6 ms·

We do mostly have a problem with ultra-unspecific, ultra-unsubstantiated, ultra-agenda-driven and ultra-useless nutritional advice. The lacking proper definiti

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.

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.