2 ms·
Because the "Ultra-processed" definition is backwards. It's really more "foods that have statistically significant negative effects on health" than a descriptio
by SAI_Peregrinus 11mo ago
Because the "Ultra-processed" definition is backwards. It's really more "foods that have statistically significant negative effects on health" than a description of why they do so. Because we don't yet know why they do so, and there are probably multiple causes. It seems like modern processing methods create this property, likely in part because the results are hyperpalatable. "Foods that are bad for you are bad for you" is tautological, so the ultra-processed naming is used for the hypothesis that it's something about the processing that makes them bad for you. This hypothesis seems highly likely, but we don't know what propert(y|ies) of the processing cause the harm, so it's a bad name but useful for discussing the hypothesis.
- UncleMeat 11mo agoBut this definition isn't right. UPFs do have a pretty widely recognized definition (the nova classification) and one of its major criticisms as a useful categorization is that there are plenty of junk foods that aren't UPFs.