4 ms·

The 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 do

by kragen 1y ago

The 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_ 1y ago
If 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 1y ago
  Every 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 1y ago
    It 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 1y ago
  [deleted]
- jjk166 1y ago
  The 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 1y ago
  Processing 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 1y ago
  Just 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 1y ago
  Ok, 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 1y ago
Does 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 1y ago
  I 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 1y ago
    If 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 1y ago
      Those are problems for processed meats but not for butcher cuts of meat.
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      I 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 1y ago
Right 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 1y ago
  Actually, 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 1y ago
    Where 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 1y ago
      Reference [10], “sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials“
      - 11mo ago

by kragen 1y ago

_aavaa_ 1y ago

If 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 1y ago
Every 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 1y ago
  It 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 1y ago
[deleted]
jjk166 1y ago
The 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 1y ago
Processing 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 1y ago
Just 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 1y ago
Ok, 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 1y ago

Does 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 1y ago
I 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 1y ago
  If 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 1y ago
    Those are problems for processed meats but not for butcher cuts of meat.
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    I 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 1y ago

Right 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 1y ago
Actually, 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 1y ago
  Where 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 1y ago
    Reference [10], “sophisticated packaging, usually with synthetic materials“
    - 11mo ago