3 ms·

What’s so bad about processed foods? Scientists offer clues

8 points by daegloe 7y ago

whamlastxmas 7y ago
The article admits the study is small to the point of not really being worth anything and provides no other information other than idle speculation.
- tracker1 7y ago
  This article, and the study are relatively small... that said there are quite a few studies and information on specific processed foods not being so great. From refined seed oils to heavily blanched and processed modern varieties of wheat. Of course, there's also the unnatural things we feed ourselves and are livestock to consider. Let alone the huge amount of refined sugars taken in by society as a whole compared to a couple hundred years ago. Time and time again, looking at various differences in varieties and concentrations of some of the things we eat today vs. how it was done with heritage varieties a century and a half ago are very, very different in terms of the effects on the body. What I feel it comes down to, is we've been able to effectively eliminate starvation and famine in most of the world... now, I feel we need to start thinking about what is actually healthy, what isn't and it goes way beyond any specific agenda. There's also the fact that many people will react differently to a great number of factors. Keto works well for many, but there are some where it's very bad/dangerous. Same for vegetarian. It all really varies and we're only at the very tip of the iceberg in terms if food knowledge and how it relates to health. Unfortunately there are way too many biases that are based more on faith than science. I don't think that a general advice of eating less refined, less processed foods is a bad idea all around. The majority of what we eat today are not things that were around for even 100 years in terms of variety, refinement and proportions. That seems like a long time, but on evolutionary terms, it's the blink of an eye.
daemonk 7y ago
Is there a standardized definition of what is considered "processed"?

8 points by daegloe 7y ago

The article admits the study is small to the point of not really being worth anything and provides no other information other than idle speculation.

tracker1 7y ago
This article, and the study are relatively small... that said there are quite a few studies and information on specific processed foods not being so great. From refined seed oils to heavily blanched and processed modern varieties of wheat. Of course, there's also the unnatural things we feed ourselves and are livestock to consider. Let alone the huge amount of refined sugars taken in by society as a whole compared to a couple hundred years ago. Time and time again, looking at various differences in varieties and concentrations of some of the things we eat today vs. how it was done with heritage varieties a century and a half ago are very, very different in terms of the effects on the body. What I feel it comes down to, is we've been able to effectively eliminate starvation and famine in most of the world... now, I feel we need to start thinking about what is actually healthy, what isn't and it goes way beyond any specific agenda. There's also the fact that many people will react differently to a great number of factors. Keto works well for many, but there are some where it's very bad/dangerous. Same for vegetarian. It all really varies and we're only at the very tip of the iceberg in terms if food knowledge and how it relates to health. Unfortunately there are way too many biases that are based more on faith than science. I don't think that a general advice of eating less refined, less processed foods is a bad idea all around. The majority of what we eat today are not things that were around for even 100 years in terms of variety, refinement and proportions. That seems like a long time, but on evolutionary terms, it's the blink of an eye.

daemonk 7y ago

Is there a standardized definition of what is considered "processed"?