3 ms·

I disagree that the definition is over broad. The definition is very well written and easy to understand. The NOVA Food Classification System Simplified: Cat

I disagree that the definition is over broad. The definition is very well written and easy to understand. The NOVA Food Classification System Simplified: Category 1: Foods that look like what was pulled out of the ground, off the plant, or off the bone. Category 2: Category 1 items that have been squeezed, evaporated, boiled, or shaken Category 3: Things that are made up of things from categories 1 and 2 Category 4: Everything else (this is the ultra-processed category) Regions where residents who are socioeconomically similar to the US but mainly eat categories 1, 2, and 3 are (was going to say tend to be but it is an absolute) healthier. Regions where residents eat high proportions of category 4 substances (the US and a growing number of other nations) are obese and sick. The NOVA Food Classification System https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78...

Kirby64 3y ago
I’ve read the classifications, and the problem is that almost any prepared food would automatically make it category 4. Can we agree that a chocolate bar and a Twinkie are wildly different levels of healthiness? It isn’t the category 4 definition that’s the issue. It’s the stuff in certain items within that category that is the issue, and identifying them is what matters.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  >Can we agree that a chocolate bar and a Twinkie are wildly different levels of healthiness? No. Sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar is bad for humans. A twinkie excreted out of a factory is just as bad as artisanal small-batch free-range fair-trade chocolate that comes out of a Swiss boutique. It doesn't matter that the chocolate has more vitamin-D because of the sugar. Category 4, which does indeed include nearly all prepared food, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
  - Kirby64 3y ago
    Then we're at an impasse because that sort of black-and-white position is clearly untenable and leads to ridiculous policy decisions that are unhelpful to society. Chocolate bars or cocoa in general are shown to have anti-oxidant properties. If I get something with lots of cocoa %, it likely has substantially less sugar than a Twinkie, notwithstanding the difference in hyper-palatability between a Twinkie and a chocolate bar. Sugar is just sugar. It's not evil outright. It's certainly not bad for humans in any amount.

Kirby64 3y ago

I’ve read the classifications, and the problem is that almost any prepared food would automatically make it category 4. Can we agree that a chocolate bar and a Twinkie are wildly different levels of healthiness? It isn’t the category 4 definition that’s the issue. It’s the stuff in certain items within that category that is the issue, and identifying them is what matters.

snakeyjake 3y ago
>Can we agree that a chocolate bar and a Twinkie are wildly different levels of healthiness? No. Sugar is sugar is sugar. Sugar is bad for humans. A twinkie excreted out of a factory is just as bad as artisanal small-batch free-range fair-trade chocolate that comes out of a Swiss boutique. It doesn't matter that the chocolate has more vitamin-D because of the sugar. Category 4, which does indeed include nearly all prepared food, should be avoided to the greatest extent possible.
- Kirby64 3y ago
  Then we're at an impasse because that sort of black-and-white position is clearly untenable and leads to ridiculous policy decisions that are unhelpful to society. Chocolate bars or cocoa in general are shown to have anti-oxidant properties. If I get something with lots of cocoa %, it likely has substantially less sugar than a Twinkie, notwithstanding the difference in hyper-palatability between a Twinkie and a chocolate bar. Sugar is just sugar. It's not evil outright. It's certainly not bad for humans in any amount.