5 ms·
In case anyone wants a proper definition: ultra-processed food is defined using the Nova classification system [0]. I still find the definition a bit confusing
by TheAceOfHearts 11mo ago
In case anyone wants a proper definition: ultra-processed food is defined using the Nova classification system [0]. I still find the definition a bit confusing though.
This is the outcome of having researchers dedicating multiple lifetimes towards optimizing food to be as palatable and optimized as possible, such that people are forced to have a self-control battle each meal. Maybe GLP-1 drug proliferation will force companies towards other optimization goals. We ultimately end up paying for the negative externalities of UPF through higher healthcare costs and overall worse long-term quality of life.
It's difficult to change and maintain healthy eating habits when so much of your environment is designed to push you towards foods with questionable health properties. Even if it's technically possible to eat healthy, the cognitive overhead is enough that individualistic solutions are always going to be limited in effectiveness. The ideal is living in an environment where the healthy options are the default choice, so you don't have to waste time, energy, and willpower on maintenance-level tasks. I imagine that a healthier population would also be more productive, for the number-go-up optimizers.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification
- _aavaa_ 11mo agoMy problem with it is that it’s a circular definition without a mechanism for why they are bad for health. Discussions I’ve seen for why they are bad always basically boil down to “it’s the ingredients” without wanting to say this.
- kragen 11mo agoThe evidence that UPFs are bad for health is much, much stronger than the evidence for any candidate mechanism. There are lots of candidate mechanisms. So I don't think anybody knows why they're bad. Surely the UPF classification includes lots of foods that are harmless. We just don't know which ones because we don't understand the mechanism.
- _aavaa_ 11mo agoIf there is no understanding of mechanisms, why put such a strong emphasis on the processing, and why organize them? I, and other people argue that it has nothing to do with the processing and it’s all about the ingredients. So the whole differentiation by “processing” amount is useless. We are talking about ingredients without wanting to say so.
- sophacles 11mo agoEvery time i turn on the stove my kitchen catches on fire. I can't point out whats wrong with my stove, so obviously I keep the stove in my kitchen since I can't say it's causing the fire with a specific malfunction.
- conductr 11mo agoIt reminds me of tobacco again. All these smokers, coughing up lungs, dying of lung/throat cancers, gee I wonder if it’s correlated? I knew when I was a kid and everyone in my family smoked it was unhealthy, it’s just obvious, how it was denied and people believed it for so long baffles me
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- jjk166 11mo agoThe addition of ingredients is the processing. The different levels of processing refer to what types and quantities of ingredients are added. It's like complaining that people are labelling food as poisoned when they should really be concerned about whether it contains poison. Likewise the categorization of processing is useful for exactly the same reason the category of poisoned is useful. I'd rather not consume poisoned food of any variety even if I'm uncertain which poison has been added to it.
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoProcessing is important. It's well known that that the grinding of flour has significant digestion effects, especially in diabetics. It takes a lot longer to digest a bulgur wheat salad than a slice of bread made with finely ground flour. This time difference makes a massive difference in insulin response. P.S. That being said, I still hate the term ultra-processed. "Junk food" implies the non-specificity better. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45979589 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45979589
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- randycupertino 11mo agoI'd guess it's twofold: 1.) Lack of fiber in the ultra processed foods 2.) shelf-stability additives so the food can sit on shelves for months and not go bad.
- bryanlarsen 11mo agoUltra-processed foods as a category includes lots of foods that have both lots of fiber and few/no stability additives.
- IAmBroom 11mo agoNo report has ever stated that every single ultra-processed food is bad for you. They are speaking in generalities, about a general category.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoBut the authors of these studies are trying to ban UPFs in several contexts and enact further policies that highlight them as specifically dangerous. A bunch of fine foods being swept up in this is a concern.
- 4d4m 11mo agoYall missin the soy lethicin problems endemic to today's society. Emulsifers are literally ruining your life, slowly bite by bite.
- array_key_first 11mo agoHow?
- randycupertino 11mo agoI remember seeing something about how carrageenan, a common ice cream thickener and emulsifier can cause cancer and is banned in the EU but not the USA. I was bummed when I checked my favorite brand and it actually had it as an ingredient. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC242073/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC242073/
- IAmBroom 11mo agoWhy would a definition of a food category include a mechanism for why they are bad for health?
- cameldrv 11mo agoMy guess is that there is no single mechanism, it's just degrees of freedom + capitalism. If you have a relatively unprocessed food, there's definitionally not that much you can do to it. Market forces dictate that food companies produce the cheapest possible food with the best taste. Evolutionarily, food that tasted good was good for you. Food science has developed, in the service of the market, to make good tasting food, especially food that tastes so good that you get addicted to it, that's made from cheap ingredients. Good for you is neutral unless the customer can detect that the food is not good for them. Generally, cheap ingredients are not as good for you. The ingredients are cheap because they don't taste good, and they don't taste good because they're not very nutritious. If you give food science and the market some rope, they have a bajillion ways to make cheap things that taste good.
- unparagoned 11mo agoThere are plenty of mechanisms. Eg artificial emulsifiers damage the lining in the gut
- general1465 11mo agoYeah the whole definition is bogus. i.e. "mechanically separated meat" is considered ultraprocessed food? Why? By this logic putting apples into mixer and creating pyre is ultraprocessed food too.
- _aavaa_ 11mo agoAnd even if you want to define it as such, why is that bad for health?
- zug_zug 11mo agoIt’s bad for health because the science says so. You’re welcome to do your own years of research to learn more (everything, cooking, freezing, drying, blending, adding acids affects amino acids and certainly bacteria in the food) but until then stick with what the studies prove
- JoeAltmaier 11mo agoI guess a reasonable person can question the science, when ordinary words are used wildly inappropriately. E.g. 'ultra-processed' to mean things that are far from that. If 'the science' is so conclusive, then maybe a single link to a single study would be an appropriate response.
- zug_zug 11mo agoHow about responding to the one in the article…?
- IAmBroom 11mo agohttps://www.google.com/search?q=studies+of+ultra-processed+foods&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS1150US1150&oq=studies+of+ultra-processed+foods&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCDU3MTlqMGo3qAIAsAIA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8 https://www.google.com/search?q=studies+of+ultra-processed+f...
- UncleMeat 11mo ago
- deleted 11mo ago[deleted]
- jhallenworld 11mo agoI always assumed ultra-processed means that the food is loaded with preservatives like phosphates or BHT. I guess that's part of it, but maybe the efficiency of digestion should be considered. I remember Ben Krasnow (Applied Science) measured the calories in poop, humans are not very efficient at extracting all calories leading to very likely large efficiency variance between foods. But extending this further, the calories lost during preparation should be accounted for... So how about: calories * digestion-efficiency - calories you personally need to expend to prepare or acquire it. The higher this number, the more processed is the food. So cane sugar is very bad, unless you personally harvested it. Bad news for highly paid programmers.. basically all food should be considered ultra-processed since no physical labor was needed to acquire it.
- sigwinch 11mo agoA better example is astronauts. Their diet (on the job) is 100% ultra-processed food. They perform highly and have limited access to normal physical activity. But they’re hard to study because radiation and gravity differ so much that categorization of food might not be influential at all.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 11mo agoMy question might he stupid: is cottage cheese (kirkland) ultra processed food? I cook most of my stuff, but I use egg whites and cottage cheese from Kirkland for the high amount of proteins
- ajross 11mo agoFrustratingly, I note that the clip art used to illustrate the article (showing a bunch of junk-ish food like chips, donuts, pizza and burgers) contains not a single example of a UPF that I can see. The Guardian couldn't even be jazzed to research their own story.