4 ms·

Why is whole milk considered ultraprocessed and skim milk considered unprocessed? Whole milk is literally what you would get if you didn't process milk. Why ar

Why is whole milk considered ultraprocessed and skim milk considered unprocessed? Whole milk is literally what you would get if you didn't process milk. Why are canned corn and green beans ultraprocessed? They contain nothing but corn/beans and a touch of salt. If the salt is the problem, why do the unprocessed meals have added salt? It looks like for the unprocessed meals, they chose a bunch of high in vegetables and whole grains, high fiber meals and chose a bunch of high calorie foods for the ultraprocessed meals [1]. No surprise people ate more calories when given the high calorie foods. They say "dietitians scrupulously matched the ultraprocessed and processed meals for calories", but also that people were told to each as much as they like. What does that even mean? The calories can only be the same if you fix the quantity. They don't define "ultraprocessed" or provide any mechanism for weight gain that would apply to their very varied selection of "ultraprocessed" foods. The term "processed" is used to scare people about food, but the term is so broad that there can't possibly be a single mechanism by which various processed food would be unhealthy. Processing includes cutting, grinding, heating, cooking, mixing, adding ingredients, drying, deboning... basically anything you do to food. It's one thing to say a specific process, like adding sodium nitrite, is harmful. Making a blanket statement that all cutting, cooking and combining of foods is bad should raise a bit more skepticism. If the article has a more specific definition of processed, they should mention it because their choices seem pretty arbitrary. [1] Study meals: https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008/attachment/f7d43756-3f67-4557-8322-59a9d143d63c/mmc1 https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cmet.2019.05.008/attachme...

vertigolimbo 7y ago
edit: referenced article includes daily menu and in ultraprocessed menu you can find "Whole milk (Cloverland) with NutriSource fiber". I think it's not the milk, it's the addition of fiber what makes it ultraprocessed.
- Udik 7y ago
  Yes, but still: how much of the fiber makes the milk "ultraprocessed"? 10% in weight? 1%? One part in a million? To be scientific, how do you measure the ultraprocessed-ness of foods?
alecco 7y ago
Have you ever milked a cow? That milk doesn’t look at all like the “whole” milk you get at the shop. Besides pasteurization they put it through filters and other industrial procedures. Dairy plants are very complex.
- scep12 7y ago
  To OP's point, neither does the skim milk. The question is: which is more or less ultraprocessed? Intuitively you'd think the whole milk is closer to the real thing by any measure, even if both varieties are processed. Nonetheless I tend to agree with your point that there are probably better examples of food that are closer to ground truth in nature.
- dbatten 7y ago
  Your point is well taken, but OP's complaint is still valid. At the very least, whole milk from your local store is less processed by definition than skim milk from your local store...
- Tsiklon 7y ago
  anecdotally - non-homogenised milk (that is, milk with the cream at the top still present) is a nice treat when I can find it.
rootusrootus 7y ago
Along the same lines, they include pasta as an unprocessed food. Isn't that the very epitome of a highly processed food?
Pete_D 7y ago
(standard disclaimers apply; I am not a dietician or otherwise formally qualified to have any opinion at all on this topic) It looks like they're using the NOVA classifications[0]; there have been a couple of other articles relating to the same system posted here recently, e.g. [1]. The NutriSource in "Whole milk (Cloverland) with NutriSource fiber" is apparently 100% partially hydrolyzed guar gum[2], which I believe would qualify the combination as ultraprocessed under this part of the definition from [0]: "Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup.". By contrast, skim milk (as used in the unprocessed menu) has nothing added, only removed, and so would fall under their Group 1 "unprocessed or minimally processed foods". As for whether this is actually a useful classification system, I don't know. I have no reason to believe any of the studies are bogus, but taken as a whole, it does seem like an attempt to launder the naturalistic fallacy into some scientific respectability. [0] http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930970 [2] https://www.nestlehealthscience.us/brands/nutrisource/nutrisource-fiber https://www.nestlehealthscience.us/brands/nutrisource/nutris...
- nearbuy 7y ago
  Ah, that makes sense for the milk, and clears up how they're classifying ultraprocessed. Like you, I'm skeptical that this classification system is useful for determining healthiness. I can't see why you'd expect, for example, adding casein to a food to have similar health effects as adding soluble fiber or corn syrup or any other unrelated substance. I have a personal theory that to me seems like the simplest explanation for why junk food is fattening. It's not processing per se. It's simply that people will eat more calories when offered delicious, high-calorie foods. Put a bunch of bland highly processed tofu in front of me and I won't eat many calories. Give me some mostly unprocessed peanuts and raisins to munch on and I'll eat much more. Raw, unseasoned ingredients aren't optimized for taste and convenience, while processed foods often are. I'd also expect people eat more calories at a fine French restaurant (or any restaurant) for the same reason: they design their meals to be delicious. But no one is going to write an article saying delicious and convenient calorie-dense foods cause weight gain.
dahauns 7y ago
>They say "dietitians scrupulously matched the ultraprocessed and processed meals for calories" but also that people were told to each as much as they like. What does that even mean? The calories can only be the same if you fix the quantity. It looks like they were going for energy density (and composition, for that matter). BUT: They absolutely botched that one. While overall density was the same between the two groups, the energy density without beverages was almost twice as high in the ultraprocessed group. TBH, I'm a bit baffled how this huge discrepancy managed to remain in there. I mean, they even admit as much: However, because beverages have limited ability to affect satiety(DellaValle et al., 2005), the ~85% higher energy density of the non-beverage foods in the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diets (Table 1) likely contributed to the observed excess energy intake (Rolls, 2009). Edit: Looking at the referenced paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182946/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182946/), it directly supports both these points: that food energy density quite significantly impacts total intake, and that using beverages instead doesn't (even in contrast to using liquid ingredients which _does_ work). Hoo boy.

vertigolimbo 7y ago

edit: referenced article includes daily menu and in ultraprocessed menu you can find "Whole milk (Cloverland) with NutriSource fiber". I think it's not the milk, it's the addition of fiber what makes it ultraprocessed.

Udik 7y ago
Yes, but still: how much of the fiber makes the milk "ultraprocessed"? 10% in weight? 1%? One part in a million? To be scientific, how do you measure the ultraprocessed-ness of foods?

alecco 7y ago

Have you ever milked a cow? That milk doesn’t look at all like the “whole” milk you get at the shop. Besides pasteurization they put it through filters and other industrial procedures. Dairy plants are very complex.

scep12 7y ago
To OP's point, neither does the skim milk. The question is: which is more or less ultraprocessed? Intuitively you'd think the whole milk is closer to the real thing by any measure, even if both varieties are processed. Nonetheless I tend to agree with your point that there are probably better examples of food that are closer to ground truth in nature.
dbatten 7y ago
Your point is well taken, but OP's complaint is still valid. At the very least, whole milk from your local store is less processed by definition than skim milk from your local store...
Tsiklon 7y ago
anecdotally - non-homogenised milk (that is, milk with the cream at the top still present) is a nice treat when I can find it.

rootusrootus 7y ago

Along the same lines, they include pasta as an unprocessed food. Isn't that the very epitome of a highly processed food?

Pete_D 7y ago

(standard disclaimers apply; I am not a dietician or otherwise formally qualified to have any opinion at all on this topic) It looks like they're using the NOVA classifications[0]; there have been a couple of other articles relating to the same system posted here recently, e.g. [1]. The NutriSource in "Whole milk (Cloverland) with NutriSource fiber" is apparently 100% partially hydrolyzed guar gum[2], which I believe would qualify the combination as ultraprocessed under this part of the definition from [0]: "Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup.". By contrast, skim milk (as used in the unprocessed menu) has nothing added, only removed, and so would fall under their Group 1 "unprocessed or minimally processed foods". As for whether this is actually a useful classification system, I don't know. I have no reason to believe any of the studies are bogus, but taken as a whole, it does seem like an attempt to launder the naturalistic fallacy into some scientific respectability. [0] http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-7-1-3-28-38-Monteiro-Cannon-Levy-et-al-NOVA.pdf http://archive.wphna.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/WN-2016-... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930970 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19930970 [2] https://www.nestlehealthscience.us/brands/nutrisource/nutrisource-fiber https://www.nestlehealthscience.us/brands/nutrisource/nutris...

nearbuy 7y ago
Ah, that makes sense for the milk, and clears up how they're classifying ultraprocessed. Like you, I'm skeptical that this classification system is useful for determining healthiness. I can't see why you'd expect, for example, adding casein to a food to have similar health effects as adding soluble fiber or corn syrup or any other unrelated substance. I have a personal theory that to me seems like the simplest explanation for why junk food is fattening. It's not processing per se. It's simply that people will eat more calories when offered delicious, high-calorie foods. Put a bunch of bland highly processed tofu in front of me and I won't eat many calories. Give me some mostly unprocessed peanuts and raisins to munch on and I'll eat much more. Raw, unseasoned ingredients aren't optimized for taste and convenience, while processed foods often are. I'd also expect people eat more calories at a fine French restaurant (or any restaurant) for the same reason: they design their meals to be delicious. But no one is going to write an article saying delicious and convenient calorie-dense foods cause weight gain.

dahauns 7y ago

>They say "dietitians scrupulously matched the ultraprocessed and processed meals for calories" but also that people were told to each as much as they like. What does that even mean? The calories can only be the same if you fix the quantity. It looks like they were going for energy density (and composition, for that matter). BUT: They absolutely botched that one. While overall density was the same between the two groups, the energy density without beverages was almost twice as high in the ultraprocessed group. TBH, I'm a bit baffled how this huge discrepancy managed to remain in there. I mean, they even admit as much: However, because beverages have limited ability to affect satiety(DellaValle et al., 2005), the ~85% higher energy density of the non-beverage foods in the ultra-processed versus unprocessed diets (Table 1) likely contributed to the observed excess energy intake (Rolls, 2009). Edit: Looking at the referenced paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182946/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182946/), it directly supports both these points: that food energy density quite significantly impacts total intake, and that using beverages instead doesn't (even in contrast to using liquid ingredients which _does_ work). Hoo boy.