4 ms·
This podcast had an excellent discussion of how “ultraprocessed” means whatever authors want. It seems like people who pay for expensive maple syrup, oils, tall
by fundad 1y ago
This podcast had an excellent discussion of how “ultraprocessed” means whatever authors want. It seems like people who pay for expensive maple syrup, oils, tallow and butter are put on some pedestal and everyone else lives under the cloud of “ultra” something.
https://www.buzzsprout.com/1411126/episodes/17271368 https://www.buzzsprout.com/1411126/episodes/17271368
- Milpotel 1y agoI'd recommend "Ultra processed people" be van Tulleken. He references the relevant studies, doesn't try to convince you to change your diet but gives enough food for thought. ;)
- arccy 1y agobut that food for thought has been processed by others already...
- atombender 1y agoI've not listened to the podcast, but please note that processed/ultraprocessed have formal definitions that are followed by many studies. These are the NOVA classifications, where processed and ultraprocessed are groups 3-4 respectively. These definitions have evolved over time [1], which means that it can be confusing to read different studies, when the formal definitions have changed after publication. So the best thing is to ignore the "ultraprocessed" category as a general term and instead read what the methodology was in any given study. What researchers mostly don't do is lump all sorts of things into an undefined bucket of whatever processes and ingredients they think are unhealthy that day. This is what pop-sci media does, and may be what the podcast is railing does. But studies on ultraprocessed foods tend not to do this. [1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389637/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389637/