3 ms·
>missing the spirit of what is being said Indeed, what many people here are missing is that 'processed' isn't a scientific category, it's an ideological one.
by jpindar 5y ago
>missing the spirit of what is being said
Indeed, what many people here are missing is that 'processed' isn't a scientific category, it's an ideological one.
- loudtieblahblah 5y agoif you're talking about how it's defined in the study, yes, it's defined very badly and it isn't very scientific. But as far as nutritional advice goes - it's difficult to convey with any brevity or any precision, the plethora of substances added to food due to industrial process that are bad for human health, especially in the long term. If you're to build a diet and do-able meal plan, shopping plan, and recipe/cooking/prep plan around food, it's easier to just state "processed"/middle-aisle/high-seed-oil/food-in-a-box. or more simply, focus more on the white list of haves rather than the long list of things you shouldn't - produce, dairy, grass fed/antibiotic meat, pasture raised eggs and light on the whole grains . ' general conversation of "processed foods" evokes this contrary response that seems, frankly, to justify the consumption of Velveeta Shells and Cheese, fast food, Cheese-its, Doritos, and soda. Unless you're running a study that requires precision, this level of autist specificity isn't practically helpful.