3 ms·

The thing is that, although the list used (the "Nova classification") is obviously somewhat arbitrary, the fact that everybody uses it makes research results co

The thing is that, although the list used (the "Nova classification") is obviously somewhat arbitrary, the fact that everybody uses it makes research results comparable to each other.

nradov 1y ago
Comparable how? If I compare one meaningless number to another meaningless number on the same scale then I can see which one is larger, but I won't learn anything scientifically valuable or practically useful.
- Scarblac 1y ago
  Meaningless how? A lot of significant effects were found, it can't be entirely meaningless.
  - nradov 1y ago
    Which statistically significant casual effects have been found?
    - benrutter 1y ago
      It's 2 days later, but the effects found in studies are: - Increased weight gain contain to the same calories in non-UPF - Consumption of UPF linked with obesity - Consumption of UPF linked with early death As always, I'm sure you could argue with experimental set up, but.those are the main claims. Source is ultra-processed people, which I mentioned earlier and someone kindly linked to.
      - nradov 1y ago
        Those are correlations found in junk observational studies, not "effects".
  - tptacek 1y ago
    Correlation != causation. Your correlation can identify a hugely important effect without pinpointing its mechanism. In this case: I think it's very likely that ultraprocessing has not-very-much to do with food health, but UPF foods tend to be hyperpalatable and low-satiety, which almost certainly does. The ultraprocessing isn't what's making the foot hyperpalatable or low-satiety (the macronutrient mix and sweetening is). The previous comment was pointing out that there's an agreed-on definition of what "ultra-processing" means. There is. But there is no such agreement on mechanistic effects of ultra-processing.
    - Scarblac 1y ago
      Yes, I think much of the research is trying to find out what thr cause is, and I agree itslikely to be that hyperpalatable part.

The thing is that, although the list used (the "Nova classification") is obviously somewhat arbitrary, the fact that everybody uses it makes research results comparable to each other.

nradov 1y ago

Comparable how? If I compare one meaningless number to another meaningless number on the same scale then I can see which one is larger, but I won't learn anything scientifically valuable or practically useful.

Scarblac 1y ago
Meaningless how? A lot of significant effects were found, it can't be entirely meaningless.
- nradov 1y ago
  Which statistically significant casual effects have been found?
  - benrutter 1y ago
    It's 2 days later, but the effects found in studies are: - Increased weight gain contain to the same calories in non-UPF - Consumption of UPF linked with obesity - Consumption of UPF linked with early death As always, I'm sure you could argue with experimental set up, but.those are the main claims. Source is ultra-processed people, which I mentioned earlier and someone kindly linked to.
    - nradov 1y ago
      Those are correlations found in junk observational studies, not "effects".
- tptacek 1y ago
  Correlation != causation. Your correlation can identify a hugely important effect without pinpointing its mechanism. In this case: I think it's very likely that ultraprocessing has not-very-much to do with food health, but UPF foods tend to be hyperpalatable and low-satiety, which almost certainly does. The ultraprocessing isn't what's making the foot hyperpalatable or low-satiety (the macronutrient mix and sweetening is). The previous comment was pointing out that there's an agreed-on definition of what "ultra-processing" means. There is. But there is no such agreement on mechanistic effects of ultra-processing.
  - Scarblac 1y ago
    Yes, I think much of the research is trying to find out what thr cause is, and I agree itslikely to be that hyperpalatable part.