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

71–80 of 437 posts

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

#71

Post by zeroCalories »

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?

Good health outcomes compared to other first world countries?

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

#72

Post by cynicalpeace »

makeitdouble wrote: post #53
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.…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

Good thing I didn't make that argument :)

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

#73

Post by mewpmewp2 »

snapcaster wrote: post #44
nightski wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's just as dumb though because the act of processing doesn't really mean anything.

It absolutely does if you're able to take off the pedantry glasses for like 5 seconds. Why are you nitpicking this? is it because you actually think articles like this are about chopping carrots? "if it couldn't be made outside of a factory, don't eat it." from someone else in the comments is pretty clear

Why jump from one weird statement to another? Maybe even a worse one?

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

#75

Post by makeitdouble »

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?

Japan isn't special IMHO, but overweight rate is on the low side.

Now, trying to understand why is can of worm (social pressure and bullying probably plays a role for instance, which have other adverse effects possibly worse than just being overweight)

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

#76

Post by xooxies »

makeitdouble wrote: post #53
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.…

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

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

#77

Post by anonym29 »

moomin wrote: post #55
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…

Strong agree. The Nova classification is extremist and heavily useless. Yes if you come up with two classifications and one includes McDonalds burgers and the other doesn't you'll be able to show a health effect. Doesn't mean your categorisation is useful.

Do you really think it's not useful at all to know you can protect your health proactively with one classification system of UPFs, that is deemed a bit extreme?

Or is it possible you're coming from a place of motivated reasoning? If you've got a worldview that deems your own food choices "healthy", but they're not on the Nova classification list, that doesn't automatically mean your own food choices aren't healthy, they're just not known to be healthy within one of many frameworks.

Instead of tearing down what we know works because it doesn't include the foods you deem healthy, why not advocate for more research into the foods in question specifically?

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

#78

Post by rout39574 »

cynicalpeace wrote: post #65
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The avoidance of factory food is part of the point. GP is invoking Michael Pollan from the Omnivore's Dillema, among others. By 'Food', Pollan specifically means to exclude the sorts of chemical-engineered vague nutrient simacrula you're talking about.

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

#79

Post by mint2 »

hu3 wrote: post #46
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…

> sweetened drinks and processed meats, were associated with a higher risk of heart disease, others, like breakfast cereals, bread and yogurt, were instead linked to lower risks for cardiovascular disease. I highly doubt these extra sweetened breakfast cereals are a net positive for health. So perhaps they should be more specific when it comes to mentioning breakfast cereals.

Likewise breakfast yogurt could be either yoplait “yogurt” or plain unsweetened actual yogurt, or anything in between.

One is basically gelatinized sugar and the other is pretty healthy. If one’s classification doesn’t easily distinguish those two, that’s absurd.

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

#80

Post by blackoil »

I find two principles work best. First, grandma's wisdom is mostly correct so prefer home-cooked culturally aligned food.

Second moderation, you can have one can of drink and one meal outside power week of anything. So burger and coke or Indian sugary desserts all are good if you can control frequency.

Post reply on HN