4 ms·

There is nothing inherently wrong with processed food. Processed foods could only be considered "bad" if you're actually replacing healthy foods with them. For

by ryeguy 14y ago

There is nothing inherently wrong with processed food. Processed foods could only be considered "bad" if you're actually replacing healthy foods with them. For example, a can of coke isn't actually bad for me per se, it's just nutritionally useless, and it's taking up 100something calories out of my calorie budget for the day that could be used by something with a higher amount of micronutrients in it. I don't think any vegetarian or vegan is going to throw out all their veggies and start eating nothing but meat alternatives as soon as a viable replacement comes out.

arethuza 14y ago
I wonder what would happen if you tried to survive just on coke and micronutrient supplements?
- ryeguy 14y ago
  You may find The Twinkie Diet interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
  - arethuza 14y ago
    Great comment on that: "On the up side, he now has a shelf life of 400 years."
crescentfresh 14y ago
My wife has not eaten meat or poultry for over 25 years. I do. Once, we were out at a restaurant and she sampled my pasta+chicken dish and got a piece of chicken into her mouth by accident. She did not like the texture and the flavour, at all. As in, the innateness of both in chicken was not appetizing to her anymore. She will be sticking to her nut and bean burgers no matter how good a fake beef burger tastes (to me).
nsns 14y ago
The excessive amount of sugar in your coke kills your liver and pancreas, it's hardly harmless. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...
- ryeguy 14y ago
  Gary Taubes, of course. This article says nothing about "killing" your organs. It simply mentions excess consumption raises your insulin resistance, which will be the case with overconsumption of ANY carbohydrates.
analog 14y ago
Trans fats are a typical ingredient of processed foods that are actively harmful. [1] [1] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fat...
- analog 14y ago
  Wow, downvoted for that?
  - wccrawford 14y ago
    I imagine it's because 'processed foods' aren't bad in themselves. That you can add something bad to them doesn't mean they're inherently bad. If someone wants to crusade against bad foods, saying 'processed foods' is the wrong way to go. It's like protesting against DHMO. Sure, it kills people. But it's not even a good simplification of the whole situation. (Yes, I know that DHMO is H2O, just in case anyone thought I didn't for some reason.)
    - analog 14y ago
      It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the ingredients of a food are 'something that can be added to it.' If processed foods tend to be bad (which they do) you can quite correctly crusade against them if you're interested in helping people not to eat bad food. Edit: Edited for clarity.
AznHisoka 14y ago
"a can of coke isn't actually bad for me per se" You're kidding right? There's a ton wrong with processed foods. We humans love to outsmart ourselves. Ooh, let's make our own food, screw mother nature and home-grown veggies, fruits, and animals! And then wonder why cancer and obesity rates are increasing. And hunting and gathering? Screw that! We're gonna create higher abstract levels of work where u stare at a computer screen for 8 hours a day! Woohoo! Why expend so much energy running and walking for food when you can sit all day?!.. Then we wonder again why obesity rates keep going up.
- ryeguy 14y ago
  I don't get what your point is. This sounds like a ton of hand-waving with out any kind of science. Your argument is essentially "since it's not natural, it's not good". Google "naturalistic fallacy". I am not claiming processed foods are good, they're just not bad. Someone who eats nothing but coke and snickers all day will be unhealthy, but that's more because of what he wasn't eating than what he was eating. It's not like eating processed food somehow destroys nutrients in your body. Obesity is an issue because of overconsumption of food, period. Granted, a lot of the food we overconsume is processed foods. They're cheap and available everywhere. Corn is heavily subsidized which makes HFCS incredibly cheap.
  - AznHisoka 14y ago
    What about someone who has the ability to eat coke and snickers all day, AND veggies, fruits, and everything you need nutritionally? You're saying that's ok? And no, this is not a fallacy. Most things natural ARE good because our bodies simply have evolved in those conditions. It's not a fallacy, cult, or religion... Hence why we have the Primal/Paleo diet.
    - ryeguy 14y ago
      It depends on what you mean by "ok". Would this person lose weight? Sure, if they consumed less calories than they burned. Would I recommend it? No, because snickers and coke are not satiating yet are very calorie dense. That person would probably end up consuming a lot more calories due to increased hunger, which would lead to weight gain. Is it optimal? No, because whole foods are better at keeping you full, generally have less calories, and are richer in micronutrients. So what approach would I recommend? That the majority (~3/4 or more) of your day's calories come from whole foods, and the rest can come from whatever you want. 100% of your food should fit into your goals, however. Junk food is not "free". If you're trying to lose weight, set your appropriate calorie goal for the day and make sure 100% of your food fits within this. If you're interested, check out [this article](http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/ http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...). It has a weightlifting slant, but it's a well sourced article that goes into detail about how 10-20% of your calories can come from processed foods with no ill effects. The paleo/primal diets are fine, but that line of reasoning behind them is not scientifically valid. If you can provide some peer-reviewed studies that prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.

by ryeguy 14y ago

arethuza 14y ago

I wonder what would happen if you tried to survive just on coke and micronutrient supplements?

ryeguy 14y ago
You may find The Twinkie Diet interesting: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/index.html http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/11/08/twinkie.diet.professor/...
- arethuza 14y ago
  Great comment on that: "On the up side, he now has a shelf life of 400 years."

crescentfresh 14y ago

My wife has not eaten meat or poultry for over 25 years. I do. Once, we were out at a restaurant and she sampled my pasta+chicken dish and got a piece of chicken into her mouth by accident. She did not like the texture and the flavour, at all. As in, the innateness of both in chicken was not appetizing to her anymore. She will be sticking to her nut and bean burgers no matter how good a fake beef burger tastes (to me).

nsns 14y ago

The excessive amount of sugar in your coke kills your liver and pancreas, it's hardly harmless. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.html?pagewanted=all http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/17/magazine/mag-17Sugar-t.htm...

ryeguy 14y ago
Gary Taubes, of course. This article says nothing about "killing" your organs. It simply mentions excess consumption raises your insulin resistance, which will be the case with overconsumption of ANY carbohydrates.

analog 14y ago

Trans fats are a typical ingredient of processed foods that are actively harmful. [1] [1] http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Trans-Fats_UCM_301120_Article.jsp http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fat...

analog 14y ago
Wow, downvoted for that?
- wccrawford 14y ago
  I imagine it's because 'processed foods' aren't bad in themselves. That you can add something bad to them doesn't mean they're inherently bad. If someone wants to crusade against bad foods, saying 'processed foods' is the wrong way to go. It's like protesting against DHMO. Sure, it kills people. But it's not even a good simplification of the whole situation. (Yes, I know that DHMO is H2O, just in case anyone thought I didn't for some reason.)
  - analog 14y ago
    It's a little disingenuous to suggest that the ingredients of a food are 'something that can be added to it.' If processed foods tend to be bad (which they do) you can quite correctly crusade against them if you're interested in helping people not to eat bad food. Edit: Edited for clarity.

AznHisoka 14y ago

"a can of coke isn't actually bad for me per se" You're kidding right? There's a ton wrong with processed foods. We humans love to outsmart ourselves. Ooh, let's make our own food, screw mother nature and home-grown veggies, fruits, and animals! And then wonder why cancer and obesity rates are increasing. And hunting and gathering? Screw that! We're gonna create higher abstract levels of work where u stare at a computer screen for 8 hours a day! Woohoo! Why expend so much energy running and walking for food when you can sit all day?!.. Then we wonder again why obesity rates keep going up.

ryeguy 14y ago
I don't get what your point is. This sounds like a ton of hand-waving with out any kind of science. Your argument is essentially "since it's not natural, it's not good". Google "naturalistic fallacy". I am not claiming processed foods are good, they're just not bad. Someone who eats nothing but coke and snickers all day will be unhealthy, but that's more because of what he wasn't eating than what he was eating. It's not like eating processed food somehow destroys nutrients in your body. Obesity is an issue because of overconsumption of food, period. Granted, a lot of the food we overconsume is processed foods. They're cheap and available everywhere. Corn is heavily subsidized which makes HFCS incredibly cheap.
- AznHisoka 14y ago
  What about someone who has the ability to eat coke and snickers all day, AND veggies, fruits, and everything you need nutritionally? You're saying that's ok? And no, this is not a fallacy. Most things natural ARE good because our bodies simply have evolved in those conditions. It's not a fallacy, cult, or religion... Hence why we have the Primal/Paleo diet.
  - ryeguy 14y ago
    It depends on what you mean by "ok". Would this person lose weight? Sure, if they consumed less calories than they burned. Would I recommend it? No, because snickers and coke are not satiating yet are very calorie dense. That person would probably end up consuming a lot more calories due to increased hunger, which would lead to weight gain. Is it optimal? No, because whole foods are better at keeping you full, generally have less calories, and are richer in micronutrients. So what approach would I recommend? That the majority (~3/4 or more) of your day's calories come from whole foods, and the rest can come from whatever you want. 100% of your food should fit into your goals, however. Junk food is not "free". If you're trying to lose weight, set your appropriate calorie goal for the day and make sure 100% of your food fits within this. If you're interested, check out [this article](http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-clean-eating/ http://www.wannabebig.com/diet-and-nutrition/the-dirt-on-cle...). It has a weightlifting slant, but it's a well sourced article that goes into detail about how 10-20% of your calories can come from processed foods with no ill effects. The paleo/primal diets are fine, but that line of reasoning behind them is not scientifically valid. If you can provide some peer-reviewed studies that prove otherwise, I'd like to see them.