Live data from Hacker News

Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

openmindmag.org

1–10 of 112 posts

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#3
> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.”

Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement.

What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what?

I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization

AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat...

It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#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 but that's a total red herring. The food coloring and preservatives are a side show; what really matters is the macro and micronutrition that is sacrificed in the name of processing.

The article uses a photo of what looks like fishball type products and imitation crab legs which illustrates the problem: while those are highly processed, they're made of fish that doesn't lose much nutritional value in the cooking and preserving process. They're nowhere near as bad as other processed foods like pasta or bread made from bleached flour where the germ and bran were discarded before milling.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#8
I see “avoid if ultra processed” as a heuristic. If you want to be healthy eat mostly food that looks like it has grown from the ground.

However of course some processed stuff can be healthy. A vitamin D capsule is super healthy if you are low on vitamin D!

Not to mention you need to consider quantities. A gram of refined sugar is OK, probably neutral.

Re: Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

#10

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, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, CHOCOLATE, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY.

Of these arguably only salt really exists in its natural form with minimal processing.

Post reply on HN