4 ms·

Ultra processed foods is not a well defined category, so saying avoid UPFs is meaningless. There are several “UPFs” that have better health outcomes than NOVA

Ultra processed foods is not a well defined category, so saying avoid UPFs is meaningless. There are several “UPFs” that have better health outcomes than NOVA 1 “unprocessed” foods, because the NOVA system was never developed to categorize foods by how healthy they were but instead how closely they matched a fairly regional Brazilian diet. There is no evidence that “seed oils” are bad beyond their caloric density, and seed oils like Canola oil are some of the healthiest fats we have, far more than the lard they’ve been encouraging people to consume instead (which is almost certainly worse than most seed oils, except possibly rhe single scenario where a fast food chain may be heating and reheating the same fat source many times over). No one is buying and consuming oesticides, so that’s in actionable advice for people. There is absolutely no evidence fluoride levels in US water are anywhere near dangerous levels. Having people buy and maintain expensive filters simply to keep fluoride out of their water likely won’t help with anything, and will likely displace some other more healthful actions they could be taking, like spending the money on buying berries for their kids.

anonym29 11mo ago
1. The idea that UPFs being poorly defined == UPF is a meaningless designation has always sounded like absurd whataboutism that stops real progress to me. Surely you don't mean to suggest that just because UPFs aren't perfectly defined, that means there's no fundamental difference between a diet composed of skittles, donuts, and ice cream cookie sandwiches versus a diet composed of organic, plant-based whole foods, right? 2. You say there is "no evidence" that seed oils are bad... yet when I search for "canola oil health hazards", the very first thing I see is "Canola oil has been associated with potential health hazards due to its high omega-6 fatty acid content, which may contribute to inflammation and chronic diseases when consumed in excess. Additionally, the refining process often involves chemicals like hexane, which raises concerns about the presence of harmful byproducts, although these are typically present in very low amounts in the final product." Am I crazy to prefer that the amount of hexane in my food be as close to absolutely none as possible? Am I crazy to not wanting to be loading myself up with something that's at least clearly associated with inflammation and chronic disease? 3. Why do we have to assume that the optimal replacement for seed oils is lard? Is it possible to consider that maybe we'd all be better off if we stopped eating french fries, rather than merely switching what greasy junk we're frying them in? 4. Plenty of non-organic foods have pesticides on them! https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php Is EWG not a generally reliable and trustworthy source of information? Do you mean to suggest that no foods grown outside ever have any pesticides on them, or that the pesticides never follow the food all the way to the grocery store? Haven't plenty of agricultural products over the years, including Round Up, been linked with high probability to various cancers, neurodegenerative diseases, etc? 5. Why do we assume that filtering water means taking away other healthy actions? Do we need to be giving kids MORE sugar just because it's natural (berries)? Is there not extensive scientific literature linking fluoride ingestion with decreased IQ? 6. Why can't we have a open, good-faith conversation about these topics without engaging in tribal politics? Why do we get so emotionally attached to current narratives and beliefs about these kinds of things even when we know those beliefs are formed based on incomplete information and should be subject to change as we learn more over time, a standard exercise of basic epistemic humility?
- more_corn 11mo ago
  Bread is an ultra-processed food.
  - anonym29 11mo ago
    Care to engage more substantially than this, or are you just repeating the argument that because UPF is imperfectly defined, that means UPF as a category is absolutely worthless and therefore we should dismiss all precautionary options surrounding any and all UPFs with prejudice?
    - parineum 11mo ago
      "Ultra processing" is corollary to unhealthy food, not causal. It's not the ultra processing that makes it unhealthy. That's the crux of this disagreement. Assuming the relationship and then assuming the next step that the antitheses must be true. Unprocessed foods aren't inherently healthy and ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy, the two things have nothing to do with each other.
      - andsoitis 11mo ago
        > ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy …but they are statistically associated with worse health outcomes. Their nutrient profile, additives’ effects on eating behavior, and how human metabolism responds to engineered foods lead to harm for humans.
        loeg 11mo ago
        Parent comment is begging you to understand that correlation is not causation. That you infer it to imply causation leaves you less well-informed about the world.
        parineum 11mo ago
        There are foods which are processed to add nutrients. Imagine I took raw sugar cane then added vitamin d, calcium, vitamin c and some electrolytes to make a sports drink.

anonym29 11mo ago

1. The idea that UPFs being poorly defined == UPF is a meaningless designation has always sounded like absurd whataboutism that stops real progress to me. Surely you don't mean to suggest that just because UPFs aren't perfectly defined, that means there's no fundamental difference between a diet composed of skittles, donuts, and ice cream cookie sandwiches versus a diet composed of organic, plant-based whole foods, right? 2. You say there is "no evidence" that seed oils are bad... yet when I search for "canola oil health hazards", the very first thing I see is "Canola oil has been associated with potential health hazards due to its high omega-6 fatty acid content, which may contribute to inflammation and chronic diseases when consumed in excess. Additionally, the refining process often involves chemicals like hexane, which raises concerns about the presence of harmful byproducts, although these are typically present in very low amounts in the final product." Am I crazy to prefer that the amount of hexane in my food be as close to absolutely none as possible? Am I crazy to not wanting to be loading myself up with something that's at least clearly associated with inflammation and chronic disease? 3. Why do we have to assume that the optimal replacement for seed oils is lard? Is it possible to consider that maybe we'd all be better off if we stopped eating french fries, rather than merely switching what greasy junk we're frying them in? 4. Plenty of non-organic foods have pesticides on them! https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php https://www.ewg.org/foodnews/full-list.php Is EWG not a generally reliable and trustworthy source of information? Do you mean to suggest that no foods grown outside ever have any pesticides on them, or that the pesticides never follow the food all the way to the grocery store? Haven't plenty of agricultural products over the years, including Round Up, been linked with high probability to various cancers, neurodegenerative diseases, etc? 5. Why do we assume that filtering water means taking away other healthy actions? Do we need to be giving kids MORE sugar just because it's natural (berries)? Is there not extensive scientific literature linking fluoride ingestion with decreased IQ? 6. Why can't we have a open, good-faith conversation about these topics without engaging in tribal politics? Why do we get so emotionally attached to current narratives and beliefs about these kinds of things even when we know those beliefs are formed based on incomplete information and should be subject to change as we learn more over time, a standard exercise of basic epistemic humility?

more_corn 11mo ago
Bread is an ultra-processed food.
- anonym29 11mo ago
  Care to engage more substantially than this, or are you just repeating the argument that because UPF is imperfectly defined, that means UPF as a category is absolutely worthless and therefore we should dismiss all precautionary options surrounding any and all UPFs with prejudice?
  - parineum 11mo ago
    "Ultra processing" is corollary to unhealthy food, not causal. It's not the ultra processing that makes it unhealthy. That's the crux of this disagreement. Assuming the relationship and then assuming the next step that the antitheses must be true. Unprocessed foods aren't inherently healthy and ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy, the two things have nothing to do with each other.
    - andsoitis 11mo ago
      > ultra processed foods aren't inherently unhealthy …but they are statistically associated with worse health outcomes. Their nutrient profile, additives’ effects on eating behavior, and how human metabolism responds to engineered foods lead to harm for humans.
      - loeg 11mo ago
        Parent comment is begging you to understand that correlation is not causation. That you infer it to imply causation leaves you less well-informed about the world.
      - parineum 11mo ago
        There are foods which are processed to add nutrients. Imagine I took raw sugar cane then added vitamin d, calcium, vitamin c and some electrolytes to make a sports drink.