6 ms·
How Bad Are Ultraprocessed Foods, Really?
- nsxwolf 2y agoDoes this paywalled article even contain a definition of "processed" in this context? I've never understood what that word means in the context of food. I have something in my kitchen called a "food processor". It spins around and chops things with a blade. Is the product of a "food processor" not "processed food"? The closest I can figure to the media definition is that it is food that contains a lot of salt. Perhaps also preservatives. So are we really talking about the health effects of salt and preservatives?
- _dark_matter_ 2y agoHere's a gift link (and yes, it describes them in depth!): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/well/eat/ultraprocessed-foods-harmful-health.html?unlocked_article_code=1.qk0.mXZe.XU5dW4Bwo0mT&smid=url-share https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f...
- ronnier 2y agohttps://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/high-levels-of-ultra-processed-foods-linked-with-early-death-brain-issues/ar-BB1m3SK5 https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/high-levels-of-ultra-... > Ultra-processed foods encompass a broad category ranging from cookies, doughnuts and potato chips to hot dogs, white bread and frozen meals.
- jcutrell 2y agoI take umbrage with "frozen meals." Very often a frozen meal has straight up whole vegetables or pieces of meat. Freezing is one of the best ways to retain nutrition of vegetables etc as well. Totally different than white bread or hot dogs.
- Ferret7446 2y agoYour umbrage is misguided. Processing does not mean it lowers nutrition. In fact, processing can increase nutrition.
- ufo 2y agoIt refers to the NOVA classification of foods, developed from research at the University of São Paulo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification The tl;dr of ultraprocessed is that it's those exclusively industrial foods prepared with ingredients you wouldn't stock in your pantry (high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, protein isolate, etc) In part, these foods are bad because they are high in sygar and salt. But that's not the point of the classification, which intentionally takes a step back from the old approach based of mesuring the individul ingredients and macronutrients. The central thesis is that, for public health policy it's easier to frame it as a discussion of traditional food vs industrial junk, and how ultraprocessed foods are replacing traditional foods. The classification doesn't want to get lost in the details of ingredients, which the industry has always been adept at gaming anyway (fat is the boogeyman -> replace it with sugar, add vitamins to make it sound healthier, etc)
- dolni 2y ago> for public health policy it's easier Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point. After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for public health policy. Do the work. "Easier" got us "N95s don't protect against COVID" and then it was "oh wait, actually cloth masks do!" A lot of this stuff relies on trust. I won't sit here and try to pretend that you will find health eating Doritos or McDonald's Big Macs. But is something like a low-sugar protein bar a decent option? How about Soylent? These are the nuanced questions that are actually useful to answer. Nobody actually thinks "ultra processed foods" are good for you to begin with.
- ufo 2y agoWhy shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements? The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. The Brazilian dietary guidelines that were inspired by NOVA places a lot of importance in the social aspects of procuring food, preparing it, and eating it. In a sense, it's the antithesis of products such as Soylent.
- taylorius 2y agoOne definition of ultraprocessed that I heard was the sort of food that needs specialised industrial processes and / or ingredients to create - something you couldn't really prepare in your kitchen.
- skirmish 2y agoSo, any cheese or wine would be ultraprocessed according to that definition?
- adwi 2y agoNo snark, just a great life tip: - put unpasteurized milk in a saucepan - bring it to slow simmer (~180F) - add a splash of an acid (lemon, white vinegar, etc) and remove from heat - skim and collect the curd that forms on top. This is fresh ricotta and it will make you very happy.
- ufo 2y agoCheese & wine count as processed, but not as ultraprocessed. Kraft singles and other highly processed "cheese" are ultraprocessed. The main rule of thumb is to look at how long the ingredient list is.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoVery fine white flour is pretty easy to make in your kitchen with the right tools and is an ultra-processed food. Coarse ground brown flour is processed, but not ultra-processed.
- ufo 2y agoWhite flour is a processed ingredient, not ultra-processed.
- bryanlarsen 2y agoThat depends on which definition of ultra-processed you use. It's a product highly engineered for palatability. It's also surprisingly modern -- traditional flours are far more coarsely ground.
- firebot 2y agoThere's the NOVA classifications. I'd say the major concerns are refinement, like white bread, white sugar, white rice, most oils are highly chemically processed besides "cold-pressed". On the flip side, foods should ideally be identifiable(look natural), and ideally, according to numerous studies, like on blue zones, where people tend to prioritize fresh fruits and vegetables, prepared 'simply'. The ideal amount of fruits and veggies tends to be around 9-12 servings, daily.
- ilamont 2y agoIt does, and further provides an easy way to remember it: Food that you can't easily make in your kitchen with standard equipment and ingredients.
- fyt2024 2y agoI guess it depends https://m.youtube.com/@ZDFbesseresser https://m.youtube.com/@ZDFbesseresser Best cocking show ever. German but still watchable. You will realize that you must be nuts to eat processed food
- Ferret7446 2y agoDefine "standard equipment and ingredients". Many "standard ingredients" are already (ultra-)processed.
- incomingpain 2y ago>Does this paywalled article even contain a definition of "processed" in this context? Or worse the ultraprocessed level. I dont think the article adequately defines either, but one can see what they are attempting to explain. >I've never understood what that word means in the context of food. I have something in my kitchen called a "food processor". It spins around and chops things with a blade. Is the product of a "food processor" not "processed food"? I think the author is not talking about food processors or doing procedures on food exactly. But rather suggesting the problem is industrialized food. "Soy protein isolate" is not something you're making in your kitchen. Or various other chemistry lab foods are allegedly a problem. >The closest I can figure to the media definition is that it is food that contains a lot of salt. Perhaps also preservatives. So are we really talking about the health effects of salt and preservatives? Preservatives do come into it. But it seems to me the diet folks are really struggling to figure out the correct diet.
- camel-cdr 2y ago> "Soy protein isolate" is not something you're making in your kitchen Is the idea that there is cemical resedue from the processing? Or is it that it's usually used in food that also include unhealty ingrediants?
- AstralStorm 2y agoThe main issues are dilution or outright removal of actual other nutritional components and usually yes, also the coexistence of other "adulterating" components, added for other reasons, usually colorants, preservatives and stabilizers. Ultraprocessed foods tend to either fall into junk food or preserves as categories. And no, adding a few vitamins doesn't restore the most of nutritional value. Especially when the removed things are fiber (for density) and essential oils (to prevent rancidity and extend shelf life). Sometimes even the absorption rate can change things - easier to overload on protein for example with micronized isolates than with slices of tofu, as they absorb so much better. Is also why it's easier to mess yourself up with sucrose (sugar) than with whole fruit, or with the purified juices.
- 2y ago
- grvdrm 2y agoI determine the difference with this simple model: 1. It's processed if the list of ingredients spans a sizable portion of the package or label. 2. It's less (or not) processed if the list of ingredients is quite small. The line between 1 and 2 is totally subjective, of course. One example comes to mind: peanut butter, something my kids devour. Lots of peanut butter jars have extra things: salt, random oils (for spreading), etc. But, can peanut butter just be just peanuts? Yep, if you spend some extra time looking. Another example is an RxBar (less processed, few ingredients) vs. any standard granola (very processed, lots of ingredients) bar. And of course, so much stuff for kids is processed and worse.
- _dark_matter_ 2y agoI enjoyed this article, and it mostly confirms my mental model: the worst part about processed foods is how easy and enjoyable they are to eat. Avoiding them may have ancillary benefits for health (like fiber or vitamin intake), but mostly it's about being satiated and not overconsuming.
- ianand 2y agoThis has been my mental model as well. I often use two analogies to describe this. The processed a food is the more likely you’re eating a “Product”, i.e. something that’s been designed to consumed and enjoyed. I don’t say that as a necessarily bad thing. We’ve making foods more enjoyable for the history of civilization (broccoli was bred by humans from a wild cabbage) but industrialization has given us an ability to create new things faster than our biology can adapt. The other analogy is to think of UPF, especially nominally nutritious ones like protein bars, as the nutritional equivalent of power tools. They can be really powerful for dialing in your macros or taste desires. But must be used carefully and are potentially dangerous if untrained.
- jcutrell 2y agoIn other words it's not necessarily about some scary sleuth carcinogen or some oil that's gonna wipe out your cardiac health... it's about calories and the body's response to too many of them, and the ancillary "ratio" of calories to nutrition being too high.
- sanitycheck 2y agoYeah, pretty much my thoughts too. There needs to be some good (not 20 people for 2 weeks) studies which compare the effects of "ultraprocessed food" vs "really tasty food", keeping total kcals constantly high. My guess is that a high proportion of the negative effects come from an excess of salt, sugar and fat (and too many calories in general) - which is precisely how they get the food tasting so nice in fancy restaurants. I'm also sure there definitely are chemicals we're consuming in UPFs which are bad for us, but a lot of them are probably fine. Lumping everything together so it's possible for people to get the idea that an organic yogurt is somehow just as bad as a tube of Pringles seems counterproductive.
- 2y ago
- hackernoteng 2y ago[flagged]
- chelmzy 2y agohttps://archive.is/GAL1c https://archive.is/GAL1c
- 123sereusername 2y ago[dead]
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- conqrr 2y agoBest analogy for me is juice vs fruit. Its easy to gulp down 2 glasses of Orange juice, but cannot eat 8 oranges. Unprocessed food usually is more wholesome and makes you feel satiated.
- NickC25 2y agoThis. And honestly, I feel satisfied after a single orange's worth of OJ from my juice press, which is about half a standard cup. Sometimes a bit more, sometimes less. But it's all I need, and it tastes absolutely delicious. I grew up drinking OJ from concentrate, and when I was a kid I didn't like the natural stuff. Now it's all I'll ever drink, fuck buying premade juice from the store. Fresh juice is so good. Yes, it's a bit pricier (I pay $1.99/pound for organic valencias at Whole Foods), and yes, it is more time consuming (gotta assemble the machine, juice, clean the machine, take it apart) but the taste and nutritional difference is astounding.
- Workaccount2 2y agoI really think we need to come up with separate words for "Healthy because it isn't very fattening" and "Healthy because it's nutritious and doesn't contain stuff that damages your body" The amount of confusion this generates is enormous, and leads to things like people eating peanut butter to lose weight, or eating synthetic junk because it has low calories. Cookies are unhealthy because they are very fattening. But if you are normal weight, it's not that big of a deal. Sausage is unhealthy because it contains nitrates. Overweight or underweight it's not good to consume.
- smallmancontrov 2y agoThese definitions are surprisingly tricky because there is an adversarial process at play: any slack will be ruthlessly exploited by those looking to pretend that their pizza is healthy because they ground the flour themselves (or whatever).
- jareklupinski 2y ago> pizza is healthy because they ground the flour themselves with the amount of energy you expend grinding the flour, you may just end up with a pizza that has net negative calories
- tmottabr 2y agoyou know electric motors as a thing nowadays right? grounding you own flour is as complex as flicking a switch and letting the machine do the work for you.
- jareklupinski 2y ago> flicking a switch and letting the machine do the work for you nah that's not how you get the "human factor" into the dough you have to roll up your sleeves and put the work in using your own motors, otherwise it's just "store-bought"
- marssaxman 2y ago
- ilamont 2y agoNot too great, coming from the NYT. The angle is "Ultraprocessed Foods" are bad but skirts around the issue that some are not bad, such as multigrain bread and plant milks. Further, Ultraprocessed Foods tend to be very inexpensive from a cost and time perspective. The proposed solutions - cooking everything from scratch, cutting out processed pasta, going down to buy fresh bread from a bakery "if you can afford it" - are unworkable for millions of people living paycheck to paycheck. Maybe it would have been better to frame this as junk food/high calorie/high sugar/high sodium/high carb/high saturated fats are the main problem from a public health perspective. And that's already widely known.
- ufo 2y agoUltraprocessed bread has more fat & sugar than regular bread, for improved shelf life.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- fyt2024 2y agoRelated to obesity Are plastics killing us? https://senecaeffect.substack.com/p/are-plastics-killing-us https://senecaeffect.substack.com/p/are-plastics-killing-us I think very highly of ugo bardi
- robomartin 2y agoRelevant: Eating for Two: Nourishing Yourself and Your Gut Microbiome https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l4ofIBJ0GQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8l4ofIBJ0GQ
- NickC25 2y agoI started a small beverage company focused on the athletic market in my local area. The main drawback to my product is that it's not shelf-life stable - it's only good for a few days (weeks if kept frozen). Some love my stuff and swear by it. However, one of my big issues when talking to investors, even health-obsessed ones is "well, Pepsi makes stuff that lasts years on the shelf, so why can't you?" or "I'm not even considering this as a product until I can buy it in bulk at CostCo". They don't understand that there's literally no comparison when you're comparing: 1. A product made in a lab with almost zero natural ingredients, and designed to last years on the shelf without refrigeration and be shipped all over the world. and 2. A product made in a local professional kitchen, with natural ingredients, designed to be consumed quickly by a very specific demographic of people. It's maddening, even though my sales are pretty damn good. Some people just have this mentality that "if it doesn't last long, and I can't buy it in bulk, it's not good". Because our entire food industry has been co-opted by profit-first corporations (who work from a profitability standpoint versus a health standpoint), nobody seems to want to understand that stuff that lasts long and can be kept in heat without going bad is probably not healthy.
- tmaly 2y agoWhat marketing channels are you using to get the word out?
- NickC25 2y agoThe only marketing I really do is occasionally do table days and I also hand out drinks every now and then to trainers, front desk staff, and management. I retained a marketing firm last week to help me grow my marketing as I improve my production capacity. But my first year of sales were all word-of-mouth at a high-end gym chain (where I'm also a member, and was a member for nearly 5 years prior to starting the business). In such environments where people aren't usually swayed by traditional marketing efforts, monkey-see-monkey-do is usually the way products take hold. If the regular attendees see people whose bodies they want to emulate consuming my products, they tend to try them and often turn into repeat customers. That said if you have any thoughts, questions, comments, experience, etc - I'm all ears.
- lkuty 2y agoSurprised not seeing a reference to the book "Ultra-Processed People: The Science Behind Food That Isn't Food" by "Chris van Tulleken". The article looks like it comes straight from the book.
- jacknews 2y agoI get a sense this whole "ultra-processed foods" meme is a giant distraction from some actual culprit. No doubt it's unhealthy to eat an unbalanced diet represented by UPFs, with lots of carbs, fat, sugar and additives, etc, but I think there are likely some specific ingredients that differentiate between a simple unbalanced diet, and a UPF diet. Sugar was a perfectly fine ingredient until fairly recently, and I suspect vegetable oil, perhaps some specific oils, might be the next revelation.