8 ms·

Does veganism have an ultra-processing problem?

52 points by belter 2y ago

thyristan 2y ago
We do mostly have a problem with ultra-unspecific, ultra-unsubstantiated, ultra-agenda-driven and ultra-useless nutritional advice. The lacking proper definition of ultra-processed foods is just one part of it. How much is "much"? How often is "occasionally"? What is the confidence level and effect size of that advice? What are the alternatives?
- apwell23 2y ago
  Everytime there is a post about upf, there is always someone trying some pedantic " but what exactly is processing" Article acknowleges the issue with definition and there a section titled 'Identifying ultra-processed foods'. Why not just run with it .
  - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
    The definition given there is pretty useless, imo: > In the Nova system, a food product is considered ultra-processed if at least one of its ingredients is a substance that home cooks generally don't use (such as high-fructose corn syrup or hydrolysed protein), or is an additive designed to increase the product's appeal (such as a thickener or emulsifier). Whether or not home cooks use an ingredient has little to do with the health of that ingredient. And, at least from the abstract of the linked article, the additional details don’t inspire confidence that this is a meaningful category. “Processed foods” is yet another example of the trend of giving something vague a name, attaching an emotional valence to the name and then using that anti-scientific emotional valence to influence public policy. (See also the politics of nuclear power)
    - at_compile_time 2y ago
      The scientific thing to do would be to only use novel food additives when they have been proven to be safe, when they've been tested for toxicity, effects on the microbiome and the digestive tract specifically.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
        Many of the additives people complain about aren’t particularly novel.
  - lotsofpulp 2y ago
    > Why not just run with it . Because it is a waste of time at best, and disinformation at worst.
  - thyristan 2y ago
    Because the definition given is useless. Additives I wouldn't use as a home-cook, thickener or emulsifier make it ultra-processed. So anything with a thickener or emulsifier is ultra-processed? So now my potato-soup is ultra-processed because potato-starch acts as both (same with any kind of beans/lentils/starchy things)? What about that sauce where I intentionally add starch or flour? That pasta, where the cooking water emulsifies the sauce? That mayonaise where mustard and egg yolk act as an emulsifier? Risotto, where the rice starch thickens? What about roux? Reductions? Blood? Thickening with paprika powder? By definition practically everything home-cooked is also ultra-processed. Anything containing any kind of starch is ultra-processed. This is either a completely useless definition, or the actual message is "don't cook food, ever".
    - pastage 2y ago
      You do list things that are not that good. As someone pointed out when you limit yourself to one thing it is usually not good. Potato starch is great but not if you only use that, and there is a problem of eating processed potatoes instead of unpeeled. More greens and more fibers is a good thing, but also takes more work to cook well. The definition is not useless if you just use it as one part of understanding your ingredients, not the only way.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - formerly_proven 2y ago
    The UN FAO definition cited above still at the very least sounds like a slightly dressed up version of "industrialized food production bad" (nevermind that it is responsible for all of the wins against malnutrition in the world). "a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology" - like literally any industry? "fractioning of whole foods into substances" - like milling flour or extracting corn or potato starch from said plants? "assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion" - like extruding pasta? "use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable" adding stuff to make taste more godder describes literally any kind of food preparation? "sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials"? Hello, are you describing oreos or dried pasta from 1950 here?
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Such a dogshit definition makes it impossible to target any specific chemical or process. With that definition and a meal, I can't tell you whether that meal is "ultra-processed" or not. Just tell me the processes, and show me the studies on them. If there aren't studies on them, do studies on them. But talking about "processed" foods actually seems to use generalization as a smokescreen that somehow still allows deceptive labeling, an enormous number of chemicals, and no specific criticism of the industry. Food preservation is important, Fortifying foods with vitamins can be awesome. It's good when foods are cheap, food "preparation" and food "processing" are the exact same thing in English. There's always going to be processing. Finding out which processes can cause disease or ill-health is reasonably straightforward, if you want to do it rather than throw around political and marketing rhetoric. 72% less processed!
- polmos 2y ago
  I’ve long advocated for nutrition labels to include what I call “antinutrition” information. Things like high oxalate content that, without hydration, can put you at risk of kidney stones. As a ~vegan I once contracted gout! What that taught me (via internet knowledge shares, the doctors were completely stumped) was an excess of nutritional yeast. The daily recommended amount was 3-4 tablespoons per day. I was easily eating 15. Apparently nutritional yeast has a thing called purines, also found in red meat, and is a cause for gout. Cut it down to normal consumption levels, and the problem went away. https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/drvs/index.htm https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/drvs/index.htm Some of the entries in this public nutrition database have daily maximum values. That information needs to be more readily available.
  - namaria 2y ago
    Apart from ethical or environmental concerns, one of the best decisions you can make nutrition wise is to vary your intake a lot and one of the worst is to try and subsist on a limited range of foodstuffs.
    - polmos 2y ago
      The paradox is that by restricting my diet, with an ethically, morally, environmentally and health conscious move to ~veganism, it expanded the variety of food I eat. When you are unable to rely on old faithfuls, especially meat and dairy, you have to explore other possibilities and really dip into the weird.
      - namaria 2y ago
        I have zero intention to comment on vegetarianism or veganism with this observation, I am solely talking about seeking variation in whatever dietary spectrum you may choose to follow...
        polmosalt 2y ago
        I absolutely agree. One quick and easy trick is to eat “colorful food”. Eating a meal that has lots of different colors increases your odds of getting a broader variety of nutritional content.
- tzs 2y ago
  The article links to a definition of ultra-processed foods.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Real world phenomena can never be cut by clean lines. This isn't math definitions. That said, there are fairly comprehensive definitions of these things. The UN's FAO defines ultra processed food as: > Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials. Ingredients include sugar, oils or fats, or salt, generally in combination, and substances that are sources of energy and nutrients that are of no or rare culinary use such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and protein isolates; classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents; and additives that prolong product duration, protect original properties or prevent proliferation of microorganisms. This definition makes most sense when compared with the definitions of the other three categories [1]. I am pretty sure, that any two people trained on these definitions will only disagree less than 5% of the time. [1] https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5277b379-0acb-4d97-a6a3-602774104629/content https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/527...
  - treflop 2y ago
    You’re missing the point. It’s not defining what constitutes ultra processed — it’s that no one really knows if it’s bad for you. Because when you study people who eat a certain thing, they also all tend to eat another thing. I religiously read nutrition labels and a lot of vegan ultra-processed foods are not particularly healthy, but not necessarily because they are ultra processed but because they mimic non-vegan foods which themselves are unhealthy. Even if you cook all your meals, it doesn’t mean that you are eating healthy because it still depends on your ingredients. And as the article hinted to, a lot of people who initially start eating vegan foods tend to buy non-vegan analogues which are not healthy. The better analogues tend to be ultra processed. Are these people at higher risk of certain diseases because they are eating ultra processed foods or because they’ve limited themselves to unhealthy vegan substitutes? Hard to say.
- Aerroon 2y ago
  This study made me question the Ultra Processed Food narrative: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ >Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508 ± 106 kcal/day; p = 0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280 ± 54 kcal/day; p < 0.0001) and fat (230 ± 53 kcal/day; p = 0.0004), but not protein (-2 ± 12 kcal/day; p = 0.85). >Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001), with participants gaining 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.009) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.007) during the unprocessed diet. Maybe the issue isn't the 'ultra processing' but protein amount? Less protein = people eat more = weight gain = health issues.
  - loeg 2y ago
    At the end of the day, it's CICO. But why do people eat more calories than replacement? I think it's pretty obvious some of the blame is hyperpalatability, which overlaps greatly with the category people call ultra-processed. The issue is that it tastes good, though, not how many times it has been transmuted.
polmos 2y ago
This is carnivore cope. Ultra processed food eaters have an ultra processed food problem. I eat a ~vegan diet. (~vegan meaning someone a vegan would refuse to call a vegan, but that anyone else would call a vegan, ie. I eat honey) I cook all of my food, and it’s all fresh produce, spices, evoo, quinoa, and oats.
- apwell23 2y ago
  > I cook all of my food, and it’s all fresh produce, spices, evoo, quinoa, and oats. Are you on low protein diet ?
  - polmos 2y ago
    I eat in excess of the daily recommended protein amount for my age, body weight, and activity level because I weight train. My protein comes from beans, quinoa, oats, vegetables, and nutritional yeast.
    - apwell23 2y ago
      i used https://www.calculator.net/protein-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/protein-calculator.html and it gave me ~ 120gm average for my bodyweight and activity level ( with a cdc high of 202gm). I dont' weight train. quinoa - 8g/cup , 8 gm beans - That is equal to approximately ½ cup per day. Thats about 20g protein oats - 6 gm protien So thats about 44g/day. Are you eating like ~ 3 cups of beans/day ( ~120gm )? That would be around 350gm of carbs which sounds really excessive to me. All the things in your diet are listed as "examples of not complete proteins" on that page. not quite sure what that means.
      - xnx 2y ago
        I can't speak for them, but adding a scoop or two of pea or brown rice protein makes it very easy to achieve any target amount of daily protein while getting a good amino ratio.
        2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
IWeldMelons 2y ago
News flash - vegans and vegetarians do not need "meat substitutes", as we do not crave meat. Difference between 33% (non-vegetarian) and %39 (vegan)percent of "UPF" is trivial, and probably won't matter and will be offset by lack of carcinogens prevalent in fried meat etc.
- stonethrowaway 2y ago
  [flagged]
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  Doesn't frying anything, including vegetables, create carcinogens? Besides, plenty of meat eating cultures that rarely fry meat.
  - IWeldMelons 2y ago
    Frying meat creates more carcinogens AFAIK; my point was not that though, I was arguing that ultraprocessed herbal food is not same processed meat food, almost certainly less harmful, as it does not require as much nitrites etc.
- michael9423 2y ago
  I don't think you can speak for all vegans and vegetarians. I was vegetarian for a couple years until meat cravings became so strong I started eating meat again. 84% of vegans and vegetarians return to meat: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-to-meat-why https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/201... Many because they crave it. Several vegan influencers have been caught eating meat and fish secretly. Conversely the same - some carnivore influencers have been caught eating fruit and other plant products. Only 2% of US-Americans are truly vegan or vegetarian (and even those tend to cheat here and there).
  - collingreen 2y ago
    I don't love the word cheat when applied to veganism since it isn't a diet like vegetarianism.
stevebmark 2y ago
The only relevant study linked in the article is https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00115-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... > Plant-sourced UPF contribution showed a positive association [with CVD risk] The study is using an existing dataset on food recall. That doesn't necessarily the results are correct or incorrect, but it's lower on the pyramid of science quality. There is nothing else of substance in this BBC article.
- bsdz 2y ago
  I put the article through an SEO external link extractor and I saw many more external links to various studies from various organisations. Why are the other studies irrelevant?
  - pessimizer 2y ago
    Are you going to be specific, or make the person you're replying to do all of the work? They told you what they thought was relevant. If you've reviewed one of the others and found it relevant, say which and why, and ask why they disagree.
    - bsdz 2y ago
      The person I replied to had apparently already done that work. That's why I asked the question. I haven't made any judgements on which studies were relevant / irrelevant.
loeg 2y ago
Ultra-processing is still not a real thing. There's no consistent definition, there's no good scale of what is more or less "processed" despite the name implying some degree of severity. The actual definition is circular -- "if you already think it's unhealthy, it's ultra-processed." I'm all for dunking on the vegan lifestyle, but not through pseudoscience.
- reliablereason 2y ago
  There is the NOVA system used to classify food where category 4 is ultra processed food: Monteiro, C., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Louzada, M. L., & Machado, P. (2019). FAO. Ultra- processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. But to add to that.. ultra processing is not the issue in itself (well not if you use the definition as described in the NOVA system), the issue is certain steps or ingredients used in certain types of ultra processed foods. So blaming "ultra processing" is technically an over generalisation.
xnx 2y ago
"ultra-processed" is a non-specific scare term for more specific descriptors, most specifically "low fiber". Foods with their fiber removed are consumed faster, keep you feeling full for less time (low satiety), and spike blood sugar more rapidly (higher glycemic index). Seitan (gluten) is a useful source of concentrated protein for those eating a plant-based diet.
GrantMoyer 2y ago
Note that the Nova definition of "ultra-processed foods" includes foods such as tofu and many unsweetened soymilks, along with foods like potato chips and Oreos. So the article discusses multiple studies which find increased consumption plant origin ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of disease and mortality. Seperately, another study found vegetarians and vegans eat a higher proportion of ultra-processed foods than the general population. Does the subset of ultra-processed foods of which vegetarians and vegans eat more significantly overlap with the subset which increases risk of disease and death? We don't know; that's not in the data and the article doesn't discuss any articles linking vegetarian and vegan diets to higher risk of disease and death. What if vegetarians and vegans eat a ton more tofu and soymilk but less potato chips and Oreos? The article sort of adresses this, but not very directly. Also, vegetarian and vegan diets are more of a footnote in the article; it's more about ultra-proccessed foods in typical diets. And the actual article title better reflects the focus, so I wonder why the post changed it so significantly.
- abdullahkhalids 2y ago
  In the supplementary information of the study, there is a Table that breaks down the 22 food groups [1]. You can look at it yourself, but below are the consumptions for the "unhealthy" categories. Seems like Vegans eat more salty snacks and less sweet/fatty food. | | Meat-Eaters | Vegetarians | Vegans | |----------------------------------|---------------|---------------|--------------| | Salty snacks and crackers (g/d) | 3.69 ± 0.06 | 5.28 ± 0.34 | 10.50 ± 0.48 | | Sweet and fatty foods 6 (g/d) | 125.00 ± 0.52 | 122.00 ± 2.86 | 73.90 ± 4.00 | | Sugary drinks (mL/d) | 23.40 ± 0.48 | 27.10 ± 2.65 | 22.40 ± 3.71 | | Sugar-free drinks (x103 mL/d) | 1.08 ± 4.16 | 1.14 ± 22.70 | 1.05 ± 31.70 | [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622000037#ec1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231662...
  - GrantMoyer 2y ago
    Sure, and the study even finds vegetarian and vegan diets have a higher proportion of "healthy" foods overall. But as far as I've found, neither that study nor the other linked articles investigate which of these specific groups of foods are linked to increased risk of disease and death (regardless of how obvious it may seem for some of the groups), only ultra-processed foods in general, which is a very broad category.
cat_plus_plus 2y ago
You will have to pry my pressure cooker out of my cold, dead hands. "Processing" - it's another word for "cooking". Also I love technological progress.
- ASalazarMX 2y ago
  But processed and ultra-processed are different categories of food. Cooking, dehydrating, pickling, milling, crushing, etc. is usually healthy; decomposing foods into simple, commodity ingredients, and then recombining those into new products, maybe not so.
mensetmanusman 2y ago
Processing damages long chain molecules, ie molecular weight decreases. Whether we evolved to handle this well is under study, but these studies usually have too many confounding variables to make a conclusion.
AStonesThrow 2y ago
Everyone knows these lists of produce that enumerate the vitamins and minerals they contain, and other beneficial micronutrients, and so dietary recommendations often say, "try adding X to your diet, because it's high in Ps and Qs!" But I've become aware of issues like impoverished soil and the concept of terroir. Many crops are grown outside of their natural habitat, and who knows what's gone on with their soil, water, fertilizer, and general environment. So I would say that whenever these plants were tested for levels of micronutrients, I am dubious that those assessments hold true throughout space and time, especially for minerals that would necessarily be absorbed, rather than vitamins manufactured through biological processes within the organism itself. So I guess it's not wrong to fortify and process, if you're going to add something back in that should've been there already.
3np 2y ago
Unnecessarily editorialized and misrepresentative title. Original: "What explains increasing anxiety about ultra-processed plant-based foods?" TFA does not mention "veganism" even once.
- JadeNB 2y ago
  > TFA does not mention "veganism" even once. Though you're right about the headline, I don't think that your claim is true. Here's the first sentence (or maybe it's the caption of the first picture, or maybe it's the subhed? I can't tell): > Vegan diets can contain more UPFs on average – but this might not be a problem.
aniken 2y ago
no, processed food has a processing problem
senectus1 2y ago
I used to know a Vegan couple that were friends (Falling out over humor of all things) we used to go out to a vegan resteraunt quite often and thoroughly enjoyed the meals. but wow, outside of those meals they both ate terribly. highly processed and deep fried foods was the norm. they rarely ate anything "fresh".
llamajams 2y ago
Style nit: This is a badly written article; it about to a series of inconclusive quoted from experts duct taped together. General observation: Discussions about not eating meat in popular and social media seem to forget that 2/3rds other world don't exist. India, te most populous nation consists of 30~40% vegetarians and the rest have a very low animal protein diet compared to western standards. This is the same for much of east and south asia. The diet is heavily plant based, is healthy, nutritious and delicious, and does not contain much processed ingredients. It has been this way for hundreds if not thousands of years. Animal farming culture is very different and less industrialized. Many countries don't have a dairy industry to speak of even though dairy products are consumed. Whether you're a non meatertarien on nutritional or ethical grounds, the east seems to have an answer for you. So you can stop eating meat...or you know eat less of it and still have a good time. I'm not sure why we in the west keep talking as if it's not possible without having some conglomerate reinvent meat for the 11th time.

52 points by belter 2y ago

We do mostly have a problem with ultra-unspecific, ultra-unsubstantiated, ultra-agenda-driven and ultra-useless nutritional advice. The lacking proper definition of ultra-processed foods is just one part of it. How much is "much"? How often is "occasionally"? What is the confidence level and effect size of that advice? What are the alternatives?

apwell23 2y ago
Everytime there is a post about upf, there is always someone trying some pedantic " but what exactly is processing" Article acknowleges the issue with definition and there a section titled 'Identifying ultra-processed foods'. Why not just run with it .
- fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
  The definition given there is pretty useless, imo: > In the Nova system, a food product is considered ultra-processed if at least one of its ingredients is a substance that home cooks generally don't use (such as high-fructose corn syrup or hydrolysed protein), or is an additive designed to increase the product's appeal (such as a thickener or emulsifier). Whether or not home cooks use an ingredient has little to do with the health of that ingredient. And, at least from the abstract of the linked article, the additional details don’t inspire confidence that this is a meaningful category. “Processed foods” is yet another example of the trend of giving something vague a name, attaching an emotional valence to the name and then using that anti-scientific emotional valence to influence public policy. (See also the politics of nuclear power)
  - at_compile_time 2y ago
    The scientific thing to do would be to only use novel food additives when they have been proven to be safe, when they've been tested for toxicity, effects on the microbiome and the digestive tract specifically.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 2y ago
      Many of the additives people complain about aren’t particularly novel.
- lotsofpulp 2y ago
  > Why not just run with it . Because it is a waste of time at best, and disinformation at worst.
- thyristan 2y ago
  Because the definition given is useless. Additives I wouldn't use as a home-cook, thickener or emulsifier make it ultra-processed. So anything with a thickener or emulsifier is ultra-processed? So now my potato-soup is ultra-processed because potato-starch acts as both (same with any kind of beans/lentils/starchy things)? What about that sauce where I intentionally add starch or flour? That pasta, where the cooking water emulsifies the sauce? That mayonaise where mustard and egg yolk act as an emulsifier? Risotto, where the rice starch thickens? What about roux? Reductions? Blood? Thickening with paprika powder? By definition practically everything home-cooked is also ultra-processed. Anything containing any kind of starch is ultra-processed. This is either a completely useless definition, or the actual message is "don't cook food, ever".
  - pastage 2y ago
    You do list things that are not that good. As someone pointed out when you limit yourself to one thing it is usually not good. Potato starch is great but not if you only use that, and there is a problem of eating processed potatoes instead of unpeeled. More greens and more fibers is a good thing, but also takes more work to cook well. The definition is not useless if you just use it as one part of understanding your ingredients, not the only way.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- formerly_proven 2y ago
  The UN FAO definition cited above still at the very least sounds like a slightly dressed up version of "industrialized food production bad" (nevermind that it is responsible for all of the wins against malnutrition in the world). "a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology" - like literally any industry? "fractioning of whole foods into substances" - like milling flour or extracting corn or potato starch from said plants? "assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion" - like extruding pasta? "use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable" adding stuff to make taste more godder describes literally any kind of food preparation? "sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials"? Hello, are you describing oreos or dried pasta from 1950 here?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Such a dogshit definition makes it impossible to target any specific chemical or process. With that definition and a meal, I can't tell you whether that meal is "ultra-processed" or not. Just tell me the processes, and show me the studies on them. If there aren't studies on them, do studies on them. But talking about "processed" foods actually seems to use generalization as a smokescreen that somehow still allows deceptive labeling, an enormous number of chemicals, and no specific criticism of the industry. Food preservation is important, Fortifying foods with vitamins can be awesome. It's good when foods are cheap, food "preparation" and food "processing" are the exact same thing in English. There's always going to be processing. Finding out which processes can cause disease or ill-health is reasonably straightforward, if you want to do it rather than throw around political and marketing rhetoric. 72% less processed!
polmos 2y ago
I’ve long advocated for nutrition labels to include what I call “antinutrition” information. Things like high oxalate content that, without hydration, can put you at risk of kidney stones. As a ~vegan I once contracted gout! What that taught me (via internet knowledge shares, the doctors were completely stumped) was an excess of nutritional yeast. The daily recommended amount was 3-4 tablespoons per day. I was easily eating 15. Apparently nutritional yeast has a thing called purines, also found in red meat, and is a cause for gout. Cut it down to normal consumption levels, and the problem went away. https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/drvs/index.htm https://multimedia.efsa.europa.eu/drvs/index.htm Some of the entries in this public nutrition database have daily maximum values. That information needs to be more readily available.
- namaria 2y ago
  Apart from ethical or environmental concerns, one of the best decisions you can make nutrition wise is to vary your intake a lot and one of the worst is to try and subsist on a limited range of foodstuffs.
  - polmos 2y ago
    The paradox is that by restricting my diet, with an ethically, morally, environmentally and health conscious move to ~veganism, it expanded the variety of food I eat. When you are unable to rely on old faithfuls, especially meat and dairy, you have to explore other possibilities and really dip into the weird.
    - namaria 2y ago
      I have zero intention to comment on vegetarianism or veganism with this observation, I am solely talking about seeking variation in whatever dietary spectrum you may choose to follow...
      - polmosalt 2y ago
        I absolutely agree. One quick and easy trick is to eat “colorful food”. Eating a meal that has lots of different colors increases your odds of getting a broader variety of nutritional content.
tzs 2y ago
The article links to a definition of ultra-processed foods.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Real world phenomena can never be cut by clean lines. This isn't math definitions. That said, there are fairly comprehensive definitions of these things. The UN's FAO defines ultra processed food as: > Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials. Ingredients include sugar, oils or fats, or salt, generally in combination, and substances that are sources of energy and nutrients that are of no or rare culinary use such as high fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated or interesterified oils, and protein isolates; classes of additives whose function is to make the final product palatable or more appealing such as flavours, flavour enhancers, colours, emulsifiers, and sweeteners, thickeners, and anti-foaming, bulking, carbonating, foaming, gelling, and glazing agents; and additives that prolong product duration, protect original properties or prevent proliferation of microorganisms. This definition makes most sense when compared with the definitions of the other three categories [1]. I am pretty sure, that any two people trained on these definitions will only disagree less than 5% of the time. [1] https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/5277b379-0acb-4d97-a6a3-602774104629/content https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/527...
- treflop 2y ago
  You’re missing the point. It’s not defining what constitutes ultra processed — it’s that no one really knows if it’s bad for you. Because when you study people who eat a certain thing, they also all tend to eat another thing. I religiously read nutrition labels and a lot of vegan ultra-processed foods are not particularly healthy, but not necessarily because they are ultra processed but because they mimic non-vegan foods which themselves are unhealthy. Even if you cook all your meals, it doesn’t mean that you are eating healthy because it still depends on your ingredients. And as the article hinted to, a lot of people who initially start eating vegan foods tend to buy non-vegan analogues which are not healthy. The better analogues tend to be ultra processed. Are these people at higher risk of certain diseases because they are eating ultra processed foods or because they’ve limited themselves to unhealthy vegan substitutes? Hard to say.
Aerroon 2y ago
This study made me question the Ultra Processed Food narrative: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31105044/ >Subjects were instructed to consume as much or as little as desired. Energy intake was greater during the ultra-processed diet (508 ± 106 kcal/day; p = 0.0001), with increased consumption of carbohydrate (280 ± 54 kcal/day; p < 0.0001) and fat (230 ± 53 kcal/day; p = 0.0004), but not protein (-2 ± 12 kcal/day; p = 0.85). >Weight changes were highly correlated with energy intake (r = 0.8, p < 0.0001), with participants gaining 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.009) during the ultra-processed diet and losing 0.9 ± 0.3 kg (p = 0.007) during the unprocessed diet. Maybe the issue isn't the 'ultra processing' but protein amount? Less protein = people eat more = weight gain = health issues.
- loeg 2y ago
  At the end of the day, it's CICO. But why do people eat more calories than replacement? I think it's pretty obvious some of the blame is hyperpalatability, which overlaps greatly with the category people call ultra-processed. The issue is that it tastes good, though, not how many times it has been transmuted.

polmos 2y ago

This is carnivore cope. Ultra processed food eaters have an ultra processed food problem. I eat a ~vegan diet. (~vegan meaning someone a vegan would refuse to call a vegan, but that anyone else would call a vegan, ie. I eat honey) I cook all of my food, and it’s all fresh produce, spices, evoo, quinoa, and oats.

apwell23 2y ago
> I cook all of my food, and it’s all fresh produce, spices, evoo, quinoa, and oats. Are you on low protein diet ?
- polmos 2y ago
  I eat in excess of the daily recommended protein amount for my age, body weight, and activity level because I weight train. My protein comes from beans, quinoa, oats, vegetables, and nutritional yeast.
  - apwell23 2y ago
    i used https://www.calculator.net/protein-calculator.html https://www.calculator.net/protein-calculator.html and it gave me ~ 120gm average for my bodyweight and activity level ( with a cdc high of 202gm). I dont' weight train. quinoa - 8g/cup , 8 gm beans - That is equal to approximately ½ cup per day. Thats about 20g protein oats - 6 gm protien So thats about 44g/day. Are you eating like ~ 3 cups of beans/day ( ~120gm )? That would be around 350gm of carbs which sounds really excessive to me. All the things in your diet are listed as "examples of not complete proteins" on that page. not quite sure what that means.
    - xnx 2y ago
      I can't speak for them, but adding a scoop or two of pea or brown rice protein makes it very easy to achieve any target amount of daily protein while getting a good amino ratio.
      - 2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

IWeldMelons 2y ago

News flash - vegans and vegetarians do not need "meat substitutes", as we do not crave meat. Difference between 33% (non-vegetarian) and %39 (vegan)percent of "UPF" is trivial, and probably won't matter and will be offset by lack of carcinogens prevalent in fried meat etc.

stonethrowaway 2y ago
[flagged]
abdullahkhalids 2y ago
Doesn't frying anything, including vegetables, create carcinogens? Besides, plenty of meat eating cultures that rarely fry meat.
- IWeldMelons 2y ago
  Frying meat creates more carcinogens AFAIK; my point was not that though, I was arguing that ultraprocessed herbal food is not same processed meat food, almost certainly less harmful, as it does not require as much nitrites etc.
michael9423 2y ago
I don't think you can speak for all vegans and vegetarians. I was vegetarian for a couple years until meat cravings became so strong I started eating meat again. 84% of vegans and vegetarians return to meat: https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/201412/84-of-vegetarians-and-vegans-return-to-meat-why https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/animals-and-us/201... Many because they crave it. Several vegan influencers have been caught eating meat and fish secretly. Conversely the same - some carnivore influencers have been caught eating fruit and other plant products. Only 2% of US-Americans are truly vegan or vegetarian (and even those tend to cheat here and there).
- collingreen 2y ago
  I don't love the word cheat when applied to veganism since it isn't a diet like vegetarianism.

stevebmark 2y ago

The only relevant study linked in the article is https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7762(24)00115-7/fulltext https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7... > Plant-sourced UPF contribution showed a positive association [with CVD risk] The study is using an existing dataset on food recall. That doesn't necessarily the results are correct or incorrect, but it's lower on the pyramid of science quality. There is nothing else of substance in this BBC article.

bsdz 2y ago
I put the article through an SEO external link extractor and I saw many more external links to various studies from various organisations. Why are the other studies irrelevant?
- pessimizer 2y ago
  Are you going to be specific, or make the person you're replying to do all of the work? They told you what they thought was relevant. If you've reviewed one of the others and found it relevant, say which and why, and ask why they disagree.
  - bsdz 2y ago
    The person I replied to had apparently already done that work. That's why I asked the question. I haven't made any judgements on which studies were relevant / irrelevant.

loeg 2y ago

Ultra-processing is still not a real thing. There's no consistent definition, there's no good scale of what is more or less "processed" despite the name implying some degree of severity. The actual definition is circular -- "if you already think it's unhealthy, it's ultra-processed." I'm all for dunking on the vegan lifestyle, but not through pseudoscience.

reliablereason 2y ago
There is the NOVA system used to classify food where category 4 is ultra processed food: Monteiro, C., Cannon, G., Lawrence, M., Louzada, M. L., & Machado, P. (2019). FAO. Ultra- processed foods, diet quality, and health using the NOVA classification system. But to add to that.. ultra processing is not the issue in itself (well not if you use the definition as described in the NOVA system), the issue is certain steps or ingredients used in certain types of ultra processed foods. So blaming "ultra processing" is technically an over generalisation.

xnx 2y ago

"ultra-processed" is a non-specific scare term for more specific descriptors, most specifically "low fiber". Foods with their fiber removed are consumed faster, keep you feeling full for less time (low satiety), and spike blood sugar more rapidly (higher glycemic index). Seitan (gluten) is a useful source of concentrated protein for those eating a plant-based diet.

GrantMoyer 2y ago

Note that the Nova definition of "ultra-processed foods" includes foods such as tofu and many unsweetened soymilks, along with foods like potato chips and Oreos. So the article discusses multiple studies which find increased consumption plant origin ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of disease and mortality. Seperately, another study found vegetarians and vegans eat a higher proportion of ultra-processed foods than the general population. Does the subset of ultra-processed foods of which vegetarians and vegans eat more significantly overlap with the subset which increases risk of disease and death? We don't know; that's not in the data and the article doesn't discuss any articles linking vegetarian and vegan diets to higher risk of disease and death. What if vegetarians and vegans eat a ton more tofu and soymilk but less potato chips and Oreos? The article sort of adresses this, but not very directly. Also, vegetarian and vegan diets are more of a footnote in the article; it's more about ultra-proccessed foods in typical diets. And the actual article title better reflects the focus, so I wonder why the post changed it so significantly.

abdullahkhalids 2y ago
In the supplementary information of the study, there is a Table that breaks down the 22 food groups [1]. You can look at it yourself, but below are the consumptions for the "unhealthy" categories. Seems like Vegans eat more salty snacks and less sweet/fatty food. | | Meat-Eaters | Vegetarians | Vegans | |----------------------------------|---------------|---------------|--------------| | Salty snacks and crackers (g/d) | 3.69 ± 0.06 | 5.28 ± 0.34 | 10.50 ± 0.48 | | Sweet and fatty foods 6 (g/d) | 125.00 ± 0.52 | 122.00 ± 2.86 | 73.90 ± 4.00 | | Sugary drinks (mL/d) | 23.40 ± 0.48 | 27.10 ± 2.65 | 22.40 ± 3.71 | | Sugar-free drinks (x103 mL/d) | 1.08 ± 4.16 | 1.14 ± 22.70 | 1.05 ± 31.70 | [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022316622000037#ec1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002231662...
- GrantMoyer 2y ago
  Sure, and the study even finds vegetarian and vegan diets have a higher proportion of "healthy" foods overall. But as far as I've found, neither that study nor the other linked articles investigate which of these specific groups of foods are linked to increased risk of disease and death (regardless of how obvious it may seem for some of the groups), only ultra-processed foods in general, which is a very broad category.

cat_plus_plus 2y ago

You will have to pry my pressure cooker out of my cold, dead hands. "Processing" - it's another word for "cooking". Also I love technological progress.

ASalazarMX 2y ago
But processed and ultra-processed are different categories of food. Cooking, dehydrating, pickling, milling, crushing, etc. is usually healthy; decomposing foods into simple, commodity ingredients, and then recombining those into new products, maybe not so.

mensetmanusman 2y ago

Processing damages long chain molecules, ie molecular weight decreases. Whether we evolved to handle this well is under study, but these studies usually have too many confounding variables to make a conclusion.

AStonesThrow 2y ago

Everyone knows these lists of produce that enumerate the vitamins and minerals they contain, and other beneficial micronutrients, and so dietary recommendations often say, "try adding X to your diet, because it's high in Ps and Qs!" But I've become aware of issues like impoverished soil and the concept of terroir. Many crops are grown outside of their natural habitat, and who knows what's gone on with their soil, water, fertilizer, and general environment. So I would say that whenever these plants were tested for levels of micronutrients, I am dubious that those assessments hold true throughout space and time, especially for minerals that would necessarily be absorbed, rather than vitamins manufactured through biological processes within the organism itself. So I guess it's not wrong to fortify and process, if you're going to add something back in that should've been there already.

3np 2y ago

Unnecessarily editorialized and misrepresentative title. Original: "What explains increasing anxiety about ultra-processed plant-based foods?" TFA does not mention "veganism" even once.

JadeNB 2y ago
> TFA does not mention "veganism" even once. Though you're right about the headline, I don't think that your claim is true. Here's the first sentence (or maybe it's the caption of the first picture, or maybe it's the subhed? I can't tell): > Vegan diets can contain more UPFs on average – but this might not be a problem.

aniken 2y ago

no, processed food has a processing problem

senectus1 2y ago

I used to know a Vegan couple that were friends (Falling out over humor of all things) we used to go out to a vegan resteraunt quite often and thoroughly enjoyed the meals. but wow, outside of those meals they both ate terribly. highly processed and deep fried foods was the norm. they rarely ate anything "fresh".

llamajams 2y ago

Style nit: This is a badly written article; it about to a series of inconclusive quoted from experts duct taped together. General observation: Discussions about not eating meat in popular and social media seem to forget that 2/3rds other world don't exist. India, te most populous nation consists of 30~40% vegetarians and the rest have a very low animal protein diet compared to western standards. This is the same for much of east and south asia. The diet is heavily plant based, is healthy, nutritious and delicious, and does not contain much processed ingredients. It has been this way for hundreds if not thousands of years. Animal farming culture is very different and less industrialized. Many countries don't have a dairy industry to speak of even though dairy products are consumed. Whether you're a non meatertarien on nutritional or ethical grounds, the east seems to have an answer for you. So you can stop eating meat...or you know eat less of it and still have a good time. I'm not sure why we in the west keep talking as if it's not possible without having some conglomerate reinvent meat for the 11th time.