8 ms·

>What are processed and ultra-processed foods? >Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are whole foods in which the vitamins and nutrients are still intact.

>What are processed and ultra-processed foods? >Unprocessed or minimally processed foods are whole foods in which the vitamins and nutrients are still intact. The food is in its natural (or nearly natural) state. These foods may be minimally altered by removal of inedible parts, drying, crushing, roasting, boiling, freezing, or pasteurization, to make them suitable to store and safe to consume. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods would include carrots, apples, raw chicken, melon, and raw, unsalted nuts. >Processing changes a food from its natural state. Processed foods are essentially made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other substances. Examples include canned fish or canned vegetables, fruits in syrup, and freshly made breads. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients. >Some foods are highly processed or ultra-processed. They most likely have many added ingredients such as sugar, salt, fat, and artificial colors or preservatives. Ultra-processed foods are made mostly from substances extracted from foods, such as fats, starches, added sugars, and hydrogenated fats. They may also contain additives like artificial colors and flavors or stabilizers. Examples of these foods are frozen meals, soft drinks, hot dogs and cold cuts, fast food, packaged cookies, cakes, and salty snacks. https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed-foods-and-are-they-bad-for-our-health-2020010918605 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/what-are-ultra-processed...

tareqak 3y ago
One example of an ultra-processed food that was a surprise to me is imitation crab [0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_stick [1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/imitation-crab https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/imitation-crab
- imjonse 3y ago
  How was it a surprise with such a name?
  - tareqak 3y ago
    I have been under the impression since university that sushi is a healthier option for a meal, and the most popular sushi option in North America is the California roll. > California roll (加州巻き,カリフォルニアロール, kariforunia rōru) or California maki is an uramaki (inside-out makizushi roll) containing imitation crab (or rarely real crab), avocado, and cucumber. Sometimes crab salad is substituted for the crab stick, and often the outer layer of rice is sprinkled with toasted sesame seeds or roe (such as tobiko from flying fish). > As one of the most popular styles of sushi in Canada and the United States, the California roll has been influential in sushi's global popularity, and in inspiring sushi chefs around the world to create non-traditional fusion cuisine.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_roll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_roll
    - xboxnolifes 3y ago
      > I have been under the impression since university that sushi is a healthier option for a meal, and the most popular sushi option in North America is the California roll. That seems misguided. Sushi is just, very loosely, "thing on vinegared rice". If you put unhealthy thing on rice, it's still an unhealthy thing. May as well say "sandwiches are a healthy food" or "salads are healthy food".
- stubish 3y ago
  Another is most soy milk. But not all. Something like fake crab would also depend on what the actual ingredients are rather than the name (although I suspect fake crab lacking all the manufactured ingredients would be called 'fish').
datavirtue 3y ago
He knows what they mean. It's the age old programmer forum response where everyone knows what the OP meant when they were asking but some pedant with a neurological problem hijacks the thread. Ignore him.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- bsder 3y ago
  Maybe, but the one I generally flag is "cold cuts". Humans have been curing meat forever. The question is whether "cured meat" is an issue or whether "modern curing of meat" is the problem. When you ordered a ham from my old local meat market, it was a hunk of freshly butchered pig that was brined, cured and smoked. If it had any sugar, I sure couldn't taste it. You took it home, put it in the oven for a couple hours, and sliced it. It tasted wonderful by itself or with just a bit of fresh horseradish. That ham is quite a lot different in terms of ingredients from the "sliced ham" you will get from your local grocery deli as a "cold cut".
  - 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
    While the definition of different “processed foods” leaves a lot to be desired, there’s always going to be foods that are at the edge of one definition. Further attempts to refine the definition also bumps up against pendants like yourself regardless of what definition they use. But just like porn, we all know what definitely falls into one category or the other. With foods that straddle definitions, just apply some common sense and moderation. Go ahead and eat your ham. If you share it with family and friends you’re probably ok. If you ate the whole thing yourself in a couple days, maybe that’s bad. Same for everything else. Eat them in appropriate quantities and you’ll be fine.
    - card_zero 3y ago
      Hey, no pedant trapping. Anyway wanting a definition of a thing you're told to be scared of, as well as a proposed mechanism of harm, isn't being a pedant.
tracerbulletx 3y ago
I'm saying grouping all of those things together is dumb and meaningless. As a taxonomical choice. "this food was processed" is not a useful category for analysis.
- thereisnospork 3y ago
  I would concur: specifically the taxonomy doesn't offer any indication of mechanism, how is the 'processing' negativily affecting my biology? There's nothing in the naming to create a rule from. Unlike say glycemic index: high glycemic index > releases glucose fast > body can't compensate fast enough > bad (diabetes, poor satiety, etc.) right now it's just processed > ???? > bad (in unspecifiable ways, by unspecifiable means).
  - stakhanov 3y ago
    I agree as well. "Processing" food is literally what people do in their kitchens. But that's presumably not what they mean. Certain kinds of processing have to be applied to food to make it safe for consumption. But that's presumably not what they mean either. Certain kinds of processing make the nutritional contents of food more bioavailable. Not what they mean. Certain kinds of processing are required to preserve food. If humans stopped doing it, their environmental footprint would be orders of magnitude higher than it now is. Presumably, that's not what anyone is suggesting who is opposed to processed foods. Fermenting is a kind of processing, and fermented foods may be playing a role in a healthy microbiome. ...whoops. Again: Not what they are talking about. So what exactly are they trying to say? ...surely, picking a word other than "processed" would help in clarifying.
  - tornadofart 3y ago
    I don't like that your comment and the parent both got negative reviews. It is a valid contrarian question. However I would suggest researching about cirrhosis and fatty liver in children. It is a new disease that was unknown up until the 90s and is now common in developed countries. And it has to do with the following: your digestive system has the ability to process nutrients at a certain rate, depending on how hard they are to break down. For example sugar. The cells have a certain rate at which they can metabolize nutrients. The temporary excess is stored in the liver. Then it becomes not a question of quality rather than quantity. The question then is not "how high is the glycemic index of food X" but "at which rate (i.e. mg of sugar per minute) can this food X be processed by our digestive system, and is this rate too fast for our cells to metabolize, which in turn causes our liver to store the temporary excess?" Then the boolean variable "is this food X highly processed " becomes a plausible proxy variable, IMO, since refined sugar is something else than whole bread, when we talk about the rate at which nutrients enter the blood stream. Do I make sense?

tareqak 3y ago

One example of an ultra-processed food that was a surprise to me is imitation crab [0][1]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_stick https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crab_stick [1] https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/imitation-crab https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/imitation-crab

imjonse 3y ago
How was it a surprise with such a name?
- tareqak 3y ago
  I have been under the impression since university that sushi is a healthier option for a meal, and the most popular sushi option in North America is the California roll. > California roll (加州巻き,カリフォルニアロール, kariforunia rōru) or California maki is an uramaki (inside-out makizushi roll) containing imitation crab (or rarely real crab), avocado, and cucumber. Sometimes crab salad is substituted for the crab stick, and often the outer layer of rice is sprinkled with toasted sesame seeds or roe (such as tobiko from flying fish). > As one of the most popular styles of sushi in Canada and the United States, the California roll has been influential in sushi's global popularity, and in inspiring sushi chefs around the world to create non-traditional fusion cuisine.[2] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_roll https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_roll
  - xboxnolifes 3y ago
    > I have been under the impression since university that sushi is a healthier option for a meal, and the most popular sushi option in North America is the California roll. That seems misguided. Sushi is just, very loosely, "thing on vinegared rice". If you put unhealthy thing on rice, it's still an unhealthy thing. May as well say "sandwiches are a healthy food" or "salads are healthy food".
stubish 3y ago
Another is most soy milk. But not all. Something like fake crab would also depend on what the actual ingredients are rather than the name (although I suspect fake crab lacking all the manufactured ingredients would be called 'fish').

datavirtue 3y ago

He knows what they mean. It's the age old programmer forum response where everyone knows what the OP meant when they were asking but some pedant with a neurological problem hijacks the thread. Ignore him.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
bsder 3y ago
Maybe, but the one I generally flag is "cold cuts". Humans have been curing meat forever. The question is whether "cured meat" is an issue or whether "modern curing of meat" is the problem. When you ordered a ham from my old local meat market, it was a hunk of freshly butchered pig that was brined, cured and smoked. If it had any sugar, I sure couldn't taste it. You took it home, put it in the oven for a couple hours, and sliced it. It tasted wonderful by itself or with just a bit of fresh horseradish. That ham is quite a lot different in terms of ingredients from the "sliced ham" you will get from your local grocery deli as a "cold cut".
- 2muchcoffeeman 3y ago
  While the definition of different “processed foods” leaves a lot to be desired, there’s always going to be foods that are at the edge of one definition. Further attempts to refine the definition also bumps up against pendants like yourself regardless of what definition they use. But just like porn, we all know what definitely falls into one category or the other. With foods that straddle definitions, just apply some common sense and moderation. Go ahead and eat your ham. If you share it with family and friends you’re probably ok. If you ate the whole thing yourself in a couple days, maybe that’s bad. Same for everything else. Eat them in appropriate quantities and you’ll be fine.
  - card_zero 3y ago
    Hey, no pedant trapping. Anyway wanting a definition of a thing you're told to be scared of, as well as a proposed mechanism of harm, isn't being a pedant.

tracerbulletx 3y ago

I'm saying grouping all of those things together is dumb and meaningless. As a taxonomical choice. "this food was processed" is not a useful category for analysis.

thereisnospork 3y ago
I would concur: specifically the taxonomy doesn't offer any indication of mechanism, how is the 'processing' negativily affecting my biology? There's nothing in the naming to create a rule from. Unlike say glycemic index: high glycemic index > releases glucose fast > body can't compensate fast enough > bad (diabetes, poor satiety, etc.) right now it's just processed > ???? > bad (in unspecifiable ways, by unspecifiable means).
- stakhanov 3y ago
  I agree as well. "Processing" food is literally what people do in their kitchens. But that's presumably not what they mean. Certain kinds of processing have to be applied to food to make it safe for consumption. But that's presumably not what they mean either. Certain kinds of processing make the nutritional contents of food more bioavailable. Not what they mean. Certain kinds of processing are required to preserve food. If humans stopped doing it, their environmental footprint would be orders of magnitude higher than it now is. Presumably, that's not what anyone is suggesting who is opposed to processed foods. Fermenting is a kind of processing, and fermented foods may be playing a role in a healthy microbiome. ...whoops. Again: Not what they are talking about. So what exactly are they trying to say? ...surely, picking a word other than "processed" would help in clarifying.
- tornadofart 3y ago
  I don't like that your comment and the parent both got negative reviews. It is a valid contrarian question. However I would suggest researching about cirrhosis and fatty liver in children. It is a new disease that was unknown up until the 90s and is now common in developed countries. And it has to do with the following: your digestive system has the ability to process nutrients at a certain rate, depending on how hard they are to break down. For example sugar. The cells have a certain rate at which they can metabolize nutrients. The temporary excess is stored in the liver. Then it becomes not a question of quality rather than quantity. The question then is not "how high is the glycemic index of food X" but "at which rate (i.e. mg of sugar per minute) can this food X be processed by our digestive system, and is this rate too fast for our cells to metabolize, which in turn causes our liver to store the temporary excess?" Then the boolean variable "is this food X highly processed " becomes a plausible proxy variable, IMO, since refined sugar is something else than whole bread, when we talk about the rate at which nutrients enter the blood stream. Do I make sense?