8 ms·

Are Ultra-Processed Foods All That Unhealthy?

41 points by Hary06 2y ago

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
airstrike 2y ago
> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.” Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement. What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what? I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat... It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.
- tssge 2y ago
  >What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption. I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion. So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on. >Smarter changes than what? Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.
  - pixl97 2y ago
    Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.
    - Terr_ 2y ago
      > Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. I don't think they forget, it's just not profitable to admit it or work it into their products. That makes me think of a Pratchett quote: > In fact, like a lot of [semaphore] towers, it was often manned by kids. Everyone knew it happened. Actually, the new management probably didn't, but wouldn't have done anything about it if they'd found out, apart from carefully forgetting that they'd known. Kids didn't need to be paid. -- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett For a bit more context, the semaphore towers in the plot are analogous to the early internet and issues of monopolies. > They'd come and hang around and do odd jobs and maybe pick up the craft of semaphore just by watching. They tended to be bright, they mastered the keyboard and levers as if by magic, they usually had good eyesight and what they were doing, most of them, was running away from home without actually leaving.
    - tssge 2y ago
      >And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. I find palatability an odd thing in the sense that there's the phenomenon of acquired taste. In my experience acquired taste applies the most towards bitter foods and drinks. I hated the zero-sugar low-fat yoghurt at first. It tasted horrible. The more I got into it however, the more I liked it's rather unique refreshing taste. It freshens the palate unlike any other food and as such I got used to the bitter taste and started to like it instead. Same thing with beer, it seems everyone hates beer when they taste it the first time. The more you get used to it however, the more you find the taste refreshing I feel. Nothing more refreshing than a cold beer on a hot summer day. >We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals Fiber for me is somewhat similar. I really love fibrous, almost rock hard, full-grain rye bread. My jaw will get sore from eating that, but there's something to it to really have to chew it down. However I used to hate it and love soft bread in the past: the texture and it's chewiness is akin to an acquired taste.
- hnzix 2y ago
  If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.
- hilux 2y ago
  > AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. Two things: - Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs. - When we remove fat, what is replacing it?
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    The amount of dietary fat needed for humans to survive is very small. Most studies I’ve seen suggest the amount is close to 30-50g/day (depending on your weight) before there’s any meaningful long term health problems. Dietary carbs are extremely valuable for energy purposes. Sure, you can be a keto nut and go completely no carbs, but extra carbs is valuable for energy reasons. That said, ideally you should be replacing fat with more protein. Most folks get far far too little protein in their diet, and protein is necessary for maintaining and gaining muscle mass, which has a huge impact on obesity and body form. If you don’t have enough protein to maintain muscle mass but have excess calories then literally the only place for it to go is into fat stores…
    - hilux 2y ago
      I'll emphasize it again: dietary fat is essential. Dietary carbs are not. You can live forever on zero carbs. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that carbs are more "valuable" than fat. Whether "extra calories" go to fat or are burned, is determined by your level of insulin. You can google this. As a starting point, I recommend any video or blog post by Dr. Jason Fung. Eating a high protein diet is difficult to do, and also hard on the kidneys. It may work for teenagers and twenty-something males who want to unnaturally bulk up. It is not healthy for long life.
- stephen_g 2y ago
  ‘Low-fat’ is pretty bad, not just because it turns out excess sugar is far worse (and ‘low-fat’ marketed foods often increased sugar to make them taste better), but also because there are fats that are fine (like monounsaturated fats), and ones we should probably be having more of (like omega 3). There can be inherently bad things about eating less of that, even if lowering saturated fat intake is a good thing… So I would say ‘low-fat’ as a principle was definitely bad and counter-productive advice.
black_13 2y ago
[dead]
DueDilligence 2y ago
[dead]
immibis 2y ago
Probably, but not because of the fact they are processed, but because of some of the specific processing steps used.
- epistasis 2y ago
  Which processing steps? I have never seen a study that investigates that.
throwup238 2y ago
IMO the problem is the definition. According to wikipedia UPF is "an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds. The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings." The Wikipedia features a photo of fruit loops breakfast cereal but that's a total red herring. The food coloring and preservatives are a side show; what really matters is the macro and micronutrition that is sacrificed in the name of processing. The article uses a photo of what looks like fishball type products and imitation crab legs which illustrates the problem: while those are highly processed, they're made of fish that doesn't lose much nutritional value in the cooking and preserving process. They're nowhere near as bad as other processed foods like pasta or bread made from bleached flour where the germ and bran were discarded before milling.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  it's interesting that the definitions are so varied. what i've seen, is that UPF is usually defined as "a high proportion of the ingredients do not exist naturally in that form." so for example, the ingredients of an Oreo > INGREDIENTS: UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, PALM OIL, SOYBEAN AND/OR CANOLA OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, CHOCOLATE, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY. Of these arguably only salt really exists in its natural form with minimal processing.
  - Eisenstein 2y ago
    Are you counting ingredients by proportion of weight or by total number of them in the list?
    - bobthepanda 2y ago
      At least in the US the ingredients must be ordered in order of amount, where the first is used the most.
datascienced 2y ago
I see “avoid if ultra processed” as a heuristic. If you want to be healthy eat mostly food that looks like it has grown from the ground. However of course some processed stuff can be healthy. A vitamin D capsule is super healthy if you are low on vitamin D! Not to mention you need to consider quantities. A gram of refined sugar is OK, probably neutral.
nokcha 2y ago
> ultra-processed foods such as ... yogurts > Frozen and canned vegetables are often classified as ultra-processed I think this goes against the common usage of the term "ultra-processed".
- koolba 2y ago
  Yes that’s kind of nuts to group those in the “ultra” group. All three of those are some of the healthiest things you can eat. Especially yogurt.
  - throwawaycities 2y ago
    I think yogurt is a great example of the problem. In its more natural form it is healthy, particularly as a probiotic with live cultures and enzymes. But that’s not what the majority of yogurts sold in stores are, they are heated and pasteurized killing live cultures, and then loaded with sugar added. It’s this yogurt product that more closely resembles a desert than a healthy yogurt that is bought/consumed and marketed as a health food. It’s very similar to the majority of breakfast cereals, probably never as healthy as yogurt to begin with, but a bastardization of the “cereal grains” they are named after.
    - dahdum 2y ago
      Aren’t there are a ton of live culture yogurts available in most supermarkets? Noosa, Siggis, Fage, Yoplait, and Chobani for example. They just genrally have too much sugar.
      - throwawaycities 2y ago
        Yes, but even among those there is some deception. Take Yoplait, it is made with pasteurized milk, so it doesn’t have the naturally occurring cultures. Like the added sugar they just add cultures/probiotics in, what’s important in this is that there are 1000s of species of probiotics and “added probiotics” is not the same as naturally occurring probiotics, which are generally limited to just a few species. In other words it’s a marketing stunt to market “probiotics” as if it were natural, but to reuse the word it is a bastardization of naturally occurring cultures.
paulpauper 2y ago
All food is just macros, in the end. You can become obese eating healthy food, as many can attest. Plenty of overweight or obese vegans due to too much nuts or tofu.
- coffeebeqn 2y ago
  Obese vegans don’t eat too much tofu and nuts. That would be quite a challenge. Potato chips, Oreos, candy, alcohol, there’s plenty of tasty stuff to binge on
- A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
  When I go hiking for long periods of time, I make sure to include lots of nuts in my pack. Pecans and peanuts are staples, but macadamia nuts are best of all: They're the most calorie-dense food on the planet, at about 720 calories per 100g. Peanut Butter Twix -- the apotheosis of ultra-processed calorie-dense junk food -- isn't even close, at 536 calories per 100g. One can easily gain lots of weight by eating too many nuts -- and it takes fewer of 'em than one might think.
- pixl97 2y ago
  It's about caloric density. You can get overweight by eating high fiber food, but it's way harder to do so then eating a few bites that have 500 cals in them. And yes, nuts fall into the high caloric density category.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  This is narrow mindset and speaks to what a lot of the article is trying to explain. This isn't just talking about obesity. But also talking about other additives that make foods less nutrient dense for you, eating foods that can cause other adverse health problems outside of just obesity. Additionally, UPF foods are engineered to make them hyperpalatable, meaning you want to eat more of them than you would a less processed food. Lastly, processed foods are often stripped of many micronutrients that in some cases are artificially added back in. These nutrients we would normally get from unprocessed foods in abundance.
ortusdux 2y ago
My issue with ultra processing is that it makes it easier to swap ingredients for cost cutting reasons. I think corn syrup in soda is the most famous example, and that substitution has had plenty of unintended consequences.
hintymad 2y ago
A trajectory question: have we have definitive answer to why the US now has so many obese people when before 70s not so many (or I just got the wrong impression from poor sampling of videos)? It's not like the US didn't have enough supply of food or people didn't have access to cars. The US was wealthy then and still wealthy now.
- api 2y ago
  Obesity has definitely increased and I’ve seen many hypotheses floated. The most convincing one to me so far has been simple sugar and the fact that sugar is now added to practically everything. Other hypotheses I’ve seen include more sedentary jobs, endocrine disruptors, and cigarette smoking going away. Nicotine is a stimulant and an appetite suppressant. I guess a combination of less nicotine and more sugar isn’t a bad one. Of course it’s not that people were categorically more healthy back then. Heart disease was pretty rampant.
  - WirelessGigabit 2y ago
    It's not sugar perse. It's the fact that you have companies cooking for you vs your grandma. Yes, your grandma's cookies had sugar, but it didn't have the other 10 ingredients that are basically pre-digested, making that cookie from the store to be EXTREMELY palatable.
    - Kirby64 2y ago
      There’s nothing different in terms of store bought “homemade style” cookies and a homemade cookie in terms of badness for you, unless perhaps your grandma didn’t make very good cookies. I can easily make cookies at home that are more palatable/cravable than anything I can buy at a store. And they don’t have any of those “other” ingredients. And let me tell you, 3 of those homemade cookies could easily be 1000 calories.
    - from-nibly 2y ago
      I think it has more to do with the fact that everything has sugar in it now. French fries, bread, processed meat in some cases. Im not usually in favor of making laws to solve problems. But for sake of argument if you had to call anything that had sugar added to it a "desert" i think we'd all find out that, all we eat is desert.
code_biologist 2y ago
Contra this article, I'd highly recommend the book it mentions: Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken. It collates a lot of good studies and evidence that highly processed food is less healthy in and of itself, even if macro- and micronutrient composition is identical. It also covers a lot of the misbehavior and lobbying by food companies, marketing to create addictive behavior, as well as the engineering going on to create hyperpalatable foods. My diet's generally clean, but the book was a great reminder/jumpstart with clear guidance (eat less processed food) that's not preachy or prescriptive.
- WirelessGigabit 2y ago
  Absolutely wonderful book. The 30 grams of cornflakes vs oats is so weird, but when you think about it, yes, I would eat WAY more cornflakes and milk than I eat oats and milk.
freitzkriesler2 2y ago
I do considerable weight training and HIIT through out the week. I can move large amounts of weight and my body shows it. But I'll tell you this, when I eat cheddar sour cream ruffles, I feel like @$$. Thy taste so good going down but I will feel gross . In my non physical fitness day, eating these wouldn't make me feel gross. Are ultra processed foods unhealthy? Probably, especially if they make someone who is a high performing athlete feel gross. A body at peak performance demands clean macros. But even at the end of the day, calories in, calories out.
Havoc 2y ago
The appealing thing here is that rolling with this as a working theory is pretty risk free. Say you revert to home cooked meals. Not the worst thing in the world & unlikely to cause harm...
AtlasBarfed 2y ago
What always gets lost in the great diet debate is that if you did (preferably high intensity) routine exercise that will represent a far greater improvement to your health. Note I am also not talking about weight or weight loss. I am talking about being healthy, generally in the "lives longer and lives better" deconstruction of "healthy".
sheepscreek 2y ago
I’ll save you the trouble of researching this - we don’t know the answer to this and probably won’t in this lifetime. We still don’t understand how amino acids are able to perform such complex functions. We have zero understanding of how the same exact cell in every sense can evolve into different organs in the human body. We don’t even know how we fall asleep, or the complete role of serotonin and melatonin on sleep and mood - their interactivity (which influences which). So who knows how the amino acids or whatever are the constituents of the foods we consume interact in our body. It’s definitely not a black and white answer. Depends on what exactly are we talking about and the physiology of the individual that likely influences it.
bitwize 2y ago
Processed foods were actually a boon in the 50s because they were much better than the alternative, which was often rotten food or simply starving. Famine was a real danger late into the 20th century even in the USA. The memories of WWII and Dust Bowl famine were still fresh in adults' minds. And foods spoiled quickly unless pickled, refrigerated, etc. So anything that could prolong the shelf life and make the food supply stretch while still remaining appetizing was welcome from a food security standpoint -- even with all those additives and preservatives. The trope of "starving kids in China would be glad to eat that" was a thing for a reason; under Chairman Mao people really were starving in China, and starvation was still almost at your doorstep even in the USA. These days we have agro-tech out the wazoo and can, potentially, feed billions with fresh crops reliably and relatively cheaply, so the processed stuff doesn't have the advantages it once had and numerous disadvantages.
karmasimida 2y ago
I still don’t understand why French fries are considered UPF, it is just potato but fried.
- m463 2y ago
  I think one of the main healthy ingredient lost to processing is fiber. It is good for moving food through your digestive system, plus it moderates harmful glucose spikes which is very unhealthy. Potatoes have a lot of fiber in the skin, but fries remove all that. (I've also been told, eating potatoes are like eating a plate of sugar)
  - balfirevic 2y ago
    So, peeled boiled potatoes are ultra-processed food then?
    - m463 2y ago
      Maybe not powdered potatoes in a box processed, but the peeled boiled potatoes might not be too different to your body. It's even been shown that just freezing and thawing vegetables can significantly break down the fiber and vitamins so your body doesn't get the benefits.
- pixl97 2y ago
  I mean, they typically have their skin removed then are soaked in some kind of saline bath. At least half if not more of the fiber in a potato is remove when you skin it. Then oil based frying adds a massive amount of calories. If you need calories to survive potatoes are a good option, once you've met those minimum requirements they are a pretty terrible food in the sense it's really easy to over consume them.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  Because they're usually cut up, soaked in a salt bath, coated, then deep fried in a trans fat. This takes a complex carbohydrate, strips it of most of its fiber content, adds sodium and then adds trans fats through the deep frying process.
hilux 2y ago
What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself. A few things I notice: - "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.) - A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example. - For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.
- bcrosby95 2y ago
  The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art. It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact. Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.
- the_gastropod 2y ago
  > A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"? > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.
  - 2y ago
taeric 2y ago
I'm convinced fake fats were absolutely terrible for us. Kind of feels like the rest is falling to scape goat territory. Probably not good, as it were. But not as terrible as fake fats. I also think steering people away from salt is probably misguided. So, take my view with appropriate salt. :)
- semiquaver 2y ago
  Are you talking about substances such as Olestra? Such non digestible oils are almost completely absent from most people’s diets, even those that eat lots of processed foods. Not sure why it would be a big factor if hardly anyone consumes it.
  - taeric 2y ago
    Trans fats were the worst. I don't quite fall into thinking seed oils are terrible, but I do suspect a lot of damage lingering from wide use of trans fats. I'm probably more thinking on how folks were told to avoid fats at all costs. And I do think that has changed for a time now. Though I still know folks that avoid things we were told were bad years ago. Bacon and eggs being easy examples. Butter, too. I'm not clear on sugar substitutes. Would help if I knew more people that used them without being severely unhealthy.
  - code_biologist 2y ago
    I suspect gp is talking about industrial seed oils like corn, soybean, canola, though the nomenclature of "fake" is unhelpful. This paper [1] claims 8-10% of our energy intake is from these. 10% of our calories seems like it could be a big factor. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/
    - taeric 2y ago
      I haven't gone down seed oil rabbit hole. I confess that sounds too conspiracy to me. My accusations were mainly on trans fats. And I ack that we've largely moved away from them. My suspicion is it will take time for that choice to fully take.
p1necone 2y ago
The term "Ultra Processed Food" is basically undefinable in any sort of sensible way, and because of that appears to just be used by the layman synonymously with "unhealthy food". Trying to find out whether "Ultra Processed Food" is "unhealthy" then just becomes an excercise in unwrapping a tautology.
- code_biologist 2y ago
  The term comes from the Nova food classification system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification Do you think the groupings are not sensible?
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    You can drive a truck through the Nova food classifications. Every single thing on that list is couched with “typically” or “primarily” or “mostly”. Reading it really reeks of “you know an ultra processed food when you see it” which is unhelpful. The alternative viewing of the nova classifications is that almost everything is an ultra processed food because it has some small ingredient or technique that lumps it into the class 4, which is equally unhelpful. The problem either needs to be identified to specific ingredients, or just broadly to the group due to human tendencies (hyper palatable foods) that lead to the poor health outcomes so we can actually take action here. As it stands today, the nova classifications basically mean you’re just screwed if you want to truly avoid “ultra processed foods” today.
- NoPicklez 2y ago
  It's really not that difficult to define, but like most things there's degrees to what it is considered processed. This is why there are now frameworks in place like the NOVA classification system to try break down and develop a degree to which something is considered processed.
karaterobot 2y ago
> Perhaps the problem with ultra-processed food is its energy density; or its texture, which may encourage people to eat too fast; or its alleged “hyper-palatability,” which is defined by specific combinations of sugar, salt and fat. My hypothesis is that UPFs are not inherently less healthy, it's that they are cheap, convenient, and delicious, so it's easy to eat a little too much. I doesn't take much: fifty extra calories every meal is almost 20 pounds a year.
ranger_danger 2y ago
Very nicely written article that says a lot of things I have been thinking to myself over the years.
from-nibly 2y ago
Nah im pretty surr its just sugar and this is some weird smoke and mirrors to try to avoid that conclusion.
dangmum 2y ago
[flagged]
jacknews 2y ago
There's always some food boogyman, but UPF is about as indistinct as you can get. Food-processing itself is quite unlikely to the problem, it'll be some common additive, or the general balance of fats (and fat types), proteins, carbs, micronutrients, etc. For my money, the big problem, after sugar, is vegetable oil.
kiwiguy 2y ago
Lol if only the disclosed who funds Gunter Kuhnle. Doesn’t take much to put two and two together. This is a clear pr hit piece article from Big Food to fight against UPF research. Sad work from the OpenMinds team.
shalmanese 2y ago
Doesn't take much digging to figure out that Gunter Kuhnle has been funded by Mars Inc [1] and Peter Rogers has been funded by Sugar Nutrition UK (fka: British Sugar Bureau) [2][3] and their names appear all the time in the popular press always defending the interests of big food. Remember, a lot of the big food people came from big tobacco once the government started cracking down and they're just running the same playbook. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gunter-kuhnle-13aba0171_a-whole-new-way-of-doing-nutrition-research-activity-6724633476424962048-noRd/?trk=public_profile_like_view https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gunter-kuhnle-13aba0171_a-who... [2] https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Peter-Rogers-be40b6c8-36cf-4fa2-bbb9-90fbf3f447b0/#publications https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Peter-Rogers-be40b6c... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-said-diet-fizzy-drunks-can-help-weight-loss-was-quietly-funded-by-cocacola-and-pepsi-a6817686.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-said-d...

41 points by Hary06 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.” Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement. What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what? I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat... It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.

tssge 2y ago
>What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself. As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption. I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion. So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on. >Smarter changes than what? Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.
- pixl97 2y ago
  Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals, and then leave the super high calorie portions to eat making it hyper easy to consume 10k kcals a day.
  - Terr_ 2y ago
    > Yea, it's like the entire industry forgot the premise of CI-CO. I don't think they forget, it's just not profitable to admit it or work it into their products. That makes me think of a Pratchett quote: > In fact, like a lot of [semaphore] towers, it was often manned by kids. Everyone knew it happened. Actually, the new management probably didn't, but wouldn't have done anything about it if they'd found out, apart from carefully forgetting that they'd known. Kids didn't need to be paid. -- Going Postal by Terry Pratchett For a bit more context, the semaphore towers in the plot are analogous to the early internet and issues of monopolies. > They'd come and hang around and do odd jobs and maybe pick up the craft of semaphore just by watching. They tended to be bright, they mastered the keyboard and levers as if by magic, they usually had good eyesight and what they were doing, most of them, was running away from home without actually leaving.
  - tssge 2y ago
    >And when you get down to it, the palatable portion of the issue becomes the biggest problem. I find palatability an odd thing in the sense that there's the phenomenon of acquired taste. In my experience acquired taste applies the most towards bitter foods and drinks. I hated the zero-sugar low-fat yoghurt at first. It tasted horrible. The more I got into it however, the more I liked it's rather unique refreshing taste. It freshens the palate unlike any other food and as such I got used to the bitter taste and started to like it instead. Same thing with beer, it seems everyone hates beer when they taste it the first time. The more you get used to it however, the more you find the taste refreshing I feel. Nothing more refreshing than a cold beer on a hot summer day. >We suck all the fiber out of foods and feed it back to animals Fiber for me is somewhat similar. I really love fibrous, almost rock hard, full-grain rye bread. My jaw will get sore from eating that, but there's something to it to really have to chew it down. However I used to hate it and love soft bread in the past: the texture and it's chewiness is akin to an acquired taste.
hnzix 2y ago
If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.
hilux 2y ago
> AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. Two things: - Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs. - When we remove fat, what is replacing it?
- Kirby64 2y ago
  The amount of dietary fat needed for humans to survive is very small. Most studies I’ve seen suggest the amount is close to 30-50g/day (depending on your weight) before there’s any meaningful long term health problems. Dietary carbs are extremely valuable for energy purposes. Sure, you can be a keto nut and go completely no carbs, but extra carbs is valuable for energy reasons. That said, ideally you should be replacing fat with more protein. Most folks get far far too little protein in their diet, and protein is necessary for maintaining and gaining muscle mass, which has a huge impact on obesity and body form. If you don’t have enough protein to maintain muscle mass but have excess calories then literally the only place for it to go is into fat stores…
  - hilux 2y ago
    I'll emphasize it again: dietary fat is essential. Dietary carbs are not. You can live forever on zero carbs. Therefore it's extremely unlikely that carbs are more "valuable" than fat. Whether "extra calories" go to fat or are burned, is determined by your level of insulin. You can google this. As a starting point, I recommend any video or blog post by Dr. Jason Fung. Eating a high protein diet is difficult to do, and also hard on the kidneys. It may work for teenagers and twenty-something males who want to unnaturally bulk up. It is not healthy for long life.
stephen_g 2y ago
‘Low-fat’ is pretty bad, not just because it turns out excess sugar is far worse (and ‘low-fat’ marketed foods often increased sugar to make them taste better), but also because there are fats that are fine (like monounsaturated fats), and ones we should probably be having more of (like omega 3). There can be inherently bad things about eating less of that, even if lowering saturated fat intake is a good thing… So I would say ‘low-fat’ as a principle was definitely bad and counter-productive advice.

black_13 2y ago

[dead]

DueDilligence 2y ago

[dead]

immibis 2y ago

Probably, but not because of the fact they are processed, but because of some of the specific processing steps used.

epistasis 2y ago
Which processing steps? I have never seen a study that investigates that.

throwup238 2y ago

IMO the problem is the definition. According to wikipedia UPF is "an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds. The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings." The Wikipedia features a photo of fruit loops breakfast cereal but that's a total red herring. The food coloring and preservatives are a side show; what really matters is the macro and micronutrition that is sacrificed in the name of processing. The article uses a photo of what looks like fishball type products and imitation crab legs which illustrates the problem: while those are highly processed, they're made of fish that doesn't lose much nutritional value in the cooking and preserving process. They're nowhere near as bad as other processed foods like pasta or bread made from bleached flour where the germ and bran were discarded before milling.

bobthepanda 2y ago
it's interesting that the definitions are so varied. what i've seen, is that UPF is usually defined as "a high proportion of the ingredients do not exist naturally in that form." so for example, the ingredients of an Oreo > INGREDIENTS: UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, PALM OIL, SOYBEAN AND/OR CANOLA OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, CHOCOLATE, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY. Of these arguably only salt really exists in its natural form with minimal processing.
- Eisenstein 2y ago
  Are you counting ingredients by proportion of weight or by total number of them in the list?
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    At least in the US the ingredients must be ordered in order of amount, where the first is used the most.

datascienced 2y ago

I see “avoid if ultra processed” as a heuristic. If you want to be healthy eat mostly food that looks like it has grown from the ground. However of course some processed stuff can be healthy. A vitamin D capsule is super healthy if you are low on vitamin D! Not to mention you need to consider quantities. A gram of refined sugar is OK, probably neutral.

nokcha 2y ago

> ultra-processed foods such as ... yogurts > Frozen and canned vegetables are often classified as ultra-processed I think this goes against the common usage of the term "ultra-processed".

koolba 2y ago
Yes that’s kind of nuts to group those in the “ultra” group. All three of those are some of the healthiest things you can eat. Especially yogurt.
- throwawaycities 2y ago
  I think yogurt is a great example of the problem. In its more natural form it is healthy, particularly as a probiotic with live cultures and enzymes. But that’s not what the majority of yogurts sold in stores are, they are heated and pasteurized killing live cultures, and then loaded with sugar added. It’s this yogurt product that more closely resembles a desert than a healthy yogurt that is bought/consumed and marketed as a health food. It’s very similar to the majority of breakfast cereals, probably never as healthy as yogurt to begin with, but a bastardization of the “cereal grains” they are named after.
  - dahdum 2y ago
    Aren’t there are a ton of live culture yogurts available in most supermarkets? Noosa, Siggis, Fage, Yoplait, and Chobani for example. They just genrally have too much sugar.
    - throwawaycities 2y ago
      Yes, but even among those there is some deception. Take Yoplait, it is made with pasteurized milk, so it doesn’t have the naturally occurring cultures. Like the added sugar they just add cultures/probiotics in, what’s important in this is that there are 1000s of species of probiotics and “added probiotics” is not the same as naturally occurring probiotics, which are generally limited to just a few species. In other words it’s a marketing stunt to market “probiotics” as if it were natural, but to reuse the word it is a bastardization of naturally occurring cultures.

paulpauper 2y ago

All food is just macros, in the end. You can become obese eating healthy food, as many can attest. Plenty of overweight or obese vegans due to too much nuts or tofu.

coffeebeqn 2y ago
Obese vegans don’t eat too much tofu and nuts. That would be quite a challenge. Potato chips, Oreos, candy, alcohol, there’s plenty of tasty stuff to binge on
A_D_E_P_T 2y ago
When I go hiking for long periods of time, I make sure to include lots of nuts in my pack. Pecans and peanuts are staples, but macadamia nuts are best of all: They're the most calorie-dense food on the planet, at about 720 calories per 100g. Peanut Butter Twix -- the apotheosis of ultra-processed calorie-dense junk food -- isn't even close, at 536 calories per 100g. One can easily gain lots of weight by eating too many nuts -- and it takes fewer of 'em than one might think.
pixl97 2y ago
It's about caloric density. You can get overweight by eating high fiber food, but it's way harder to do so then eating a few bites that have 500 cals in them. And yes, nuts fall into the high caloric density category.
NoPicklez 2y ago
This is narrow mindset and speaks to what a lot of the article is trying to explain. This isn't just talking about obesity. But also talking about other additives that make foods less nutrient dense for you, eating foods that can cause other adverse health problems outside of just obesity. Additionally, UPF foods are engineered to make them hyperpalatable, meaning you want to eat more of them than you would a less processed food. Lastly, processed foods are often stripped of many micronutrients that in some cases are artificially added back in. These nutrients we would normally get from unprocessed foods in abundance.

ortusdux 2y ago

My issue with ultra processing is that it makes it easier to swap ingredients for cost cutting reasons. I think corn syrup in soda is the most famous example, and that substitution has had plenty of unintended consequences.

hintymad 2y ago

A trajectory question: have we have definitive answer to why the US now has so many obese people when before 70s not so many (or I just got the wrong impression from poor sampling of videos)? It's not like the US didn't have enough supply of food or people didn't have access to cars. The US was wealthy then and still wealthy now.

api 2y ago
Obesity has definitely increased and I’ve seen many hypotheses floated. The most convincing one to me so far has been simple sugar and the fact that sugar is now added to practically everything. Other hypotheses I’ve seen include more sedentary jobs, endocrine disruptors, and cigarette smoking going away. Nicotine is a stimulant and an appetite suppressant. I guess a combination of less nicotine and more sugar isn’t a bad one. Of course it’s not that people were categorically more healthy back then. Heart disease was pretty rampant.
- WirelessGigabit 2y ago
  It's not sugar perse. It's the fact that you have companies cooking for you vs your grandma. Yes, your grandma's cookies had sugar, but it didn't have the other 10 ingredients that are basically pre-digested, making that cookie from the store to be EXTREMELY palatable.
  - Kirby64 2y ago
    There’s nothing different in terms of store bought “homemade style” cookies and a homemade cookie in terms of badness for you, unless perhaps your grandma didn’t make very good cookies. I can easily make cookies at home that are more palatable/cravable than anything I can buy at a store. And they don’t have any of those “other” ingredients. And let me tell you, 3 of those homemade cookies could easily be 1000 calories.
  - from-nibly 2y ago
    I think it has more to do with the fact that everything has sugar in it now. French fries, bread, processed meat in some cases. Im not usually in favor of making laws to solve problems. But for sake of argument if you had to call anything that had sugar added to it a "desert" i think we'd all find out that, all we eat is desert.

code_biologist 2y ago

Contra this article, I'd highly recommend the book it mentions: Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken. It collates a lot of good studies and evidence that highly processed food is less healthy in and of itself, even if macro- and micronutrient composition is identical. It also covers a lot of the misbehavior and lobbying by food companies, marketing to create addictive behavior, as well as the engineering going on to create hyperpalatable foods. My diet's generally clean, but the book was a great reminder/jumpstart with clear guidance (eat less processed food) that's not preachy or prescriptive.

WirelessGigabit 2y ago
Absolutely wonderful book. The 30 grams of cornflakes vs oats is so weird, but when you think about it, yes, I would eat WAY more cornflakes and milk than I eat oats and milk.

freitzkriesler2 2y ago

I do considerable weight training and HIIT through out the week. I can move large amounts of weight and my body shows it. But I'll tell you this, when I eat cheddar sour cream ruffles, I feel like @$$. Thy taste so good going down but I will feel gross . In my non physical fitness day, eating these wouldn't make me feel gross. Are ultra processed foods unhealthy? Probably, especially if they make someone who is a high performing athlete feel gross. A body at peak performance demands clean macros. But even at the end of the day, calories in, calories out.

Havoc 2y ago

The appealing thing here is that rolling with this as a working theory is pretty risk free. Say you revert to home cooked meals. Not the worst thing in the world & unlikely to cause harm...

AtlasBarfed 2y ago

What always gets lost in the great diet debate is that if you did (preferably high intensity) routine exercise that will represent a far greater improvement to your health. Note I am also not talking about weight or weight loss. I am talking about being healthy, generally in the "lives longer and lives better" deconstruction of "healthy".

sheepscreek 2y ago

I’ll save you the trouble of researching this - we don’t know the answer to this and probably won’t in this lifetime. We still don’t understand how amino acids are able to perform such complex functions. We have zero understanding of how the same exact cell in every sense can evolve into different organs in the human body. We don’t even know how we fall asleep, or the complete role of serotonin and melatonin on sleep and mood - their interactivity (which influences which). So who knows how the amino acids or whatever are the constituents of the foods we consume interact in our body. It’s definitely not a black and white answer. Depends on what exactly are we talking about and the physiology of the individual that likely influences it.

bitwize 2y ago

Processed foods were actually a boon in the 50s because they were much better than the alternative, which was often rotten food or simply starving. Famine was a real danger late into the 20th century even in the USA. The memories of WWII and Dust Bowl famine were still fresh in adults' minds. And foods spoiled quickly unless pickled, refrigerated, etc. So anything that could prolong the shelf life and make the food supply stretch while still remaining appetizing was welcome from a food security standpoint -- even with all those additives and preservatives. The trope of "starving kids in China would be glad to eat that" was a thing for a reason; under Chairman Mao people really were starving in China, and starvation was still almost at your doorstep even in the USA. These days we have agro-tech out the wazoo and can, potentially, feed billions with fresh crops reliably and relatively cheaply, so the processed stuff doesn't have the advantages it once had and numerous disadvantages.

karmasimida 2y ago

I still don’t understand why French fries are considered UPF, it is just potato but fried.

m463 2y ago
I think one of the main healthy ingredient lost to processing is fiber. It is good for moving food through your digestive system, plus it moderates harmful glucose spikes which is very unhealthy. Potatoes have a lot of fiber in the skin, but fries remove all that. (I've also been told, eating potatoes are like eating a plate of sugar)
- balfirevic 2y ago
  So, peeled boiled potatoes are ultra-processed food then?
  - m463 2y ago
    Maybe not powdered potatoes in a box processed, but the peeled boiled potatoes might not be too different to your body. It's even been shown that just freezing and thawing vegetables can significantly break down the fiber and vitamins so your body doesn't get the benefits.
pixl97 2y ago
I mean, they typically have their skin removed then are soaked in some kind of saline bath. At least half if not more of the fiber in a potato is remove when you skin it. Then oil based frying adds a massive amount of calories. If you need calories to survive potatoes are a good option, once you've met those minimum requirements they are a pretty terrible food in the sense it's really easy to over consume them.
NoPicklez 2y ago
Because they're usually cut up, soaked in a salt bath, coated, then deep fried in a trans fat. This takes a complex carbohydrate, strips it of most of its fiber content, adds sodium and then adds trans fats through the deep frying process.

hilux 2y ago

What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself. A few things I notice: - "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.) - A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example. - For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.

bcrosby95 2y ago
The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art. It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact. Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.
the_gastropod 2y ago
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"? > Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.
- 2y ago

taeric 2y ago

I'm convinced fake fats were absolutely terrible for us. Kind of feels like the rest is falling to scape goat territory. Probably not good, as it were. But not as terrible as fake fats. I also think steering people away from salt is probably misguided. So, take my view with appropriate salt. :)

semiquaver 2y ago
Are you talking about substances such as Olestra? Such non digestible oils are almost completely absent from most people’s diets, even those that eat lots of processed foods. Not sure why it would be a big factor if hardly anyone consumes it.
- taeric 2y ago
  Trans fats were the worst. I don't quite fall into thinking seed oils are terrible, but I do suspect a lot of damage lingering from wide use of trans fats. I'm probably more thinking on how folks were told to avoid fats at all costs. And I do think that has changed for a time now. Though I still know folks that avoid things we were told were bad years ago. Bacon and eggs being easy examples. Butter, too. I'm not clear on sugar substitutes. Would help if I knew more people that used them without being severely unhealthy.
- code_biologist 2y ago
  I suspect gp is talking about industrial seed oils like corn, soybean, canola, though the nomenclature of "fake" is unhelpful. This paper [1] claims 8-10% of our energy intake is from these. 10% of our calories seems like it could be a big factor. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/
  - taeric 2y ago
    I haven't gone down seed oil rabbit hole. I confess that sounds too conspiracy to me. My accusations were mainly on trans fats. And I ack that we've largely moved away from them. My suspicion is it will take time for that choice to fully take.

p1necone 2y ago

The term "Ultra Processed Food" is basically undefinable in any sort of sensible way, and because of that appears to just be used by the layman synonymously with "unhealthy food". Trying to find out whether "Ultra Processed Food" is "unhealthy" then just becomes an excercise in unwrapping a tautology.

code_biologist 2y ago
The term comes from the Nova food classification system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification Do you think the groupings are not sensible?
- Kirby64 2y ago
  You can drive a truck through the Nova food classifications. Every single thing on that list is couched with “typically” or “primarily” or “mostly”. Reading it really reeks of “you know an ultra processed food when you see it” which is unhelpful. The alternative viewing of the nova classifications is that almost everything is an ultra processed food because it has some small ingredient or technique that lumps it into the class 4, which is equally unhelpful. The problem either needs to be identified to specific ingredients, or just broadly to the group due to human tendencies (hyper palatable foods) that lead to the poor health outcomes so we can actually take action here. As it stands today, the nova classifications basically mean you’re just screwed if you want to truly avoid “ultra processed foods” today.
NoPicklez 2y ago
It's really not that difficult to define, but like most things there's degrees to what it is considered processed. This is why there are now frameworks in place like the NOVA classification system to try break down and develop a degree to which something is considered processed.

karaterobot 2y ago

> Perhaps the problem with ultra-processed food is its energy density; or its texture, which may encourage people to eat too fast; or its alleged “hyper-palatability,” which is defined by specific combinations of sugar, salt and fat. My hypothesis is that UPFs are not inherently less healthy, it's that they are cheap, convenient, and delicious, so it's easy to eat a little too much. I doesn't take much: fifty extra calories every meal is almost 20 pounds a year.

ranger_danger 2y ago

Very nicely written article that says a lot of things I have been thinking to myself over the years.

from-nibly 2y ago

Nah im pretty surr its just sugar and this is some weird smoke and mirrors to try to avoid that conclusion.

dangmum 2y ago

[flagged]

jacknews 2y ago

There's always some food boogyman, but UPF is about as indistinct as you can get. Food-processing itself is quite unlikely to the problem, it'll be some common additive, or the general balance of fats (and fat types), proteins, carbs, micronutrients, etc. For my money, the big problem, after sugar, is vegetable oil.

kiwiguy 2y ago

Lol if only the disclosed who funds Gunter Kuhnle. Doesn’t take much to put two and two together. This is a clear pr hit piece article from Big Food to fight against UPF research. Sad work from the OpenMinds team.

shalmanese 2y ago

Doesn't take much digging to figure out that Gunter Kuhnle has been funded by Mars Inc [1] and Peter Rogers has been funded by Sugar Nutrition UK (fka: British Sugar Bureau) [2][3] and their names appear all the time in the popular press always defending the interests of big food. Remember, a lot of the big food people came from big tobacco once the government started cracking down and they're just running the same playbook. [1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gunter-kuhnle-13aba0171_a-whole-new-way-of-doing-nutrition-research-activity-6724633476424962048-noRd/?trk=public_profile_like_view https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gunter-kuhnle-13aba0171_a-who... [2] https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Peter-Rogers-be40b6c8-36cf-4fa2-bbb9-90fbf3f447b0/#publications https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Peter-Rogers-be40b6c... [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-said-diet-fizzy-drunks-can-help-weight-loss-was-quietly-funded-by-cocacola-and-pepsi-a6817686.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-said-d...