5 ms·

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Seriou

by lhnn 15y ago

What is considered "unprocessed" foods at the grocer? Raw beans, rice, whole grain wheat? Is the ground beef/deli meat "unprocessed" by your definition? Serious question. My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up.

latch 15y ago
I understand that you could take this to an extreme: if it doesn't grow in my garden or die by my hand... But let's just focus on low hanging stuff for now. There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Oreos, Poptarts, CheezWhiz, pops, frozen meals, Juices "now with 10% real juice"...The list is extensive. Then you have overly refined products (white bread, white pastas). Fruits and vegetables (fresh, canned or frozen), lentiles and legumes, grains/careals (including breads and pastas), raw meat (fish/chicken/beef/pork/...) are all ok. I'm sure there's more. I don't think there's much room for confusion between eating Captin' Crunch vs oatmeal, cheetos vs a bowl of plain yogurt with strawberries.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- mbell 15y ago
  > There are food products that are more chemical than anything The problem is that even this statement is ambiguous. All foods, processed or not, are almost all chemical by any proper definition of the word chemical I know of. Of course the point your trying to make is that they contain large amount of "human added chemicals" some synthesized, some not. If you look at the ingredient list of a rockstar energy drink you'll find almost everything in it is "natural", that is a chemical that exists in nature and is part of a diet that would be considered healthy (in some amount / combination). The argument should really be based on healthy amounts and combinations of chemicals and just because it exists in nature, doesn't make it healthy (see red meat and recent studies regarding it). I find this discussion to be fascinating in regards to evolutionary development. Humans 'like' sugars and meats for strong evolutionary reasons. They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. Getting cheap calories was very beneficial to successful life and hence child bearing in the era. Whats really interesting is that I don't see those traits going away. Evolution requires selective pressure. There would have to be a selective mechanism that resulted in those who "eat well" to contribute more to the gene pool than those who do not. While I have no studies at hand to back this up, my personal observation doesn't indicate that this pressure exists. As a result I don't think we'll see the enjoyment of such food disappear any time soon.
  - chc 15y ago
    There is selective pressure beyond simply "Does this individual get to reproduce?" For example, if unhealthy people are less able to care for their kin, that can put their genes at a disadvantage.
    - mbell 15y ago
      Agreed, but that doesn't changes my stance / point so I didn't elaborate as it is mostly irrelevant in today's society unless there are some statistics that I am unaware of regarding reproductive success of children whom travel through orphanage systems or similar mechanisms that exist to support child who's parents can not support them.
  - mc32 15y ago
    >They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. When lots of people died before their first birthday‡, the average age being thirty meant that lots of people who made it past their first birthday would live longer than thirty. ‡Estimates vary from 30 to 50% rate, in the old world.
    - mbell 15y ago
      I really wasn't trying to throw a stick in the mud in terms of a hard scientific date which is why I phrased it how I did. That said my reference wasn't so much toward "the old world" which I take to mean in the last few thousand years but rather on more of an evolutionary scale, that is millions of years ago.
- derleth 15y ago
  > There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Everything is 100% chemical.
  - latch 15y ago
    Sorry, of course that's right. I meant the list of ingredients.
    - derleth 15y ago
      You're not quite getting it: Saying something is 'chemical' tells people nothing about it. Absolutely nothing. This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy Instead, mention specific chemicals and detail what in specific they do that's bad at the quantities people normally eat them.
pbreit 15y ago
For starters, everything that doesn't come in a box or a bag is likely unprocessed (which includes the meat you mention). The massive categories you are missing are fruits and vegetables (although excess fruit can also pose a sugar problem). Wheat is tricky because it is typically processed. Whole grains are better.
aaronblohowiak 15y ago
>My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up. There is plenty of simple advice on what to eat, and it isn't the end of the world if you don't follow the guidelines 100%. "Giving up" makes it sound like you're prone to an extremist view, which life has shown me is rarely the most pragmatic view. Fruit that looks like it is something that would come off a plant > "Fruit roll-ups" Whole-wheat bread > wonder bread strawberries > twinkies > As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1
wisty 15y ago
Nah, just try to use whole ingredients were possible, and read the label if you aren't sure. Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful). The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastiness. Tastiness is usually their lowest priority. Unless they want to look healthy, health isn't even a priority. Pan-frying some in-season vegetables with a bit of chilli and garlic is usually a lot healthier. A big ol' steak is less healthy, but tastier. Try eating a tomato which was picked green (so it keeps better, and is easier to handle without bruising it), then had its skin artificially ripened. Then try a ripe tomato (you can generally tell just by how soft it is). There's a big difference.
- derleth 15y ago
  > preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful). Citation needed. Specifically, I want you to support the assertion that preservatives used in modern, Western food are currently known to be potentially quite harmful in the usual amounts consumed.
  - wisty 15y ago
    Sodium nitrate is a raging carcinogen if you char grill it. Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. It's relatively safe (as in, as safe as you can get for a preservative), but can induce asthma in some people. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352.
    - derleth 15y ago
      > Sodium nitrate is a raging carcinogen if you char grill it. I don't think that's unique to sodium nitrate. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuing-cause-cancer http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuin... > Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. Right, and gluten does a real number on the (relatively few) people with celiac disease; gluten is a naturally-occurring protein that is perfectly healthy for most people, so we can't judge a chemical entirely by what it does to some people.
dgallagher 15y ago
If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food. If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food.
- derleth 15y ago
  > If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food. Tell that to people who go bugnuts about GMO foods. > If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature Start checking on when your favorite variety of apples was first created.
  - MSexton 15y ago
    Newer varieties of fruit actually have much more sugar than many heritage breeds. I wouldn't go as far as to say you should avoid them, but that's probably not a valid argument against the rule.
- chc 15y ago
  This doesn't seem all that useful. I can't find salads in nature. I can't find bread in nature. I can't find smoothies in nature. I can't find noodles in nature. Are those all bad, processed foods?
- ars 15y ago
  > If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food. Is the corollary true as well? Lead sugar existed a few thousand year ago - so is that processed food?
anthonyb 15y ago
Bear in mind that a lot of grains and beans are fairly toxic in themselves - plants don't want you to eat their seeds. So whole grain might actually be just as bad for you as the refined stuff, just in different ways. Gluten is one aspect of this, but there are apparently a whole range of other things which can impact your digestion, prevent nutrient uptake, etc.

by lhnn 15y ago

latch 15y ago

I understand that you could take this to an extreme: if it doesn't grow in my garden or die by my hand... But let's just focus on low hanging stuff for now. There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Oreos, Poptarts, CheezWhiz, pops, frozen meals, Juices "now with 10% real juice"...The list is extensive. Then you have overly refined products (white bread, white pastas). Fruits and vegetables (fresh, canned or frozen), lentiles and legumes, grains/careals (including breads and pastas), raw meat (fish/chicken/beef/pork/...) are all ok. I'm sure there's more. I don't think there's much room for confusion between eating Captin' Crunch vs oatmeal, cheetos vs a bowl of plain yogurt with strawberries.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
mbell 15y ago
> There are food products that are more chemical than anything The problem is that even this statement is ambiguous. All foods, processed or not, are almost all chemical by any proper definition of the word chemical I know of. Of course the point your trying to make is that they contain large amount of "human added chemicals" some synthesized, some not. If you look at the ingredient list of a rockstar energy drink you'll find almost everything in it is "natural", that is a chemical that exists in nature and is part of a diet that would be considered healthy (in some amount / combination). The argument should really be based on healthy amounts and combinations of chemicals and just because it exists in nature, doesn't make it healthy (see red meat and recent studies regarding it). I find this discussion to be fascinating in regards to evolutionary development. Humans 'like' sugars and meats for strong evolutionary reasons. They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. Getting cheap calories was very beneficial to successful life and hence child bearing in the era. Whats really interesting is that I don't see those traits going away. Evolution requires selective pressure. There would have to be a selective mechanism that resulted in those who "eat well" to contribute more to the gene pool than those who do not. While I have no studies at hand to back this up, my personal observation doesn't indicate that this pressure exists. As a result I don't think we'll see the enjoyment of such food disappear any time soon.
- chc 15y ago
  There is selective pressure beyond simply "Does this individual get to reproduce?" For example, if unhealthy people are less able to care for their kin, that can put their genes at a disadvantage.
  - mbell 15y ago
    Agreed, but that doesn't changes my stance / point so I didn't elaborate as it is mostly irrelevant in today's society unless there are some statistics that I am unaware of regarding reproductive success of children whom travel through orphanage systems or similar mechanisms that exist to support child who's parents can not support them.
- mc32 15y ago
  >They were rare when the average age of death was like 30. When lots of people died before their first birthday‡, the average age being thirty meant that lots of people who made it past their first birthday would live longer than thirty. ‡Estimates vary from 30 to 50% rate, in the old world.
  - mbell 15y ago
    I really wasn't trying to throw a stick in the mud in terms of a hard scientific date which is why I phrased it how I did. That said my reference wasn't so much toward "the old world" which I take to mean in the last few thousand years but rather on more of an evolutionary scale, that is millions of years ago.
derleth 15y ago
> There are food products that are more chemical than anything. Everything is 100% chemical.
- latch 15y ago
  Sorry, of course that's right. I meant the list of ingredients.
  - derleth 15y ago
    You're not quite getting it: Saying something is 'chemical' tells people nothing about it. Absolutely nothing. This is a form of the naturalistic fallacy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy Instead, mention specific chemicals and detail what in specific they do that's bad at the quantities people normally eat them.

pbreit 15y ago

For starters, everything that doesn't come in a box or a bag is likely unprocessed (which includes the meat you mention). The massive categories you are missing are fruits and vegetables (although excess fruit can also pose a sugar problem). Wheat is tricky because it is typically processed. Whole grains are better.

aaronblohowiak 15y ago

>My impression is that anything not cut from an animal myself is processed by some harmful additive, so I've given up. There is plenty of simple advice on what to eat, and it isn't the end of the world if you don't follow the guidelines 100%. "Giving up" makes it sound like you're prone to an extremist view, which life has shown me is rarely the most pragmatic view. Fruit that looks like it is something that would come off a plant > "Fruit roll-ups" Whole-wheat bread > wonder bread strawberries > twinkies > As Mr. Pollan puts it, “If it came from a plant, eat it; if it was made in a plant, don’t.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1 http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/02/health/02brod.html?_r=1

wisty 15y ago

Nah, just try to use whole ingredients were possible, and read the label if you aren't sure. Most pre-made foods have terrible ingredients. Manufactured foods are made of filler (water, flour, emulsifiers), a bit of "flavor" (preferably salt, cheap oil, sugar, and weird chemicals), and preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful). The priorities of food manufacturers are shelf life, cost, marketing, and tastiness. Tastiness is usually their lowest priority. Unless they want to look healthy, health isn't even a priority. Pan-frying some in-season vegetables with a bit of chilli and garlic is usually a lot healthier. A big ol' steak is less healthy, but tastier. Try eating a tomato which was picked green (so it keeps better, and is easier to handle without bruising it), then had its skin artificially ripened. Then try a ripe tomato (you can generally tell just by how soft it is). There's a big difference.

derleth 15y ago
> preservatives (some of which can be quite harmful). Citation needed. Specifically, I want you to support the assertion that preservatives used in modern, Western food are currently known to be potentially quite harmful in the usual amounts consumed.
- wisty 15y ago
  Sodium nitrate is a raging carcinogen if you char grill it. Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. It's relatively safe (as in, as safe as you can get for a preservative), but can induce asthma in some people. See http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7426352.
  - derleth 15y ago
    > Sodium nitrate is a raging carcinogen if you char grill it. I don't think that's unique to sodium nitrate. http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuing-cause-cancer http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2519/does-barbecuin... > Sulfur dioxide can cause problems in some people. Right, and gluten does a real number on the (relatively few) people with celiac disease; gluten is a naturally-occurring protein that is perfectly healthy for most people, so we can't judge a chemical entirely by what it does to some people.

dgallagher 15y ago

If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food. If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food.

derleth 15y ago
> If it grows on a plant, or eats plants, or eats things which eat plants, it's not processed food. Tell that to people who go bugnuts about GMO foods. > If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature Start checking on when your favorite variety of apples was first created.
- MSexton 15y ago
  Newer varieties of fruit actually have much more sugar than many heritage breeds. I wouldn't go as far as to say you should avoid them, but that's probably not a valid argument against the rule.
chc 15y ago
This doesn't seem all that useful. I can't find salads in nature. I can't find bread in nature. I can't find smoothies in nature. I can't find noodles in nature. Are those all bad, processed foods?
ars 15y ago
> If it didn't exist 150 years ago, or you cannot find it in nature, it's processed food. Is the corollary true as well? Lead sugar existed a few thousand year ago - so is that processed food?

anthonyb 15y ago

Bear in mind that a lot of grains and beans are fairly toxic in themselves - plants don't want you to eat their seeds. So whole grain might actually be just as bad for you as the refined stuff, just in different ways. Gluten is one aspect of this, but there are apparently a whole range of other things which can impact your digestion, prevent nutrient uptake, etc.