19 ms·

Ultra-processed foods and the corporate capture of nutrition

• syntaxing 6y ago
  I mentioned this before on HN but it still blows my mind how much weight I lost by simply not eating processed food. Thanks to COVID, I cook most of my meals now and I lost a considerable amount of weight even though I didn't cut my portions. I think the biggest problem is that processed food makes me crave food even though I'm not hungry and the stuff used is just so packed in calories (fructose syrup).
  • AlexTWithBeard 6y ago
    And the best way to stop consuming highly processed foods is to write down your calories consumption. No limits, no shame, no pressure - just write it down. To me it was a revelation.
    • mike00632 6y ago
      A friend of mine had a personal trainer that would make him send a photo of everything he ate. I thought that was a good idea.
      • sumtechguy 6y ago
        Accountability goes a long way for some people. My way is to eat less items with extra sugar in it. Oh boy do they hide that stuff in about a dozen different ways. Especially HFCS and 'apple/pear juice'. Then I track what I eat and try to hit my numbers. Someone I know is hitting nearly 40 pounds in a year with that method. Plus the accountability helped them stick to it.
        • bonoboTP 6y ago
          Don't foods have nutrition facts printed on them? In Europe every package has a standardized label indicating the grams of macros per 100 g and grams of all sugars per 100 g. (also salt etc)
          • sumtechguy 6y ago
            Most products do. You have to scour them. They usually break the carbs down by sugar and other. It is also by g. Also under a particular amount per serving they are allowed to say '0'. For example a box of tic-tacs is almost nothing but sugar. But it says 0. So serving size maters. It is also another way they will play games is by fiddling the 'serving' size. When everyone really knows the serving size is 1 container. It may say 2 or 3 per container. Or they may measure it by '1 cup' which for something like chips is a small amount of chips. But they are high in carbs. So you have to know the games played there too. That varies by manufacture. You could say better if those games are played there. The thing is until you look you do not realize how much sugar is in everything and how many different 'types' there are. A good rule of thumb when shopping in an american store is stick to the edges. The middle is full of processed stuff that usually has sugar. Not all processed is bad. For example a nice salsa is processed but not terrible for you and a decent time saver and usually tastes nicer than anything I have come up with. Like you point out you have to watch the labels.
      • hogFeast 6y ago
        That doesn't work. Doing that basically encourages people to lie to you, and poisons the relationship. Everyone trying to lose weight will cheat, and it is often the response to that cheating that determines your ability to continue. By making cheating shameful, you are basically guaranteeing failure (this is a corollary of the idea that places that don't have obesity shame fat people...naturally appealing to places with a history of Puritarinism, but largely ineffective). You can only lose weight once you have the motivation and knowledge that you can apply to do it yourself (the stuff about processed food, for example, is utter psuedo-science nonsense that significantly confuses the issue into "good" and "bad" foods...again, Puritarinism).
        • mike00632 6y ago
          I imagine the "you" in this case to be the person losing weight. If I want to lose weight then I'm going make such a commitment and it doesn't really matter who I send the photos to. It's rather just an exercise in documenting what I eat. I'd send the photos to you if you agreed to be my accountabili-buddy.
          • hogFeast 6y ago
            Again, that works if you assume that you won't fail at any point and/or react poorly to failure. But you will fail at some point, and very few people are determined enough to continue. Investing yourself creates risk. It is far more effective to take a less judgemental approach, track the things that matter, and do it for yourself...not because you don't want to be shamed (most fat people get a rough ride, shame isn't a long term strategy).
            • bonoboTP 6y ago
              Ultimately you can't make people want something and shouldn't get too caught up trying to please their resisting minds. Lay out the information, people who want it will take it. Judgment and shame shouldn't enter the picture. Your body is a biological machine. Cheating is a misplaced word. You put the materials in there, they get digested and used for storage or energy. It's not some kind of magic or divine thing. Thinking in terms of failure / guilt / success etc. is bad altogether. The mental model becomes [ritual I do] -> [the fatness/fitness gods are pleased or judgy] -> [I get fat or fit]. Instead, you need to think in terms of [put this piece of food from hands to stomach] -> [it gets digested and enters the blood stream, etc] -> [I grow my fat cells] -> [I am fat].
  • goda90 6y ago
    I'm curious, what's your cut off point for processed food? Just things that are ready to eat besides fruits and veggies? What about white flour and rice as opposed to whole grains?
    • xnx 6y ago
      I'm not sure what approach syntaxing used, and "processed" is a fuzzy term, but bread and pasta have a lot more in common with twinkies and oreos than fruits and vegetables.
      • dilap 6y ago
        Bread, pasta, fruits, and vegetables: all things we've been eating for at least a couple thousand years; no fat or mostly saturated fats. Twinkies and Oreos: signicant quantities of novel ingredients that have only existed in the last 150 or so years; high quantities of omega-6 polyunsaturated fats.
        • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
          True, but there's also a distinction to be made among kinds of carbohydrates. I think of it in two categories, coal and jet fuel. Coal is stuff like potatoes - it's fuel, but it lasts a long time. Twinkies, white bread, and even white rice are jet fuel - they burn really fast, and then they're gone. Eat carbs that are coal, not jet fuel.
          • dilap 6y ago
            Definitely differences, but I'm not convinced it matters so much, at least in healthy people. E.g., lots of people eat a whole lot of white rice and seem to do quite well on it. The Hadza, a tribe in africa, at certain times of the year, get about half their calories from honey, and they are very healthy. And fruit would certainly also have to be in the rocket-fuel category, no? (If you're already unhealthy (e.g. type II diabetic), there seems to be a lot of benefit in going very-low or no-carb.)
  • poma88 6y ago
    Same. I stopped going to supermarket and ordered only uncooked healthy ingredients. Lost 12 kg!
    • syntaxing 6y ago
      That's awesome! Losing weight makes you feel better too IMO. It's weird but grocery delivery has made it easier to cook healthier. I can see my options better and maybe I'm less tempted because of the way groceries store stock their shelves?
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    > ... processed food makes me crave food even though I'm not hungry... That is, processed food doesn't satisfy. We keep thinking it's going to, but it doesn't. (Or rather, it does, but only for a very short time. Then we want more. I've started to sometimes question whether I should take the first hit, because I know what's going to happen.) A cynic might suspect that the primary point of the processing is to make the food sell more of itself.
  • jumai8 6y ago
    I have a fructose intolerance - it is wild how hard it is to avoid fructose, and similarly how easy it is to be "healthy" and maintain my weight with literally zero energy other than avoiding fructose.
  • car 6y ago
    Great, this is exactly what has been found in studies. There is a way to eat as much as you want, no calorie-counting, no portion control, just eat. It is well explained by Dr. Greger [1]. It boils down to foods having different energy density since our stomach signals satiety by how full it is. Highly recommend his videos for actionable nutrition info. [1]https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-best-diet-for-weight-loss-and-disease-prevention https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-best-diet-for-weight-lo...
• KittenInABox 6y ago
  Does anyone have information on the impact and credibility of the publication (BMJ)? I'm a complete layperson in nutritional science so even though this speaks to me as a genuinely important perspective when it comes the bias of nutritional science I'd like to know if this is going to have any influence in the future. Additionally, how does this affect common meal replacements like soylent, huel, etc? Can we trust the nutritional science behind them if we presume the bias to be true as stated here?
  • DevX101 6y ago
    One of the most prestigious general medical journals in the world.
    • andylynch 6y ago
      Yes- I just checked its impact factor, looks like it’s in the top 40, across all journals, not just medicine.
    • KittenInABox 6y ago
      Great, thank you! I'm not a medical person so I didn't know.
• flybrand 6y ago
  Food journalists do an amazing job of understanding their industry, embracing the technical nature of their topic, and showing where conflicts of interest arise. It’s great to see science / medical journals also covering this topic.
• dolni 6y ago
  People throwing out "processed food" as some catch-all term for packaged stuff that is bad for you is a major pet peeve of mine. Yes, foods that are pre-packaged tend not to be good for you. You _should_ eat fresh foods and vegetables. But saying that all "processed" foods are bad for you is a gross oversimplifcation that promotes ignorance about nutrition. In the many conversations I've had about processed foods, people never seem to be talking about things like milk, yogurt, or cheese, all of which undergo _heavy_ processing. And to provide a direct comparison, generally speaking, a glass of Soylent is going to be way more beneficial to you nutritionally than a plate of crappy iceberg lettuce with a little salad dressing on it. Although you could make the case that if you're extremely overweight, maybe the iceberg lettuce is better just for the lower calorie content. Not all things that come in packages are created equal. Some "processed" foods are better for you than some vegetables. But like anything else, moderation is key. Your diet needs to be diverse. Instead of telling people "processed foods bad hurr durr", teach them about the major nutrients the body needs and where you can get those. Then, consider that person's individual circumstances to offer them specific advice. Not all bodies are the same. Some people are going to need more of one food or another. Some people will tolerate certain foods less well than others. Nutrition is complex. Indicting "processed foods", whatever that means (their definition does little to reduce ambiguity), is as egregious as the corporate capture of nutrition that they claim to be shining a light on.
  • shanecleveland 6y ago
    Which is why the headline emphasis this is in reference to "ultra-processed" foods and they further go on to define ultra-processed as: Ultra-processed foods and beverages can be defined as products with additives and industrially processed ingredients that have been technologically broken down and modified.7 They are not merely processed foods with high levels of sugar, salt, and fat but also contain ingredients and additives not commonly used in home kitchens and artisanal restaurants, such as synthetic flavours, emulsifiers, hydrogenated oils, and soy protein isolates. The role of these ingredients is often to simulate the taste, texture, or nutritional profile of minimally processed foods.
    • dolni 6y ago
• PragmaticPulp 6y ago
  This statistic from the article is mind-boggling: > Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. Note that they aren't just referring to processed foods. They classify ultra-processed foods as a step beyond what we typically think of as processed foods: > Ultra-processed foods and beverages can be defined as products with additives and industrially processed ingredients that have been technologically broken down and modified. They are not merely processed foods with high levels of sugar, salt, and fat but also contain ingredients and additives not commonly used in home kitchens and artisanal restaurants I wish we put more emphasis on educating young people about basic cooking and nutrition. There's a common misconception that people reach for ultra-processed foods because they're cheaper, but in my experience most people prefer these foods because they think it's more convenient. For many people, the idea of cooking a meal has been elevated to a special occasion event, as a treat or a date night. This is partially due to the fact that boring, everyday meal recipes just aren't as flashy as a 15-ingredient, hour long recipe that results in a stunning picture for someone's blog or instagram. Everyone should learn how to cook some boring, staple meals using basic ingredients from the store. It's amazing how many people don't know how easy and cheap it can be to prepare simple crock pot or stir-fry meals that are healthy and delicious.
  • orev 6y ago
    Food companies have led very good marketing campaigns for many years telling people that “cooking is SO difficult and SUCH A PAIN. Just buy our prepackaged food which is so much easier.” Unfortunately when so many people buy into it, it impacts those who don’t. Lately I’ve noticed that basic bags of frozen vegetables are being replaced with “ready to steam” bags that contain half as much quantity for the same price.
    • kzrdude 6y ago
      It's a steady productization, which gets a higher price
    • bonoboTP 6y ago
      May God save us from everyday staple cooking becoming trendy on Instagram with influencers because they will make bags of broccoli become some fancy overpriced fad product with some celebrity photos on the packaging.
• notdang 6y ago
  The article states that : Ultra-processed products now account for nearly half of the average dietary intake of some high income countries, with consumption rising rapidly in most other countries. I've never lived for more than 1-2 months in any of these "high income countries". What does it mean to consume "ultra-processed" food? Can someone give an example how the daily dietary intake can be 50% processed foods? What do you eat for that?
  • vmchale 6y ago
    > What does it mean to consume "ultra-processed" food? Something like a snickers bar or packaged saltines maybe? > Can someone give an example how the daily dietary intake can be 50% processed foods? What do you eat for that? I mean, clif bars would count, for one. If you ate plain chocolate bars for 50% of your calories you'd probably overeat but... many people do!
  • techsupporter 6y ago
    Almost anything from a fast food restaurant, or in a box that you microwave, or in a use-once bag / single-serve container is considered ultra-processed. These tend to be a lot less expensive (because making them is much more efficient for the manufacturer) than regular foods, and are more readily available and time-convenient when compared to other foods. That's how you can easily get to 50% or more of your daily intake with them. If you're already short on time, or if you have several family members at home who need to be fed quickly, or if you have a lower income and cannot easily afford fresh food items and the utensils with which to prepare them, you will buy and eat lots of ultra-processed foods.
  • mike00632 6y ago
    Breakfast: Cereal and milk. My favorite cereal is Trix. Lunch: Sandwich made of bread, bologna, cheese, mustard. Coca-cola or chocolate milk to drink. Dinner: TV dinner, perhaps a Lean Cuisine or Pizza rolls. Mountain Dew or Kool Aid to drink. This was a typical day of food for me as a child and through being a teenager.
    • silicon2401 6y ago
• aitchnyu 6y ago
  They had me. I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars! I also assumed the public knows sodas contain a nauseating amount of sugar. How will this "research" benefit Coca Cola as a soda company?
  • AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    If calories in the bars are equal, and if your body can absorb the same number of calories from the food, and if your metabolism stays the same on the different kinds of foods, and if you have the self-discipline to eat only the same number of calories when the sugar rush from the chocolate bar wears off and you want another.
    • 3131s 6y ago
      Even with all that, your body composition would still change over time from lack of protein.
    • mmcconnell1618 6y ago
      I believe your metabolism responds differently. The sugar signals your body that you've eaten a rich calorie source but fat is lacking, please save this as fat for later. If you had eaten a meal with more fiber and fat, it signals to your body that fatty meals are available now, you can use some for energy, no need to create more storage.
    • bonoboTP 6y ago
      Some food will more likely get stored anyway and rather instruct the brain to move less to compensate, while others will be more likely to "energize" you to do things physically and expend the energy. See Robert Lustig on sugar.
  • Aerroon 6y ago
    >I have a strong idea in my brain that a meal of chocolate bars and a healthy meal will result in same weight loss if calories are equal. Some professor lost weight eating chocolate bars! Because it's true. People don't want it to be true though. While there are some extra steps involved it does come down to the simple energy balance model. What's different about eating different foods is that they can change how we behave and feel. Eating some foods can leave you craving for more, while others won't. Fundamentally though, you're not going to gain weight on a calorie deficit.
• poma88 6y ago
  They own your belly and food wish, as if they would grow you for money.
• icandoit 6y ago
  I like what this guy has to say about nutrition (take it with a grain of salt, he is an epistemologist) https://meaningness.com/nutrition-resigns https://meaningness.com/nutrition-resigns "Your job is to wear white lab coats while saying that food ingredients are healthy and unhealthy, and to wave charts around. That makes the ingredients authoritatively healthy and unhealthy, which covers our asses. ... "Signed, [The governments of every country in the world, the agriculture industry, the food processing industry, the supermarket industry, and so forth.]" I think if you model food as energy / volume / time you'll do better. To lose weight either increase time (fast) or volume (eat more fiber, maybe the easiest to do?) and decrease energy (lower calorie options).
  • hogFeast 6y ago
    Yes, according to the article that kind of science (i.e. the basic logic of energy usage) was invented by Coca-Cola. This is what happens when you combine weak knowledge of science with a credulous mind (you think everything is a conspiracy theory invented by group of people you dislike). Maybe "processed food" (whatever that means, according to the article it is everything not produced in an "artisinal restaurant") is good, maybe it is bad but it is slightly hard to tell given that lots of people in the US are obese: which is a function of greed and laziness, not whether food is "processed" or not. You can lose weight drinking nothing but soda. You can can lose weight eating nothing but chocolate. I have done it (and no, Coca-Cola didn't pay me). As you say, the issue of obesity is a fairly simple one of: how much energy do you use and how much energy do you put in. What is actually remarkable to me is how many people are obese given the high basal metabolic rate of humans (at my normal weight, it was remarkably hard and time-consuming to cram enough calories in to gain weight consistently). I have gained and lost 20-40% of my bodyweight multiple times, it isn't hard, it isn't about "good" or "bad" foods (the "you never see a skinny person drinking a diet soda" phenomenom, every obese person I have ever met thought this way), and doesn't look at what their actual calories-in/calories-out is (in my experience, most people regard tracking calories this as a form of mental illness...I live somewhere that has life expectancy under 70 because of obesity...so, go figure). This isn't to say micronutrients aren't important, they clearly are...you don't have enough iron, you are going to feel very bad...but the issue for most countries in the West is excessive calorie consumption, and a failure to speak about this bluntly with people (pretty much all my older relatives have health issues caused by weight, it is frustrating when a doctor tries to be kind first rather than help them stay alive).
• throwawaysea 6y ago
  One of the dangers of large economies of scale with processed foods, is that the companies that produce these foods accumulate market power and then force the entire agricultural industry towards producing particular crops as cheaply as possible. This has not only led to a drastic reduction in variety and diversity of foods that people eat, but large-scale crop monocultures also have significant environmental implications. And the continual search for lower prices means we're growing ridiculously high-yield crops that are disrupting local water balance and draining water tables like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer
  • Gibbon1 6y ago
    I've read that the amount of protein in wheat has been declining for a century. I remember 40 years ago rye bread was really dense and rich. Now it takes like rye flavored white bread. Also bread now tastes suspiciously sweet to me.
    • throwawaysea 6y ago
      Other common staples like corn and rice had hundreds of varieties in the past, many of which are extinct or only exist in a seed vault. The same is true for fruits. If you travel to particular developing countries or even just to Hawaii (where native varieties are protected), you'll see how different their fruits and vegetables are - both in variety but also smell and taste. I'm sure that has nutritional implications that simplistic reductionist nutrition approaches can't capture.
• inglor_cz 6y ago
  Just by comparing photos and videos from the 1980s to the situation in the streets now, it is painfully obvious that we (and by "we" I mean at least half of humanity) have a serious obesity and metabolic syndrome problem. It is breathtaking how civilized nations silently accept such an enormous slide in quality of life, when other, much smaller problems lead to civic unrest, political discussions and overhaul of old structures and laws. Bad nutrition kills way more people than violence, drugs, air pollution etc. ... together, and makes even more people miserable for decades before they finally die. And yet, crickets. Even nations where one would actually expect some serious pushback (such as Scandinavian countries) can't be bothered with much more than half-arsed measures. I am 42. My "kids these days"... complaint is that "kids these days are horribly fat". Compared to the 1990s, yeah, fitness of the young generation has gone down significantly. It is not their fault, but their parents' and schools', but the consequences are the same; a lifetime spent in frustrating struggle with weight gain and chronic diseases.
  • acuozzo 6y ago
    (Please forgive the scattered reply. I'm tired and I've mostly pieced this together from other discussions I've had on this topic.) I firmly believe that the problem stems from a mass unspoken refusal to address obesity as a symptom of food addiction. Food addiction is among the hardest to kick because humans not only need food to survive, but also need glucose (and/or ketone bodies) in order to have sufficient mental energy to have self-control. Furthermore, nearly every social event in the US is tied to the consumption of food and cheap unhealthy food can be found almost anywhere.
    • inglor_cz 6y ago
      I am just watching the British "Supersize Vs Superskinny" series. The heavy articipants have serious addiction problem, obviously. The question is whether some foods are inherently addictive, at least for some people who are more predisposed to food addiction. There are some obvious commonalities in the diets of the superfatties: pretty much every one of them consumes a lot of pizza, fries, soft drinks and various fat-and-salty snacks. "Normal" cooked meals that were the staple of nutrition before the advent of fast food are almost absent from their diets.
• seltzered_ 6y ago
  "Corporate food and beverage companies such as Coca Cola have engaged in what I will refer to as “corporate scientific activities.” These activities are designed to produce and influence the scientific knowledge used to evaluate, promote, legitimise, and regulate their products" Years ago, I remember listening to a podcast and while I can't find it the host was excerpting a study he was critical of on and noting it was sponsored by coca-cola (this might be it: http://www.latestinpaleo.com/paleo-podcast/2013/11/15/latest-in-paleo-90-statins-for-everyone.html http://www.latestinpaleo.com/paleo-podcast/2013/11/15/latest... ) See also: The fall of Brian Wansink and the Cornell Food and Brand Lab, where this was a major article before the issues broke out: https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/brian-wansink-cornell-junk-food-health/ https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2015/03/brian-wansin... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Wansink
  • bonoboTP 6y ago
    A typical marketing activity of companies selling sugary drinks and sugary fatty salty snacks is to overemphasize the role of exercise in weight loss.
• program_whiz 6y ago
  Ok sorry to rant but the HN community lectures about processed food are misguided. As always, people trot out the "just eat less, its simple calories" and "stop eating junk food stupid Americans". This rests on the critical fallacy that those who do not have a weight problem are smarter, more active, or somehow make better choices. Do you really believe its that simple? This is a bit like the software devs who always believe "we'll write it better from scratch, its an _easy_ problem to solve", not realizing the people who wrote it the way it is probably had legitimate reasons to do so. The truth is complex and no single factor can explain it. I've seen plenty of people with terrible diets eating the same or worse than others and not gaining weight -- even with little physical activity (just due to genetics), and I've seen metabolic issues make it nearly impossible for someone to lose weight even doing things "right". If you want to prove how "simple" weight loss and eating healthy is, then by all means take a thyroid blocker for a few months and get back to me. As for blaming stupid people for just consuming too much bad food: I can tell you that this is 100% an environment / market force just like every other behavior you and I have (such as language we speak, recipes we know, and clothes we wear). Like all other animals, we have a finely tuned feeding system that is highly tuned and can be influenced by stimuli. Put junk food in the cage of some mice for a few years and see how it ends up. Without clear evidence that anyone is actively deciding to make choices they know are bad, we can only conclude these are the forces driving the decisions. In fact most "cheating" behavior is because people's judgment faculties are being outweighed by more primal hunger drives that overwhelm higher cognition. As a kid in the USA you primarily feed on sodas, candy, cookies, corn dogs, puffs, hamburgers, french fries and other junk food. This is what your parents give you, what school serves you in the cafeteria, and what your friends eat. This is encouraged by all media (such as TV which markets directly to you), and by the powers-that-be who put soda machines and candy machines in the hallways at school and even hand out candy as treats and snacks daily. So please try to understand that this is no more mysterious than the reason Einstein smoked: not because he was a moron with poor willpower and low self-control, but because he was a product of his time, environment, developmental influences, and available information. Its no more mysterious than the reason he spoke German, or that Romans went insane drinking from lead containers. As for cleaning up your diet. Once I learned about these issues and started trying to eat better, it became clear just how hard it would be. If you live in a rural area, finding _any_ food that isn't processed with a multitude of sweeteners, flavor enhancers, etc is near impossible. Your only option is raw food prepared yourself at home; even spices and seasoning can be laden with additives. Without a lot of patience and examination, you _will_ be consuming these products even if you intend to avoid them. For example, virtually everything at restaurants includes a multitude of these additives. Sorry for the rant, but I think people need to see the perspective of people who are trying to do the right thing, but up against a really oppressive system of influences, marketing, economics, and daily realities in the US.
• Binichgross0 6y ago
  "Not only is the average American fat, he is also stupid for believing corporate propaganda" - Noel Fielding
• papito 6y ago
  Just read The Dorito Effect.
• car 6y ago
  Anyone interested in science informed nutrition information and advice should check out http://nutritionfacts.org http://nutritionfacts.org. Great content from Dr. Michael Greger, also author of the bestseller “How Not To Die”. He scours the literature and compiles what he finds into short videos. Totally opened my eyes.
• dojitza1 6y ago
  It is a problem of optimising for taste and perceived nutrition instead of nutrition. Humans will buy tasty things that are marketed as nutritious. Companies will try to widen the profit margin by optimising the process in that direction (investing into marketing and taste). A solution that comes to mind is providing tax relief for nutritiously rich non-luxury foods.