3 ms·

Conclusion: Highly processed foods (HPFs) can meet the criteria to be labeled as addictive substances using the standards set for tobacco products. The addictiv

Conclusion: Highly processed foods (HPFs) can meet the criteria to be labeled as addictive substances using the standards set for tobacco products. The addictive potential of HPFs may be a key factor contributing to the high public health costs associated with a food environment dominated by cheap, accessible and heavily marketed HPFs. That's interesting. I guess I'd agree, Highly processed foods (HPFs) CAN meet the criteria, especially for some people more than others, but it does seem to make sense. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/add.16065?download=true https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/add.16...

moneywoes 4y ago
How do we define HPV
- Domobran7 4y ago
  Anything that you cannot immediately tell what it is made from, basically. So a hamburger is HPV, piece of meat that you have cooked is not. A cake is HPV because you need to know it is made of wheat, you cannot see it from it. Alternatively, anything that goes through more than one stage of processing (so home-made marmelade is not HPV because it is just cooked fruit, but hamburger is).
  - NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
    >Anything that you cannot immediately tell what it is made from, basically. So a hamburger is HPV, piece of meat that you have cooked is not. Both burgers and steaks are made from beef cattle; aren't they? I don't really understand why the prior preparation steps required to turn a steer into a cut of beef are not processing steps, whereas the relatively smaller actions required to grind a cut of meat and shape it into a patty are. An omelette is a HPF but a boiled egg is not? It doesn't seem like a useful metric.
- hombre_fatal 4y ago
  HPV is well defined. ;) As for HPF, it seems to be a euphemism for hyper-palatable food, i.e. food that increases time and calories consumed before meal cessation. There's probably a threshold that captures 99% of the foods we are talking about while excluding 99% of the foods that are highly processed but not hyper-palatable. For example, unsweetened dark chocolate (70%+ cacao) would certainly be highly processed but not something highly palatable to most people. Same with Grape Nuts cereal or bran buds. Unsalted saltine crackers also come to mind. Palatability + calorie density seem like the best distinctions to focus on for this reason as processing is often used to increase palatability/density but not only used to increase them.
  - rendaw 4y ago
    Highly palatable == makes you want to eat more? That sounds like circular reasoning: of course foods that make you want to eat more make you want to eat more.
    - hombre_fatal 4y ago
      Rephrasing or defining something doesn't make it circular because it's not an entailment. If B can be used to define term A, then B isn't a logical conclusion of something being A, it's just synonymous. e.g. "Make you want to eat more" is still the operative difference here between a bag of potato chips and a bowl of lentils.

moneywoes 4y ago

How do we define HPV

Domobran7 4y ago
Anything that you cannot immediately tell what it is made from, basically. So a hamburger is HPV, piece of meat that you have cooked is not. A cake is HPV because you need to know it is made of wheat, you cannot see it from it. Alternatively, anything that goes through more than one stage of processing (so home-made marmelade is not HPV because it is just cooked fruit, but hamburger is).
- NovemberWhiskey 4y ago
  >Anything that you cannot immediately tell what it is made from, basically. So a hamburger is HPV, piece of meat that you have cooked is not. Both burgers and steaks are made from beef cattle; aren't they? I don't really understand why the prior preparation steps required to turn a steer into a cut of beef are not processing steps, whereas the relatively smaller actions required to grind a cut of meat and shape it into a patty are. An omelette is a HPF but a boiled egg is not? It doesn't seem like a useful metric.
hombre_fatal 4y ago
HPV is well defined. ;) As for HPF, it seems to be a euphemism for hyper-palatable food, i.e. food that increases time and calories consumed before meal cessation. There's probably a threshold that captures 99% of the foods we are talking about while excluding 99% of the foods that are highly processed but not hyper-palatable. For example, unsweetened dark chocolate (70%+ cacao) would certainly be highly processed but not something highly palatable to most people. Same with Grape Nuts cereal or bran buds. Unsalted saltine crackers also come to mind. Palatability + calorie density seem like the best distinctions to focus on for this reason as processing is often used to increase palatability/density but not only used to increase them.
- rendaw 4y ago
  Highly palatable == makes you want to eat more? That sounds like circular reasoning: of course foods that make you want to eat more make you want to eat more.
  - hombre_fatal 4y ago
    Rephrasing or defining something doesn't make it circular because it's not an entailment. If B can be used to define term A, then B isn't a logical conclusion of something being A, it's just synonymous. e.g. "Make you want to eat more" is still the operative difference here between a bag of potato chips and a bowl of lentils.