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

61–70 of 437 posts

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

#61

Post by Kirby64 »

snapcaster wrote: post #28
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 agree it leaves a lot to be desired but i wouldn't say it's totally worthless. It's clearly identifying something and even a poorly understood adherence to avoiding UPFs would likely make the average person healthier. Overall though we obviously need to come up with better terms for this

Adherence to avoiding UPFs, by the current Nova classification, would lead to most people having to radically change their diets, assuming you actually follow the Nova classification of UPFs to a tee. And assuming they're already reasonably healthy, there would be no meaningful health benefits I suspect.

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

#62

Post by jejeyyy77 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43
cynicalpeace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. You can't reliably draw any conclusions from them. You have to use common sense and rules of thumb.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

is the last one even widely accepted anymore

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

#63

Post by bilekas »

bee_rider wrote: post #52
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…

What’s special about Japan in this context?

They do have a particularly high life expectancy.

https://data.who.int/countries/392

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

#64

Post by yurishimo »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #26

Seems pretty obvious to me. Humans didn't have factories until a couple hundred years ago. This means we are not adapted to factory made food. This entire debate is hilariously overcomplicated by smarty pants "show me the study" or "aren't cooked carrots processed?" types. 40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. It's called the "replication crisis". Google it. Rules of thumb are greatly underrated on HN.…

There’s a woman on YouTube that I watch sometimes who recreates popular sweets/snacks/desserts but using fresh ingredients and home friendly (usually) cooking techniques. What always blows me away is just how long is takes to make something like a Little Debbie Oatmeal cream pie from scratch.

If we as a species could no longer rely on industrialization to create junk foods and instead had to make them from scratch, we’d spend 100x as long making them as we do shoving them down our throats and therefore savor the few that we do make and likely eat less.

The subconscious power of availability and plenty on the human psyche is enormously underestimated.

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

#65

Post by cynicalpeace »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43
cynicalpeace wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

40-60% of nutritional studies cannot be replicated. You can't reliably draw any conclusions from them. You have to use common sense and rules of thumb.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

That's pretty good. Though it should be balanced with avoiding factory made food.

I personally think non processed meat is good for you, but that's a minor point compared to ultra processed vs not really processed foods.

I once argued with med students that Oreos (which are vegan) are not healthier than a steak.

Absolutely crazy and tbh frightening that anyone (let alone med students!) would think Oreos are healthier than a steak.

The reasoning of course is that processing and sugar content don't matter as much as any level of saturated fat.

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

#66

Post by 0xEF »

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 would stop making them. But their snack cakes are designed to make you want to eat the whole package and sold cheaper than an alternative like a healthy fruit and nut mix, making the consumer's choice almost a moot point since consumers tend to trade their own best interests for convenience and "saving" money.

And so, they give the market what it buys. Simple as.

But I do hate it. I have to put a stupid amount of effort into eating healthy because I don't have room for a garden and healthier alternatives are often more expensive. I can see why most people just reach for the snack cakes and call it done.

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

#67

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

jejeyyy77 wrote: post #62
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.

is the last one even widely accepted anymore

What's not widely accepted?

https://nutritionsource.hsph.harvard.edu/healthy-eating-plat...

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

#69

Post by mewpmewp2 »

snapcaster wrote: post #12
cynicalpeace wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have had this exact argument on HN at least a half dozen times.

yeah people still do it but at least adding the "ultra" indicates is not something a person cooking for their family would be doing to food

It's still a misleading term, so it would be good to talk about what the actual harm is, as to not confuse people. And it does confuse, since I vividly remember as a kid being confused by it, and it's important to have healthy habits from a young age. It always sounded a bit weird that food being "processed" means it's bad, so I didn't understand it really. And if you don't focus on the harm, but use terms like this, it's hard to say what is pseudoscience and what is actual science.

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

#70

Post by giantg2 »

Generalization is the real issue here. You can't just say "processed" food is bad. There are tons of definitions and different forms of processing. It would be much better to look at individual ingredients. A good start would be to change the GRAS process. There's no real investigation being done on many food additives and the evidence many use for GRAS is flimsy at best.
Post reply on HN