micronutrient composition is identical. It also covers a lot of the misbehavior and lobbying by food companies, marketing to create addictive behavior, as well as the engineering goin…

Absolutely wonderful book. The 30 grams of cornflakes vs oats is so weird, but when you think about it, yes, I would eat WAY more cornflakes and milk than I eat oats and milk.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#67

Post by taeric »

semiquaver wrote: post #53
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.

Trans fats were the worst. I don't quite fall into thinking seed oils are terrible, but I do suspect a lot of damage lingering from wide use of trans fats.

I'm probably more thinking on how folks were told to avoid fats at all costs. And I do think that has changed for a time now. Though I still know folks that avoid things we were told were bad years ago. Bacon and eggs being easy examples. Butter, too.

I'm not clear on sugar substitutes. Would help if I knew more people that used them without being severely unhealthy.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#68

Post by NoPicklez »

p1necone wrote: post #57

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.

It's really not that difficult to define, but like most things there's degrees to what it is considered processed.

This is why there are now frameworks in place like the NOVA classification system to try break down and develop a degree to which something is considered processed.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#69

Post by WirelessGigabit »

api wrote: post #20
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.

Obesity has definitely increased and I’ve seen many hypotheses floated. The most convincing one to me so far has been simple sugar and the fact that sugar is now added to practically everything. Other hypotheses I’ve seen include more sedentary jobs, endocrine disruptors, and cigarette smoking going away. Nicotine is a stimulant and an appetite suppressant. I guess a combination of less nicotine and more sugar isn’t…

It's not sugar perse. It's the fact that you have companies cooking for you vs your grandma. Yes, your grandma's cookies had sugar, but it didn't have the other 10 ingredients that are basically pre-digested, making that cookie from the store to be EXTREMELY palatable.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#70

Post by hilux »

timClicks wrote: post #54
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.

The vegan-funded research (that gets published) always finds that a "plant-based diet" is healthier.

Check out the Stanford twin study. Check out the rebuttals. Nina Teicholz is a good place to start for that. (Obviously you don't have to take my word for it, or hers, but if you're motivated, you can watch the entire process - the vegans, the headline, the data, the rebuttal.)

Post reply on HN