3 ms·

The term "unprocessed foods" smells too much like the naturalistic fallacy to me. According to that definition weight loss bars, that are designed to be high-p

The term "unprocessed foods" smells too much like the naturalistic fallacy to me. According to that definition weight loss bars, that are designed to be high-protein (hence high-satiety), would be considered a processed food simply for using artificial colors. It seems clear sugar is the culprit, and if you are avoiding processed foods you are also avoiding added sugar.

chubot 4y ago
This is assuming that the food landscape and choices available has been static It's actually dynamic and adversarial -- Michael Pollan has great examples of that, e.g. the "Snackwells" example Over the decades, the industry has various types of processed food based on what the "accepted scientific advice" is at the time -- which often turns out to be wrong or in this case "interested" advice, like - butter vs. margarine - eggs and cholesterol - does high fat cause heart disease? It was accepted, but we don't even know that - vitamin D When fat was vilified (by the sugar industry), you got pushed with "low fat" labeling Then you got "Diet coke", 0% sugar labeling, 0 calorie labeling There was also the "all natural" label to respond to a trend, which is ironically a bad sign, because the packaging to write the label on indicates processing. Does a banana need to have an "all natural" label? The word "organic" was also co-opted by the industry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150342 It used to mean something, and now it doesn't. Simlar to the way the first Whole Foods (I think in Austin TX) used to actually sell only whole foods! Now they sell lots of processed foods at Whole Foods. ---- If you avoid processed foods, you do avoid sugar, but you also avoid salt, trans fat, etc. Concentrating on a single nutrient is the reductionist fallacy, and the cause of the "scientific advice whiplash" and "national eating disorder" that Pollan talks about

chubot 4y ago

This is assuming that the food landscape and choices available has been static It's actually dynamic and adversarial -- Michael Pollan has great examples of that, e.g. the "Snackwells" example Over the decades, the industry has various types of processed food based on what the "accepted scientific advice" is at the time -- which often turns out to be wrong or in this case "interested" advice, like - butter vs. margarine - eggs and cholesterol - does high fat cause heart disease? It was accepted, but we don't even know that - vitamin D When fat was vilified (by the sugar industry), you got pushed with "low fat" labeling Then you got "Diet coke", 0% sugar labeling, 0 calorie labeling There was also the "all natural" label to respond to a trend, which is ironically a bad sign, because the packaging to write the label on indicates processing. Does a banana need to have an "all natural" label? The word "organic" was also co-opted by the industry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150342 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29150342 It used to mean something, and now it doesn't. Simlar to the way the first Whole Foods (I think in Austin TX) used to actually sell only whole foods! Now they sell lots of processed foods at Whole Foods. ---- If you avoid processed foods, you do avoid sugar, but you also avoid salt, trans fat, etc. Concentrating on a single nutrient is the reductionist fallacy, and the cause of the "scientific advice whiplash" and "national eating disorder" that Pollan talks about