5 ms·
My 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 ba
by _aavaa_ 11mo ago
My 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
- sigwinch 11mo agoJust like other parts of science, that organization can be discussed and tested. It’s the opposite of “we asked the King what foods we can be most proud of”. Linnaeus did this, and allowed himself to be wrong, and I argue his organization alone was necessary to talk about theory.
- croon 11mo agoOk, maybe you're right, but can you categorize those and show that link? Yes, the UPF classification used here likely flags some false positives and perhaps misses others, but if the methodology is otherwise sound and the link is there, even if fuzzy, I don't think it's as easy as you claim either. And even if if fuzzy, it's still useful as I would be healthier avoiding UPF (assuming accurate study), even if I would also avoid some perfectly healthy foods.
- mc32 11mo agoDoes this mean vegetable-based replacements for meats are going to experience reduced demand given they might be worse for health and more expensive than their meat counterparts? They certainly meet the ultra processed foods criterion.
- sigwinch 11mo agoI don’t get the downvotes, this is a good question. I would prefer that the meat substitute market is allowed unbounded processing; and that the mere addition of nitrates to meat categorizes it into the terminal ultra-processed category.
- kragen 11mo agoIf it turns out that xanthan gum causes metabolic syndrome, xanthan gum in meat substitutes will probably still cause metabolic syndrome, regardless of what you would prefer to allow. Nitrates in meat cause stomach cancer (another thing we can't undo by legislative fiat) but probably don't cause the global pandemic of metabolic disease.
- mc32 11mo agoThose are problems for processed meats but not for butcher cuts of meat.
- array_key_first 11mo agoI mean, we know for a fat that processed red meats cause 'metabolic syndrome' - that being, the associated diseases of heart disease, diabetes, and others. One of the best ways to lower your CVD risk is to reduce your red meat consumption. And, since I know it's inevitably coming, 'humans have been eating meat forever!' - no they absolutely have not: 1. Processed meats are a new thing. There is a difference between eating a cow, and taking cow meat and chemically changing it forever. 2. Farmed meat is a new thing. Prehistoric humans ate meat that is nothing like the meat we eat. 3. Eating meat is a new thing. For almost all of human history, until maybe ~50 years ago, humans ate very little meat. Even today, only the West eats high amounts of meat. We also only see metabolic syndrome in obesity in the West/the developed world. Do with that information what you will.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoRight but this is one of the major challenges with converting this information into actionable nutritional advice. We have this (reasonably) rigid definition that grants the appearance of specificity. But there are almost surely UPFs that are fine and there are probably non-UPFs that cause the same problems as UPFs. Potato chips are hyper palatable, but are not UPFs. So what is the benefit of saying "avoid UPFs" over "avoid junk food?" At least saying "avoid junk food" makes the fuzziness apparent. But by focusing on this UPF definition (which is almost surely not the actual thing that is causing negative health outcomes) we end up in weird scenarios where potato chips and bean-to-bar chocolate are fine but wheat bread with preservatives are not even if it turns out that the preservatives aren't the source of any problem.
- sigwinch 11mo agoActually, according to the Nova Wikipedia page, the packaging of potato chips would push them into UPF. The actual, non-edible bag with the slogans and other soothsayings.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoWhere do you see that? My understanding is that packaging has to actually be implied by the food. It would be psychotic for potato chips served in a paper bag to be okay and potato chips served in a branded bag to be bad but I've been surprised before. It is the case that several of the prominent voices against UPFs have said some ridiculous things in this direction. Like that a packaged lasagna that is made entirely from ingredients and processes that a home cook would use to make lasagna is bad because it comes from the same corporations and market forces that also produce the frozen lasagnas that are loaded with stabilizers and added sugar.
- sigwinch 11mo agoReference [10], “sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials“
- 11mo ago
- 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