7 ms·

Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. The state of nutrition science is abysmal.

cyanydeez 4mo ago
the one is a result of the other; but thats because nutrition seems like it should have objective measures but ultimately has a lot of sources and sinks that only on the fringes is it obvious when things are bad. but then theres RFK nuttery, so its not that stupid. but yeah, ultra processes has no functional science behind it even though we still know cheap food is typically unhealthy and addictive
naveen99 4mo ago
In the space age, its x-processed.
baybal2 4mo ago
[dead]
mapotofu 4mo ago
No it isn’t. The advice on nutrition is abundantly clear and has been for a long time: eat food, mostly plants, not too much. That science has pushed GRAS as “food” is abysmal. Lots of you have just been punked.
- mjdv 4mo ago
  > eat food, mostly plants, not too much. If the state of physics was "stuff falls, heat sticks around, light goes fast" I think it'd be fair to describe that as "abysmal".
  - toasty228 4mo ago
    Something being simple doesn't mean it's incomplete or wrong. Health/nutrition is a spectrum but no one will tell you to eat a bag of chips a day and rinse your mouth with coke
    - jsharpe 4mo ago
      Of course it's incomplete. Any explanation of nutrition that doesn't include mention of at least calories, macronutrients and micronutrients isn't useful for understanding what's actually going on or being able to make an effective nutrition plan.
      - toasty228 4mo ago
        There are hundreds and hundreds of studies linking ultra processed food to all kind of health issues, and not a single one linking ultra processed food to any kind of benefits, not a single one praising their nutritious values. The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience, better margins for the producers, etc.
        win311fwg 4mo ago
        > praising their nutritious values [...] The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience Availability is the most important value of nutrition, above all else. I expect your comment was made having more nuance, but that just highlights the importance of a clear definition. Without it we are left to guess at what it is you mean.
        Shog9 4mo ago
        Sustenance is a health benefit. Shelf life is a health benefit. Convenience is a health benefit. If you have options when choosing food, a framework that helps you choose the better option is useful. The history of food production is mostly centered around developing options that provide, as a baseline, the three advantages you casually dismiss.
        toasty228 4mo ago
        > Shelf life is a health benefit. Then why don't we pickle or ferment things anymore ? Ah right because it's not as profitable. Listening to you guys it seems like Americans in the 80s were starving and we should praise microwave meals for saving us from extinction.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 4mo ago
    The state of physics for most human bodies is "avoid things that are too hot/cold, electricity and heavy things requiere more energy to move, things fall when thrown up" With those kind of basic ideas you can mostly survive and figure your way around. No one needs to check spin on electrons when living their day to day. Or the mass of a neutron star versus a blackhole Similarly, nutrition science can be extremely specific about gut microbiome compositions and its effect in regulating specific hormones and so on. But most humans just need the guidelines of dont over eat, have mostly fish/legumes and veggies and be active (strength training and regular walks) to have a healthy life. no one needs to know the exact frequency and voltage of your plug to be taught to not stick your giners on the wall, and no one needs to know the exact victamin C and iron content of spinach to know its healthier than ultraprocessed chips
- liveoneggs 4mo ago
  that's a quote from a journalist so it really drives home the point
- groundzeros2015 4mo ago
  Why plants?
Hnrobert42 4mo ago
I've heard this objection a lot, even from folks I respect. Its ubiquity makes me wonder it is astroturfed. The definition I have heard is "food made with ingredients or processes not commonly used in ghome Unfortunately, when I looked to leading scientific orgs, they are dithering on releasing formal definitions, but all say something like what I'd heard. Conflicting information doesn't mean an abysmal situation. I'd argue the opposite. Everyone "knew" the sun orbited Earth.
- oytis 4mo ago
  How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? If we make the same processes commonly available to use at home, will these foods become less harmful? I know there is science around it, but the very concept looks very unscientific, it's almost like talking about "unnatural food"
  - sithadmin 4mo ago
    >How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? Well, for starters - the refined sugars, carbohydrates and oils that seem to be the main culprits behind the obesity epidemic are mostly things that wouldn't be efficient (or in some cases, even possible) to create in a home cooking environment. Sure, you could order some grain milling or oil extraction equipment on Alibaba and DIY it, but 99.999% of households aren't going to do that.
    - erispoe 4mo ago
      So the actual content of the food then? Why not say that?
  - svpk 4mo ago
    The idea is that you could ban any set of "unhealthy" inputs and give the big food companies some time and they'll come out with something just as unhealthy that complies with your rules. The underlying issue is some mix of what industrial processes make possible combined with food scientist working with taste test panels to hyper optimize food. When you spend all this time and effort trying to create a snack where people are always left craving just a bit more you end up with the kinds of junk food that we have. We want there to be some simple answer of "it's these ingredients, or this specific combination" but the actual answer seems to be that when you use industrial processes and science to min-max cost and palatabillity you always end up with junk. Whereas when you cook food with typical home methods and ingredients you don't. Food health science has always had difficulties with just how complicated the actual processing of food in our bodies is and the more we look the more complex it gets. But the "ultra-processed foods" test seems to be working out as a successful heuristic to identify especially unhealthy foods. Given the issues health science has had with coming up with exact answers a heuristic that's pretty reliable (even if imperfect) is a pretty big win!
frameset 4mo ago
It isn't a meaningless word, and like my sibling poster I do wonder if that sentence is astroturfed by the junk food corpos. The [NOVA classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification) has definitions for various levels of food processing.
- _aavaa_ 4mo ago
  From the wikipedia page: > The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling. > Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease. So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think it means.
  - margalabargala 4mo ago
    Do you genuinely not understand the difference between "tends to be unhealthy" and "is always 100% unhealthy"? Do you not understand how the classification is useful even if it contains exceptions?
    - _aavaa_ 4mo ago
      I understand the difference. Do you understand that the classification is not based on healthy/unhealthy but based on how much “processing” was done to the food?
      - margalabargala 4mo ago
        You're so close. All you're missing is "and quantity of processing is correlated with being unhealthy, making it a useful metric".
        pessimizer 4mo ago
        I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What it sounds like you're saying is that it is possible for processing to make a product unhealthy, and unlikely for processing to make a product more healthy. What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.
toasty228 4mo ago
> Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. Yes, and cigarettes cure cancer amirite ? We all know what they mean by ultra processed food, it's 75% of your supermarkets. 45% of the US is obese, the rest is overweight, food is one of the main factor in the top 2 leading causes of death in the US, if you can't see the problem you're blind There is a very good definition on wikipedia btw, and yes not all ultra processed things are bad, but the vast majority of them are
- cm2012 4mo ago
  Weight gain has basically happened across the whole developed world because cost per calorie has gotten so low that people just eat more calories on average. This is why semi-glutides are the first thing ever to reduce weight gain and actually make people lose weight because they encourage reduced consumption. Don't need ultra-processed food to be unhealthy. Rich guys in the 1800s would get fat and get gout and all these issues from overconsumption. It's just they were the only ones who could back then.
  - toasty228 4mo ago
    Yeah right... so obesity, diabetes, etc. skyrocketed in the US from the mid 80s because before the 80s americans were calorie constrained ? Really ? We're talking 1980s, not 1880s by the way
    - cm2012 4mo ago
      Yes not gonna pull it but there's data that shows calories got meaningfully cheaper and easier to access in the United States and more plentiful from the 1980s to the 2020s.
      - toasty228 4mo ago
        Oh yeah, the same exact period during which ultra processed food was introduced to the mass... interesting...
      - 4mo ago
nubinetwork 4mo ago
I've heard people say that even bread is ultra processed... I guess we're supposed to go back to eating twigs and berries.
- macNchz 4mo ago
  Most of the packaged pre-sliced bread in the bread aisle (as opposed to the bakery area) of American supermarkets is full of ingredients not traditionally used in bread, or used in food at all until recent decades. Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed.
  - hackingonempty 4mo ago
    > Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed. Cake and cookies are bread and made with the same ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, sugar, salt, herbs.
- soco 4mo ago
  Most US made bread contains hundred additives and a good dose of sugar on top of them. Just check the list of ingredients on your supermarket bread, you'll think again about eating twigs. For comparison, my bread I get in my village (but also in the local supermarket) has exactly three ingredients (usually, unless it's some specialty).
- mapotofu 4mo ago
  You could make your own bread so you know what is in it, and how much should be in it, and that way you’d know the difference, and probably be better off knowing you don’t have to forage twigs and berries, or be so dramatic…
- toasty228 4mo ago
  Supermarket breads are trash, the first thing I found in wallmart's website: > Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate, Monoglycerides, Mono- and Diglycerides, Distilled Monoglycerides, Calcium Peroxide, Calcium Iodate, DATEM, Ethoxylated Mono- and Diglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid), Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Propionate (to Retard Spoilage). A good rule of thumb is that if your grandpa would have needed a PhD in chemistry to identify 80% of the ingredients it probably is ultra processed. The same type of bread in France: > Wheat flour 63%, water, sugar, rapeseed oil, salt, vinegar, yeast, broad bean flour, WHEAT gluten, flavouring (contains alcohol), acerola extract.
smallerfish 4mo ago
It's not meaningless. "Processed" means that ingredients had to be manipulated to produce the food (e.g. most recipes). Most of what you make at home is "processed". "Ultra-processed" means food produced using industrial processing, using additives (perhaps not typically considered "food" in an of themselves) for emulsifying, flavor, shelf stability & preservation, color, etc. That's a clear distinction. Whether or not that means anything for the nutritional value and health outcomes from consumption of the food is a different question, but it can clearly be studied.
- breezybottom 4mo ago
  That's not a clear distinction at all, since now you have to define "industrial". Why would mixing with an industrial blender lead to unhealthier food than a kitchen blender? Why would flour made with a gristmill be less healthy than a mortar and pestle? There's no theoretical basis.
  - wouldbecouldbe 4mo ago
    You're just playing the semantics game for the sake of being contrarian. If you really think Oreos, Pringles, and Lunchables aren't ultra-processed and extremely unhealthy, there's no point in having a discussion.
    - deleted 4mo ago
      [deleted]
    - enragedcacti 4mo ago
      Immediately backing off to "I know it when I see it" really doesn't help your case that UPF is the right way to categorize unhealthy foods
      - drum55 4mo ago
        It’s basically a wildcard, “ultra processed food” is a classification of nothing and everything. There’s nothing inherently bad about processing food, lots of food is terrible for you but that’s unrelated entirely.
the__alchemist 4mo ago
This is akin to pitbulls and porn: You know it when you see it, despite the existence of ambiguous cases. I bring this up because your call to specifics is useuful in general. In this case: There are gray areas, but in most cases, it's a useful heuristic. If your food comes in a bright-colored box, advertises as containing "Real [cheese|fruit|etc]" and or is branded with the word "flavor", "Ultra-processed" is a useful categorization. If your food is something like "Chicken breast", "whole wheat flour" or "Green onions", it's not. You will be able to find many ambiguous cases, at which point the categorization ceases to become useful. I do not believe this means categorization isn't useful in general.
- breezybottom 4mo ago
  It may be useful to you as a consumer as a way of avoiding sugar, fat, or whatever it is you think is unhealthy. Even that is dubious. But it's completely useless scientifically. There's no theoretical link between brightly colored boxes and weight gain. As you just admitted, that's only a proxy for something else you care about.
- enragedcacti 4mo ago
  You'd love my new food category. It's called Ultra-Priced Foods, and it argues that the more expensive something is, the better it is for you. Sure, there might be some exceptions, but overall price is a quite effective proxy for high quality ingredients. Oh, you don't have unlimited money? Some people don't have unlimited time or capability to prepare home-cooked meals constantly. It would behoove anti-UPF advocates to design a system that more accurately describes nutritional value of "UPFs" so people can make informed decisions within the constraints of their life.
  - the__alchemist 4mo ago
    I don't buy it. If there are time-available constraints, do grocery delivery instead of takeaway, or buy good stuff instead of bottom-feeder stuff at the store. There are so many low/no-prep food options. I think the "Most people are too poor to eat things other than fast foot and flavor-blast Syrup chips" is a lie.

the one is a result of the other; but thats because nutrition seems like it should have objective measures but ultimately has a lot of sources and sinks that only on the fringes is it obvious when things are bad. but then theres RFK nuttery, so its not that stupid. but yeah, ultra processes has no functional science behind it even though we still know cheap food is typically unhealthy and addictive

naveen99 4mo ago

In the space age, its x-processed.

baybal2 4mo ago

[dead]

mapotofu 4mo ago

No it isn’t. The advice on nutrition is abundantly clear and has been for a long time: eat food, mostly plants, not too much. That science has pushed GRAS as “food” is abysmal. Lots of you have just been punked.

mjdv 4mo ago
> eat food, mostly plants, not too much. If the state of physics was "stuff falls, heat sticks around, light goes fast" I think it'd be fair to describe that as "abysmal".
- toasty228 4mo ago
  Something being simple doesn't mean it's incomplete or wrong. Health/nutrition is a spectrum but no one will tell you to eat a bag of chips a day and rinse your mouth with coke
  - jsharpe 4mo ago
    Of course it's incomplete. Any explanation of nutrition that doesn't include mention of at least calories, macronutrients and micronutrients isn't useful for understanding what's actually going on or being able to make an effective nutrition plan.
    - toasty228 4mo ago
      There are hundreds and hundreds of studies linking ultra processed food to all kind of health issues, and not a single one linking ultra processed food to any kind of benefits, not a single one praising their nutritious values. The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience, better margins for the producers, etc.
      - win311fwg 4mo ago
        > praising their nutritious values [...] The only benefits ever listed are shelf life, convenience Availability is the most important value of nutrition, above all else. I expect your comment was made having more nuance, but that just highlights the importance of a clear definition. Without it we are left to guess at what it is you mean.
      - Shog9 4mo ago
        Sustenance is a health benefit. Shelf life is a health benefit. Convenience is a health benefit. If you have options when choosing food, a framework that helps you choose the better option is useful. The history of food production is mostly centered around developing options that provide, as a baseline, the three advantages you casually dismiss.
        toasty228 4mo ago
        > Shelf life is a health benefit. Then why don't we pickle or ferment things anymore ? Ah right because it's not as profitable. Listening to you guys it seems like Americans in the 80s were starving and we should praise microwave meals for saving us from extinction.
- Arkhaine_kupo 4mo ago
  The state of physics for most human bodies is "avoid things that are too hot/cold, electricity and heavy things requiere more energy to move, things fall when thrown up" With those kind of basic ideas you can mostly survive and figure your way around. No one needs to check spin on electrons when living their day to day. Or the mass of a neutron star versus a blackhole Similarly, nutrition science can be extremely specific about gut microbiome compositions and its effect in regulating specific hormones and so on. But most humans just need the guidelines of dont over eat, have mostly fish/legumes and veggies and be active (strength training and regular walks) to have a healthy life. no one needs to know the exact frequency and voltage of your plug to be taught to not stick your giners on the wall, and no one needs to know the exact victamin C and iron content of spinach to know its healthier than ultraprocessed chips
liveoneggs 4mo ago
that's a quote from a journalist so it really drives home the point
groundzeros2015 4mo ago
Why plants?

Hnrobert42 4mo ago

I've heard this objection a lot, even from folks I respect. Its ubiquity makes me wonder it is astroturfed. The definition I have heard is "food made with ingredients or processes not commonly used in ghome Unfortunately, when I looked to leading scientific orgs, they are dithering on releasing formal definitions, but all say something like what I'd heard. Conflicting information doesn't mean an abysmal situation. I'd argue the opposite. Everyone "knew" the sun orbited Earth.

oytis 4mo ago
How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? If we make the same processes commonly available to use at home, will these foods become less harmful? I know there is science around it, but the very concept looks very unscientific, it's almost like talking about "unnatural food"
- sithadmin 4mo ago
  >How should using processes not used at home make something harmful? Well, for starters - the refined sugars, carbohydrates and oils that seem to be the main culprits behind the obesity epidemic are mostly things that wouldn't be efficient (or in some cases, even possible) to create in a home cooking environment. Sure, you could order some grain milling or oil extraction equipment on Alibaba and DIY it, but 99.999% of households aren't going to do that.
  - erispoe 4mo ago
    So the actual content of the food then? Why not say that?
- svpk 4mo ago
  The idea is that you could ban any set of "unhealthy" inputs and give the big food companies some time and they'll come out with something just as unhealthy that complies with your rules. The underlying issue is some mix of what industrial processes make possible combined with food scientist working with taste test panels to hyper optimize food. When you spend all this time and effort trying to create a snack where people are always left craving just a bit more you end up with the kinds of junk food that we have. We want there to be some simple answer of "it's these ingredients, or this specific combination" but the actual answer seems to be that when you use industrial processes and science to min-max cost and palatabillity you always end up with junk. Whereas when you cook food with typical home methods and ingredients you don't. Food health science has always had difficulties with just how complicated the actual processing of food in our bodies is and the more we look the more complex it gets. But the "ultra-processed foods" test seems to be working out as a successful heuristic to identify especially unhealthy foods. Given the issues health science has had with coming up with exact answers a heuristic that's pretty reliable (even if imperfect) is a pretty big win!

frameset 4mo ago

It isn't a meaningless word, and like my sibling poster I do wonder if that sentence is astroturfed by the junk food corpos. The [NOVA classification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification) has definitions for various levels of food processing.

_aavaa_ 4mo ago
From the wikipedia page: > The Nova definition of ultra-processed food does not comment on the nutritional content of food and is not intended to be used for nutrient profiling. > Nutrient profiling: also nutritional profiling, is the science of classifying or ranking foods by their nutritional composition in order to promote health and prevent disease. So it looks like this classification doesn't mean what you think it means.
- margalabargala 4mo ago
  Do you genuinely not understand the difference between "tends to be unhealthy" and "is always 100% unhealthy"? Do you not understand how the classification is useful even if it contains exceptions?
  - _aavaa_ 4mo ago
    I understand the difference. Do you understand that the classification is not based on healthy/unhealthy but based on how much “processing” was done to the food?
    - margalabargala 4mo ago
      You're so close. All you're missing is "and quantity of processing is correlated with being unhealthy, making it a useful metric".
      - pessimizer 4mo ago
        I have no idea what you're trying to say here. What it sounds like you're saying is that it is possible for processing to make a product unhealthy, and unlikely for processing to make a product more healthy. What other people are saying is that this communicates almost nothing. What it does is allow people who are doing very bizarre things to food to hide among people who are doing pretty well known, well-tested, and ancient things to food. It's literally an argument to ignore the specifics, it's an argument for ignorance.

toasty228 4mo ago

> Ultra-processed is a meaningless word used to get media attention. Yes, and cigarettes cure cancer amirite ? We all know what they mean by ultra processed food, it's 75% of your supermarkets. 45% of the US is obese, the rest is overweight, food is one of the main factor in the top 2 leading causes of death in the US, if you can't see the problem you're blind There is a very good definition on wikipedia btw, and yes not all ultra processed things are bad, but the vast majority of them are

cm2012 4mo ago
Weight gain has basically happened across the whole developed world because cost per calorie has gotten so low that people just eat more calories on average. This is why semi-glutides are the first thing ever to reduce weight gain and actually make people lose weight because they encourage reduced consumption. Don't need ultra-processed food to be unhealthy. Rich guys in the 1800s would get fat and get gout and all these issues from overconsumption. It's just they were the only ones who could back then.
- toasty228 4mo ago
  Yeah right... so obesity, diabetes, etc. skyrocketed in the US from the mid 80s because before the 80s americans were calorie constrained ? Really ? We're talking 1980s, not 1880s by the way
  - cm2012 4mo ago
    Yes not gonna pull it but there's data that shows calories got meaningfully cheaper and easier to access in the United States and more plentiful from the 1980s to the 2020s.
    - toasty228 4mo ago
      Oh yeah, the same exact period during which ultra processed food was introduced to the mass... interesting...
    - 4mo ago

nubinetwork 4mo ago

I've heard people say that even bread is ultra processed... I guess we're supposed to go back to eating twigs and berries.

macNchz 4mo ago
Most of the packaged pre-sliced bread in the bread aisle (as opposed to the bakery area) of American supermarkets is full of ingredients not traditionally used in bread, or used in food at all until recent decades. Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed.
- hackingonempty 4mo ago
  > Bread made with flour, water, salt, and yeast (plus maybe olive oil, butter, eggs, sugar, herbs etc) is not considered ultra processed. Cake and cookies are bread and made with the same ingredients: flour, eggs, butter, sugar, salt, herbs.
soco 4mo ago
Most US made bread contains hundred additives and a good dose of sugar on top of them. Just check the list of ingredients on your supermarket bread, you'll think again about eating twigs. For comparison, my bread I get in my village (but also in the local supermarket) has exactly three ingredients (usually, unless it's some specialty).
mapotofu 4mo ago
You could make your own bread so you know what is in it, and how much should be in it, and that way you’d know the difference, and probably be better off knowing you don’t have to forage twigs and berries, or be so dramatic…
toasty228 4mo ago
Supermarket breads are trash, the first thing I found in wallmart's website: > Unbleached Enriched Flour (Wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Reduced Iron, Thiamin Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Yeast, Wheat Gluten, Salt, Soybean Oil, Dough Conditioners (Contains One or More of the Following: Sodium Stearoyl Lactylate, Calcium Stearoyl Lactylate, Monoglycerides, Mono- and Diglycerides, Distilled Monoglycerides, Calcium Peroxide, Calcium Iodate, DATEM, Ethoxylated Mono- and Diglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid), Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin, Calcium Propionate (to Retard Spoilage). A good rule of thumb is that if your grandpa would have needed a PhD in chemistry to identify 80% of the ingredients it probably is ultra processed. The same type of bread in France: > Wheat flour 63%, water, sugar, rapeseed oil, salt, vinegar, yeast, broad bean flour, WHEAT gluten, flavouring (contains alcohol), acerola extract.

smallerfish 4mo ago

It's not meaningless. "Processed" means that ingredients had to be manipulated to produce the food (e.g. most recipes). Most of what you make at home is "processed". "Ultra-processed" means food produced using industrial processing, using additives (perhaps not typically considered "food" in an of themselves) for emulsifying, flavor, shelf stability & preservation, color, etc. That's a clear distinction. Whether or not that means anything for the nutritional value and health outcomes from consumption of the food is a different question, but it can clearly be studied.

breezybottom 4mo ago
That's not a clear distinction at all, since now you have to define "industrial". Why would mixing with an industrial blender lead to unhealthier food than a kitchen blender? Why would flour made with a gristmill be less healthy than a mortar and pestle? There's no theoretical basis.
- wouldbecouldbe 4mo ago
  You're just playing the semantics game for the sake of being contrarian. If you really think Oreos, Pringles, and Lunchables aren't ultra-processed and extremely unhealthy, there's no point in having a discussion.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - enragedcacti 4mo ago
    Immediately backing off to "I know it when I see it" really doesn't help your case that UPF is the right way to categorize unhealthy foods
    - drum55 4mo ago
      It’s basically a wildcard, “ultra processed food” is a classification of nothing and everything. There’s nothing inherently bad about processing food, lots of food is terrible for you but that’s unrelated entirely.

the__alchemist 4mo ago

This is akin to pitbulls and porn: You know it when you see it, despite the existence of ambiguous cases. I bring this up because your call to specifics is useuful in general. In this case: There are gray areas, but in most cases, it's a useful heuristic. If your food comes in a bright-colored box, advertises as containing "Real [cheese|fruit|etc]" and or is branded with the word "flavor", "Ultra-processed" is a useful categorization. If your food is something like "Chicken breast", "whole wheat flour" or "Green onions", it's not. You will be able to find many ambiguous cases, at which point the categorization ceases to become useful. I do not believe this means categorization isn't useful in general.

breezybottom 4mo ago
It may be useful to you as a consumer as a way of avoiding sugar, fat, or whatever it is you think is unhealthy. Even that is dubious. But it's completely useless scientifically. There's no theoretical link between brightly colored boxes and weight gain. As you just admitted, that's only a proxy for something else you care about.
enragedcacti 4mo ago
You'd love my new food category. It's called Ultra-Priced Foods, and it argues that the more expensive something is, the better it is for you. Sure, there might be some exceptions, but overall price is a quite effective proxy for high quality ingredients. Oh, you don't have unlimited money? Some people don't have unlimited time or capability to prepare home-cooked meals constantly. It would behoove anti-UPF advocates to design a system that more accurately describes nutritional value of "UPFs" so people can make informed decisions within the constraints of their life.
- the__alchemist 4mo ago
  I don't buy it. If there are time-available constraints, do grocery delivery instead of takeaway, or buy good stuff instead of bottom-feeder stuff at the store. There are so many low/no-prep food options. I think the "Most people are too poor to eat things other than fast foot and flavor-blast Syrup chips" is a lie.