> The problem is "ultra-processed" !== bad for you. They covered that. It's in the linked article: > “In additional analyses, we compared the composition of u

> The problem is "ultra-processed" !== bad for you. They covered that. It's in the linked article: > “In additional analyses, we compared the composition of ultraprocessed foods to non-ultra processed foods using data from the 2017-2018 period. We found that ultraprocessed foods contain a substantially higher percent of calories from carbohydrates and added sugars, and higher levels of sodium, but also had less fiber and a lower percentage of calories from protein,” said the study’s first author, Lu Wang, a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedman School. I think too many people are getting hung up on the technicalities of processed versus ultra-processed. The distinction isn't meant to be a perfect ordering of all foods on a scale of unprocessed to ultra-processed. It's a rough spectrum with helpful, though not necessarily 100% perfect, classification guidelines. Regardless of what you think about their classification techniques, they also showed that the nutritional composition varied significantly with the ultra-processed foods in ways that are known to be unhealthy, so it's not completely useless.