Live data from Hacker News

Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

openmindmag.org

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#71
post #45

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)

So, peeled boiled potatoes are ultra-processed food then?

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#72
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Sure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/

In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meats (including bacon, salami, etc.) as group 1 carcinogens.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#73
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.)

So the source you're using to rebut a Stanford nutrition study is someone whose most relevant education is a Masters degree in Latin American studies?

And the people suggesting eating more foods you can literally grow yourself in your backyard are corrupted business scientists? Make it make sense.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#74

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

Because they're usually cut up, soaked in a salt bath, coated, then deep fried in a trans fat.

This takes a complex carbohydrate, strips it of most of its fiber content, adds sodium and then adds trans fats through the deep frying process.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#75

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.

This is narrow mindset and speaks to what a lot of the article is trying to explain.

This isn't just talking about obesity. But also talking about other additives that make foods less nutrient dense for you, eating foods that can cause other adverse health problems outside of just obesity. Additionally, UPF foods are engineered to make them hyperpalatable, meaning you want to eat more of them than you would a less processed food. Lastly, processed foods are often stripped of many micronutrients that in some cases are artificially added back in. These nutrients we would normally get from unprocessed foods in abundance.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#76
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.

I suspect gp is talking about industrial seed oils like corn, soybean, canola, though the nomenclature of "fake" is unhelpful. This paper [1] claims 8-10% of our energy intake is from these. 10% of our calories seems like it could be a big factor.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In California it's often sold at farmers markets. It's usually a stall or two selling yogurt and raw milk.

You can also just ask a dairy directly.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#78
post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34455534/ In 2015 the International Agency for Research on Cancer classified processed meats (including bacon, salami, etc.) as group 1 carcinogens.

It's a meta-analysis. It's not a controlled study like I asked.

And if you go back and dig through the original studies, not a single one of them is a controlled study. Not one.

They always require people to fill out cards of what they ate months or years ago. (This problem is well known - google: nutrition observational study problem)

AND there's the problem that people who eat bacon - which is "supposed" to be bad - often are overweight, and eat and drink way more other stuff that's bad, like tons of carbs, alcohol, etc. Which means that teasing out any actual harm from the bacon, is determined by a statistician. Not so obvious after all.

But if you or I exercise, are healthy weight, eat bacon in a low-carb way, don't drink or smoke, and consume lots of fiber (all of which are true for me, don't know about you) ... it's really not clear how serious a risk factor the bacon is. Compared to just - the risk of being alive.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I suspect gp is talking about industrial seed oils like corn, soybean, canola, though the nomenclature of "fake" is unhelpful. This paper [1] claims 8-10% of our energy intake is from these. 10% of our calories seems like it could be a big factor. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/

I haven't gone down seed oil rabbit hole. I confess that sounds too conspiracy to me.

My accusations were mainly on trans fats. And I ack that we've largely moved away from them. My suspicion is it will take time for that choice to fully take.

Post reply on HN