5 ms·

I've noticed that people who want to deny that the extremely high carbohydrate content of the typical western diet is the major factor for runaway rates of diab

I've noticed that people who want to deny that the extremely high carbohydrate content of the typical western diet is the major factor for runaway rates of diabetes and cardiovascular disease like to label the "bad" food as "junk food" or "ultra-processed food." But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease.

hombre_fatal 2y ago
Well, I can answer that. It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content. Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me. Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.
- pixl97 2y ago
  The total lack of fiber isn't helping us either. Fiber fills you up and takes much longer to digest sating a person for longer.
- thereisnospork 2y ago
  Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined. e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mastication, except one is 'junk food' and 'ultra-processed' and the other is quintessential home cooking. What system do I use to rank them if they are in fact not identical? [0] What (or combination of whats) at a structural/chemical level in a food causes the harm, and by what biochemical/psychological/psychosomatic pathway(s) does said harm occur?
  - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
    Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel. I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.
    - parineum 2y ago
      As far as diet is concerned, I'm very much in the camp of you do what works best for you. However, if you choose to give advice to a wide audience (rather than saying what works for you), I think one should have some idea of why their advice is good.
    - thereisnospork 2y ago
      >if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for youthen I have to assume it is not harmful by default Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404. It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak. As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. [0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
      - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
        > As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. So I guess my question is what are your defaults? What is your unmodified behavior? There is a package on the shelf, you only know what it says on the box, what you've seen on commercials, and maybe you've seen/heard of other people eating its contents. What's the decision tree for this scenario?
- chiefalchemist 2y ago
  > low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. In the end the body realizes it didn't get the nutrition it needed so I sends out a notice "eat more".
  - lithocarpus 2y ago
    Anecdotally I think there's something to this, when all I have to eat is lacking in micro nutrients I tend to be hungrier. When I'm eating lots of very nutrient dense things, even when less calories, I feel satisfied.
Anotheroneagain 2y ago
It isn't extremely high. I have no idea what you imagine that people used to eat. The typical pre 20th century diet was near 100% carbohydrate based, most people ate meat once a weak, if at all, and fat was scarce. The now typical meat-with-every-dish diet is a post WW2 development. But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease. You don't get it, because 1. there is something VERY CLEARLY wrong with it, and 2. what is wrong with it is at odds with what is hammered into them over and over.

hombre_fatal 2y ago

Well, I can answer that. It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content. Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me. Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.

pixl97 2y ago
The total lack of fiber isn't helping us either. Fiber fills you up and takes much longer to digest sating a person for longer.
thereisnospork 2y ago
Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined. e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mastication, except one is 'junk food' and 'ultra-processed' and the other is quintessential home cooking. What system do I use to rank them if they are in fact not identical? [0] What (or combination of whats) at a structural/chemical level in a food causes the harm, and by what biochemical/psychological/psychosomatic pathway(s) does said harm occur?
- ifyoubuildit 2y ago
  Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel. I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.
  - parineum 2y ago
    As far as diet is concerned, I'm very much in the camp of you do what works best for you. However, if you choose to give advice to a wide audience (rather than saying what works for you), I think one should have some idea of why their advice is good.
  - thereisnospork 2y ago
    >if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for youthen I have to assume it is not harmful by default Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404. It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak. As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. [0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
    - ifyoubuildit 2y ago
      > As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh. So I guess my question is what are your defaults? What is your unmodified behavior? There is a package on the shelf, you only know what it says on the box, what you've seen on commercials, and maybe you've seen/heard of other people eating its contents. What's the decision tree for this scenario?
chiefalchemist 2y ago
> low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. In the end the body realizes it didn't get the nutrition it needed so I sends out a notice "eat more".
- lithocarpus 2y ago
  Anecdotally I think there's something to this, when all I have to eat is lacking in micro nutrients I tend to be hungrier. When I'm eating lots of very nutrient dense things, even when less calories, I feel satisfied.

Anotheroneagain 2y ago

It isn't extremely high. I have no idea what you imagine that people used to eat. The typical pre 20th century diet was near 100% carbohydrate based, most people ate meat once a weak, if at all, and fat was scarce. The now typical meat-with-every-dish diet is a post WW2 development. But we never get an explanation from them as to what exactly is IN the junk food or ultra-processed food that causes the disease. You don't get it, because 1. there is something VERY CLEARLY wrong with it, and 2. what is wrong with it is at odds with what is hammered into them over and over.