What are the official definitions of the varying degrees of food processing? When does food become processed and then move into "highly processed" and then on to "ultra processed".
High fat and high calorie doesn't seem clear cut and scientific enough.
Definitions vary, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture says anything that changes the fundamental nature of an agricultural product – heating, freezing, dicing, juicing – is a processed food.
"Those little baby carrots that you get in a supermarket – that's a processed food," said Penny Kris-Etherton, registered dietitian and distinguished professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University's Department of Nutritional Sciences. So are frozen vegetables, or even broccoli that's been cut into florets.
Ultra-processed food takes things further. Nutritionists started using the term about 10 years ago, and again, definitions vary. One diet classification system called NOVA sums it up as "snacks, drinks, ready meals and many other products created mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods or derived from food constituents with little if any intact food."
Yeah, I feel there is no way we can have a clear definition on it. Even these citations (thank you for extracting them by the way) require more definitions. What exactly is a "intact food"? Does that mean a plant or animal that could exist in nature? Cause thats approximately zero percent of what I buy or eat.
It's all subjective, feels very much like a "you know it if you see it" kind of thing.
I think ultra processed includes things like high fructose corn syrup-which basically has nothing else from corn within it. It’s pretty much a naked solution at that point.
This is tough. Maybe a good definition could involve how the food hits your blood sugar levels compared to its completely whole equivalent.
Most of those make no sense to me. Why does chopping up a chicken (a chicken patty) make any difference? Same with fish. If I chop it and roll it in bread crumbs and freeze it it's suddenly "ultra processed"? So if I freeze raw fish is that "ultra processed". If I grind the raw fish with my teeth before swallowing has it suddenly become "ultra processed"?
Even corn chips, they're just corn meal, oil, and salt. Unless you mean something like favored Doritos, normal corn chips are aren't remotely "ultra processed".
If I was to go by gut feelings on unprocessed to processed on your list, assuming I was making each of them myself, on a scale of 1 to 10
1 Raw fish filet
1 Canned Fish
2 Frozen Fish Fingers
1 Corn on the cob
1 Frozen Corn
2 Corn Chips
1 Raw chicken breast
2 Rotisserie Chicken
1 Chicken patty (it's chopped chicken)
1 Peanuts
2 Peanut Butter
3 Peanut M&Ms
1 Milk
2 Cheese
10 Powdered cheese sauce mix (unless this is easier to make than I understand)
1 Brown rice
2 White rice
3 Rice Krispies
1 Wheat
2 Simple bread
3 Chocolate chip cookies
Basically only 1 item on your list would even fit "processed" for me. I think many of those numbers are also misleading. I wouldn't put white rice as 2x processed over brown rice. More like 1.25. Same with cheese, rotisserie chicken
I think the main thing is that as you go up in the amount of processing, nutrients/fiber are removed (even just by canning) and other things are added (salt, sugar, oil etc), which has an impact if most of what you eat comes from the more processed categories.
In the fish fingers and chicken patty examples, they may by definition just be ground up meat with breadcrumbs on it, but the actual store bought versions are often full of other stuff:
>BONELESS SKINLESS CHICKEN BREAST WITH RIB MEAT, WATER SALT, TURBINADO SUGAR, DRIED GARLIC, ONION POWDER, SEA SALT, NATURAL FLAVORING. BREADED WITH: WHEAT FLOUR, WATER, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF THE FOLLOWING: CORN STARCH, EXTRACTIVES OF PAPRIKA, LEAVENING (CREAM OF TARTAR, SODIUM BICARBONATE), NATURAL FLAVORING, SALT, SOYBEAN OIL, SPICE, SUGAR, YEAST, YEAST EXTRACT, YELLOW CORN FLOUR. BREADING SET IN VEGETABLE OIL.
I'm not necessarily making specific judgements about any individual ingredients here, but I think that this is what these studies are getting at.
Perhaps corn chips were not the best example, but a tour through the chips aisle at the supermarket will offer a grand selection of extremely salty, oily stuff that's, I think, fairly clearly very far from its original raw ingredients of corn or potatoes in terms of nutrition.
How "intact" a food is basically how much of the original nutrition remains after processing. Hand milling whole grain into flour is a form of processing, for example, that leaves the food almost completely intact because it gets rid of the inedible chaff without destroying much of the bran, germ, and endosperm. Industrially processed all purpose flour, on the other hand, goes through a more destructive process that destroys more of those layers and more of the nutritional value (due to chemicals used, more heat and force generated from machinery, etc). Processing flour into bread, leaves even less of it intact because the yeast and heat irreversibly change the chemistry of the bread, but if the flour is made from intact grains it will be significantly more nutritious, despite roughly the same amount of processing.
"intact" food is important because of bioavailability of nutrients as well as metabolic responses like insulin. You can't add fiber or vitamins back into fruit juice with the same effect as eating whole fruit, for example.
Edit: Even fully synthesized food that counts as "super duper ultra processed" can be more nutritious than unprocessed food, but as a general rule outside of medicine it isn't.
Yeah, my first thought was ground beef which to me still feels like minimally processed. Sure, it's high in fat but eaten correctly is a solid food choice in many dishes.
So olive oil is a processed food (pressing is the same a juicing). Bread is a processed food. Most salads with diced tomatoes and onions are processed food. Like most similar classifications (eg. organic) it's mostly nonsense.
I know it's not the correct interpretation in reality, but it's fun thinking that by this definition, all beef is processed unless you buy the whole live cow.
The experiment itself only seems to consider imbalanced macros and additional sugar inside water.
I too wish to know what exactly is meant by the term “processed” and whether, say, an industrial sausage is any worse than “all natural” shake having exactly the same macros (- preservatives)
food we eat every day that has been significantly changed from its original state, with salt, sugar, fat, additives, preservatives and/or artificial colours added.
And this “low quality seed oil” is bad…why? It seems to me that all of food science besides the basic “calories and macronutrients” that everyone knows is complete pseudoscience bullshit.
It’s usually got a huge amount of fat or sugar compared to a healthy amount of a whole food. So chips are soaked with fat-on par with nuts. But unlike nuts, chips often come with less protein, no fiber, and fats that have been refined highly.
Additives/preservatives/artificial colors can be of dubious safety as the standards for “safe to eat” are very lax.
It's more about concentration than about special ingredients, and to a lesser extent about missing nutrients.
These foods tend to be very calorie-dense, which encourages you to eat too much of them. They provide those calories without a lot of other things (fiber, calcium, and possibly other unknown micronutrients). There's some suggestion that their high concentrations also throw off the complex balance of gut flora, but that's harder to pin down.
The additives, preservatives, colors, etc. are probably safe in and of themselves. They've generally passed at least some basic level of safety testing (including being fed in megadoses to rats). They tend to be added to convenience foods to make them even more appealing and available. So they're correlated with negative health outcomes, but without being the cause of it.
It's still possible that there's something wrong with the additives themselves, but if you avoid them by eating less-processed products, you'll likely do better regardless of the additive safety. Generally, that means doing more cooking yourself, or at least selecting menu items that more closely resemble home cooking.
The problem is that they've been saying "eat less calories" for decades, and it hasn't fixed the problem.
Why? Lots of reasons, one if which is that calorie counting is hard. Totting up every calorie you eat is incredibly tedious. "Eat fewer calories" would be less onerous, but only if you're eating regular and consistent meals so that it's easy to identify what "less" means.
So they try to give easy-to-follow advice, like "eat fewer foods with a lot of calories". How do you identify those? Well, they're the ones that have been through a lot of industrial processes that take out not-fun stuff (water, fiber) and add in a lot of things that are purified to the calorie-rich parts (sugar, oil, butter).
They're looking for another way to say "Don't go to McDonald's and don't eat candy bars or drink soda" for a long time. If those are things that you do, and you stop it, you will almost certainly lose weight. But we can't even get people to do that, even though it's been the same advice for decades.
"Ultra processed foods" are convenience foods. If "convenience foods" were to be their next iteration of the advice, I'd be fine with that. It's not about the fundamental nutrition; they've been trying to get people to do the same thing for decades without any headway. It's about communication and persuasion, which are far harder jobs.
The problem with calorie counting is that we cannot reason about what a calorie looks like.
what does 1 calorie of ice cream looks like?
What about 1 calorie of broccoli?
1 calorie of steak?
The solution is to switch to a macro focused diet, which still uses calories under the hood.
With Macros you'll get a target of x g fats / y g protein / z g carbs which makes it much easier for a person to learn and reason about the food they are eating by sight and weight.
The second factor is, our much more sedentary lifestyle means that often a 2000 calorie diet is 200-400 calories off or a lot of people.
Counting anything is hard, so I prefer to develop a feel for it, if you can.
Cut the obvious junk. Cook more for yourself, with more focus on vegetables. Don't worry about trying to limit yourself; just aim for sensible foods. Try that alone for a few months, and see if your weight stabilizes and declines a little, which it should.
If that works, you can start substituting more processed stuff, as a treat or convenience. There you can look at calories or macros to help: "Ok, I was going to eat dinner, which is ordinarily around 800-1000 calories. This frozen pizza is... holy crap!" Have it anyway; you just know what it means now.
Overall, what I recommend is not to go on a restrictive diet, but to start eating for the weight you wish to be, and plan to remain there forever. (If you're a lot overweight, you may need to do that in stages.) A lot of people want to diet and then switch to a maintenance phase. I think it's better to go directly to maintenance, and let that asymptotically lower your weight. You suffer less and thus bounce back less.
But that's just my $.02. This is all brain stuff; whatever persuades you to eat right and exercise is good.
Exactly. Why isn't the control for this experiment a high sugar diet without the "processing"? It's very unclear what "processing" refers to. What the data suggest is that in combination the elements are bad, but they were unable to isolate which one was the cause and there is nothing to suggest processing was the cause. (For example, the rats eating processed corn oil or processed sucrose did fine.)
I presume what sets apart food in its "natural", "prepared" or cooked state is the increased level (though industry regulated) of potential contaminants introduced during separation of protein, fat, and sugar from all the other constituent compounds that may not have caloric value but have nutritional or protective effects.
I would like to find the written definition myself.
> The diet chosen here exemplifies the Western UPD with unbalanced levels of micro- and macronutrients
Generally speaking, "unprocessed" foods are raw whole foods. "Processing" means cooking, cutting, adding stuff, etc. (of course none of this is bad in any way). "Highly processed" and "ultra processed" mean there's high calorie density without protein, fiber, micro-nutrients, etc. AKA it's very easy to overeat and throw your nutrient balance off. Of course products like Soylent are technically highly "processed" but that's rarely what these articles mean.
I like to go with, if it's something that no longer resembles food that's possible to make with unprocessed ingredients or if more than half the ingredients in a product are chemicals. It's probably ultra processed.
Say burgers. A home made Burger made of freshly ground meat is a 'processed food.'
A Patty created in a factory out of a slurry of smooshed up animal, parts, binders and preservatives then flash frozen and shipped to various places where it's then thawed and cooked using an industrial grill and assembled by a teenager for minimum wage...that's ultra processed.
In case anyone is wondering how McDonalds beef patties are made, they're minced from large whole cuts of meat and fat. At industrial scale for sure, though not quite so harrowing as parent's description.
I’m aware. But the numbers given imply that Americans get fifty percent of their energy from sugar, which fails the sniff test — it’s completely unbelievable.
Is it tho? High-fructose corn-syrup is ever-present in most convenient foods in the US down to such basics like bread and the hilariously oversized sodas, while obesity and diabetes rates have reached epidemic proportions [0]
Yes, might be an issue with more restrictive definitions of added sugar. The number I found is 70-80g/day, which is a lot but if you count things like fruit juices which only have "natural" sugars...
Made me think about:
> Oatly has voluntarily agreed to stop marketing its oatmilks as containing 'n added sugars' in ad campaigns followir a complaint by Campbell Soup drawing attention to its oatmilk production process, which breaks down oat starch into simple sugars.
Sugar gives me joint pain and headaches so I have started to read food labels very closely. The amount of sugar in a lot of foods is completely insane. Especially a lot of “healthy” foods have a ton of it, for example protein bars, granola bars and a lot of breakfast food. A lot of salad dressing are high in sugar, so are pasta sauces, fruit juices and so on. Most bread has added sugar and pastry has way too much sugar compared to Germany.
Almost everything is sweetened to an extreme level.
> It should be no mystery that refined sugar is devastating to bones.
Why? What particular qualities does sugar have that directly affects bone?
I took a look and found one study[1] that indicated Fructose doesn't affect bone growth. This study[2] indicates that Fructose strengthens bones. This meta-analysis [3] says that there can't be any conclusions drawn due to not enough evidence.
It's depleting magnesium, induces inflammation, reduces vitamin D.
> The overconsumption of dietary sugar has the potential to increase the risk of osteoporosis by: a) increasing the urinary excretion of both calcium and magnesium, b) reducing the intestinal absorption of calcium by lowering the levels of active vitamin D, and c) impairing bone formation by reducing osteoblast proliferation and increasing osteoclast activation as well as lactic acid production.
"“We are what we eat,” but do you really know what’s in your food?
Our first paper on the Nutritional Dark Matter is in Nature Food, about the 26,000+ chemicals that are in our diet, and their impact on our health. " (2019)
Looks like there were rats being fed with a "recommended rat diet" and other rats being fed burgers, fries and a soft drink, e.g. the typical fast food meal.
Same for me. I also recently started eating mainly pasta or potatoes with some boiled or sautéed vegetables. Rarely any bread or other processed foods. Comparing to most other people I already had a very good diet before but now I am dropping some more pounds and my joints feel much better.
Seems we are really poisoning us with the typical diet of most people.
Hidden in the supplementary material (which you have to import an MS Word doc to read): the "ultra-processed diet" they fed the rats has multiple severe micronutrient deficiencies, probably because rather than being a mixed diet of many different ultraprocessed foods, it's: a hamburger and fries and soda, and nothing else ever, in a blender. Which is not remotely representative of any human diet.
This is the sort of study that just feels like animal abuse without the justification. They pursued a study where they knew the results beforehand -- an intentional macronutrient deficiency yields, unsurprisingly, a deficiency. And they knew it would earn press because it serves a particular worldview.
One could contrive a "zero processed food" study that yielded identical results.
> Which is not remotely representative of any human diet.
I know many humans who have diets not far off from that. Maybe deep fried chicken tenders as a substitute for hamburgers. Granted, most of them eat ketchup, which is a serving of vegetables in some states.
Seriously though, this problem is more common that I think a lot may realize. Something about a high-sugar, high-salt, fast food diet has the long-term effect of destroying peoples' ability to eat other foods. I've seen kids grow up on fast food who find the idea any green vegetable completely revolting.
My best friend and his wife are the best parents I've ever seen in practice, in many ways. Quality time, attention, simulating activities etc. They're both schoolteachers.
BUT! Their kids eat 3 meals for dinner: pizza, chicken nuggets with French fries, or easy Mac. For lunch they have pb&j, for breakfast eggs or cereal. Chips and candy for snacks. Throw in some applesauce you suck out of little pouches. That's it.
I'm pretty much appalled. The kids seem healthy, although I'm not an expert. But man, they're missing out on literally all the good stuff.
I hope they come around in a couple years. I haven't asked them their plan or anything.
I'm firmly in the camp of not cooking around kids unless they really hate one particular thing, or it's too spicy perhaps, or an allergy.
I became an extremely picky eater suddenly around age 4.
I literally didn't eat a single vegetable or fruit that wasn't an onion or tomato sauce until age 20, and my diet consisted mostly of "kid food" - hamburgers, hot dogs, breakfast cereal, milk, etc.
Meanwhile, my family was eating lots of home cooked mediterranean meals. I can't count the number of times I'd be eating a hot dog while they were enjoying something like stinky artichokes.
My parents cooked around me. Never forced me to eat anything I didn't like. Never insisted I "just try" a food that was going to make me gag.
Shortly after I turned 20, something just clicked and I started eating everything. Now my diet is more varied than the rest of my family.
Don't force your kids to eat stuff they hate.
If they're not actually malnourished or obese, they'll likely turn out fine. The last thing you want to do is establish a pattern of stress and anguish re: meals and food. That probably never turns out well in the long run.
Good-sounding advice I have heard from professionals is a middle ground between your approach and the grandparent comments' "this is what the meal is" approach: Don't cook separate meals for your kids, but include at least one food in the meal the child will definitely eat, even if it's just bread, crackers, etc. (I have also heard "don't make dessert separate from the rest of the meal.") Also, if your kids are old enough, don't pre-portion the food or serve it to the kids; let them make their own plates. If they just eat bread and cheese, that's up to them - but it doesn't set up the idea that they are going to get something "special" if they don't like what's being offered.
Not being a parent, I have no idea whether this works. I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has tried an approach like this. I'm sure kids can find some way to defeat it no matter how good it sounds.
Personally, my biggest issue growing up was less pickiness (like a lot of kids, I went through a picky phase and emerged from it not picky), and more that my parents had the classic "finish what's on your plate" rule, which I think has definitely contributed to unhealthy eating habits in adulthood.
One problem with parenting is that there is so much simple advice out there that “works” for some people so they become quite sure they’ve found the one true answer. We have raised both kids with the same “this is dinner” attitude and it worked wonderfully on the first kid and not at all on the second kid. It’s hubris for people to think they have figured out what works enough to tell others they should do the same.
One of my daughters finds almost all foods revolting. She accepts rice, ketchup, ramen, breakfast cereal, and most sweets. Sometimes she'll accept pickled beets. She doesn't tolerate veggies, fruits, most meat, most breads, and most restaurant food (including fast food).
We have convinced her to eat other foods, but she gags every time. I suspect she has an eating disorder. She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist who specializes in eating disorders. In any case, she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt.
What's amazing to me is I was completely unaware of these kinds of disorders before she came along. I think she wants to eat veggies (because she really believes us when we say they are good for her), but her body strongly resists.
I had the same thing, and I ended up growing out of it in my early 20's. The gag reflex is so tough to get around, I think I gradually got past it around the same time. I'll never be an adventurous eater, but I've become a huge fan of asparagus, spinach and green capsicums (bell peppers).
I'm obviously not sure what your daughter's situation is, and it sounds a bit more extreme than mine was, so take what I'm about to say not as advice but just as a different perspective.
When I was a kid, I hated the texture of most foods. They made me gag. It wasn't necessarily the taste, and I really did wish I could eat vegetables because I knew they were good for me. They even smelled and looked good. But I just couldn't get past the texture.
My pediatrician was "old school" and told my parents that I was just a picky eater and not to worry about it. Did I eat dairy? Fortified cereals? Eggs and meat? If so, I'd be fine. His point was that kids just need macronutrients, and the vitamins sprayed on cereal plus a daily supplement was more than enough.
Did I under eat as a result? Probably. Was I a little under weight? Yeah, but not dangerously. Honestly, it probably helped me long term because my weight has never been a problem as an adult. I'm also normal height.
So, did I have an eating disorder? I mean, in a way, maybe. But it was a reaction to a sensation. I didn't have any other reason past "it feels gross in my mouth." I'm not an expert, but doesn't disordered eating need to be accompanied by "wrong thinking?" I had no other cause or motivation for my picky eating.
> she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt
Again, I'm not trying to give advice because I don't know the specifics, but maybe don't worry too much unless she is actually presenting as physically unhealthy. Like, unless blood work shows some nutritional deficiency that can't be corrected with a vitamin supplement.
> She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist
Again, I don't know your situation, so maybe she is seeing a therapist for other reasons - but I believe that being made to see a therapist as a kid for my picky eating would have made things worse, especially since I didn't have any other problems. It may have even made me believe I had other mental problems.
I just didn't like the texture of most foods. Even as a kid I realized how weird that was, and that I should be eating more foods. I just couldn't do it physically until I was older and outgrew it. Now I'm fine. I'm an adventurous eater. I eat anything and everything, and I'm quite healthy.
Side note, I have adult friends who I learned were even pickier eaters than me as kids and who never really grew out of it. They're all fine, if maybe a little underweight.
There's evidence suggesting that super restrictive diets can extend lifespan. Also, hey, some people are just a little bit eccentric and have weird eating habits. Maybe they don't need to be "fixed." ymmv.
This is very strange to me, coming from a culture of "food is what is cooked". There was no stress around it because that's the way the world worked, sometimes you don't like the food but you still eat it. The same way you'd prefer to play all day instead of going to school. I can't fathom how one would call this traumatic, it's just part of learning to not be a spoiled brat that gets everything their way.
> it's just part of learning to not be a spoiled brat that gets everything their way.
I don't understand the idea that not wanting to eat food you hate makes you a "spoiled brat". Adults aren't expected to eat food they hate, and they don't. It's one of the few things kids are forced to do that has no analog in the adult world. This isn't the same thing as teaching a kid how to wake up early or do chores. Eating food you hate isn't like, a necessary life skill.
If a kid is a picky eater, you're usually not cooking up an elaborate meal for them - you throw a hot dog in the microwave or pour them a bowl of cereal. That seems easier than just about any other technique for dealing with a kid who doesn't want to eat "adult" food.
> I can't fathom how one would call this traumatic
It's not traumatic like a car crash, but pick a food that would make you vomit and imagine a person in authority and twice your size trying to force it down your throat. This happened to me in preschool, and it sucked. At home I was allowed to eat (or not eat) in peace.
I'm western, but almost all of my childhood and early/mid teens was spent in Asia. I think growing up seeing all the variety of odd and stinky things made me much more willing to try; they were having it, so _I want it_.
I wonder how much environment shapes how open one will be to food. Most picky eaters I've met come from places with cultures of TV-centric dinners (America, Australia, UK) opposed to family-centric ones (Japan, Germany, Singapore), which makes me wonder if there's a link or just coincidence in experience.
I am also a westerner that spent my childhood in SE Asia. Everyone ate in large, familial gatherings, and what was served was what was served. You could always fall back to plain rice if you genuinely didn't like what was available, but in practice I don't ever remember that happening. Sure, there were things you liked more than others, but sharing food with my friends was fun, and if they liked something, why wouldn't I?
We were also more involved in the production/acquisition of the food of the day- go fetch some eggs from the hens, go ask the folks next door for some lemon grass, that kind of thing. I really do think being a part of the creation of the meal was good for our development. It certainly made me more interested in tasting what the adults did with the ingredients we brought them!
It's a great point about the broader process. Specifically, including people who aren't your immediate family (do you want them to see you refuse something?) and investing in the prior-to-plate portion (sunk cost fallacy!).
I won't say there was zero concern (people did fight for the best durian), but overall, everyone was just happy to have food. The concept of being able to even be a picky eater just didn't exist (or at least, I never saw it) outside of genuine allergies or the like.
50. Wish I hit that "clicked" moment at some point. There ARE some raw vegetables I will (and do) eat. But cook them, and they're vile to me. But more than anything, I avoid a lot of sauces, things containing vinegar (which is a LOT) - really not a lot of rhyme or reason to any of it. But boy do I hear you about the pattern of stress and anguish re: meals and food.
I've often said that if I could get away with not eating - I would not eat anything.
I have a friend who is in his 40s, never eats veggies, and is one of the fastest bike racers in town. As much as people go on about veggies it isn't as if you can't live without them. The nutrients exist in other things too.
1) We explain to our kids their tastebuds are different and you have to learn to like some of the things that are healthy for you. Then we ask them to eat some to help learn and then then they can fill up on the rest.
2) We bury veg into food. It's amazing what you can grate into bolonaise sauce and similar and no-one knows.
3) Within reasonable bounds they don't have choice. We see some parents pander to their kids dislike. Of course the kids then learn they can refuse and get 'tasty' stuff. When kids have this option naturally they are more likely to push for the alternate and promote how bad veg etc is. To a degree restricting choice makes life easier.
And generally I respect kids are different and our experience of not having issues around this can be luck of the draw, also I think some people simply don't want the extra initial effort to establish boundaries. And as a parent I feel it's our duty to fuel a developing body and mind with the best we can as this is a core foundation for life.
Ha! Are we siblings? My mum's line was "Dinner is what I cooked and if you don't eat it now you can have it for breakfast served cold."
And she meant it.
> I know many humans who have diets not far off from that.
The minute you add Tomatoes + Cheese (found in pizza), you're suddenly fixing a major vitamin A deficiency (that Hamburgers / Potatoes lack).
Like, at least round out the meal with other ultraprocessed foods if you want to prove something.
-----------
What causes bone deficiency? Well, a lack of calcium (also found in cheese) and Vitamin D (needed to process calcium more efficiently), which potatoes also lack.
Pizza, Tacos, and Ice Cream would fix that, no joke, if I'm thinking about the "worst foods" that still hit those vitamins.
So I looked up the Vitamin A contents of Heinz ketchup and Kraft Singles (the highly processed "cheese" used in fast food cheeseburgers). Each say 2% RDV per serving, that's roughly 20mcg per serving.
I'm not sure below what level constitutes deficiency. Perhaps that small amount is enough.
Remember that pizza cheese is often not cheese, but a substitute called Analogue Pizza Cheese, made of casein (the protein in milk), starch, vegetable fats, emulsifiers, stabilisers, preservatives, colourings and flavourings. Burger cheese is either the same stuff or "processed cheese" which means scraps of cheese with the same additives. There's very little in the way of nutrition in any of this.
I'm not sure about the tomato paste either, but if the majority of the paste is the additives and the tomatoes have been heat treated and salted and sugar'd to an inch of their lives, you're not getting anything but calories, like mywittiname's comment suggests.
That's something to keep in mind with any processed foods: many of the materials in them are not there to provide nutrition, and don't.
> Leprino supplies cheese to 85% of the pizza market, including Pizza Hut, Domino's, Little Caesars, Papa John's, Hungry Howie's, Tombstone, Tony's, Jack's, and Digiorno.
Most green vegetables have barely any nutritive content. Babies naturally find them disgusting as well - this is an example of instinctive flavor preference actually working correctly. The problem is that evolved palatability is not well-calibrated for things like widely available sugars (including starches)
You're getting downvoted, but this is correct. Most green veggies have high oxalates and high phytic acid (antinutrients) that actively prevent the absorption of certain nutrients. For example, Spinach has calcium oxalate that prevents the absorption of calcium (it binds to calcium instead and passes through your digestive system).
Unless those veggies are soaked & boiled, fermented, or sprouted, chances are they're adding little nutritional value to your diet and can even cause anemia or other issues if you're just eating them raw.
This seems like a good argument for eating varying things over the day. E.g. you don't have to have greens with your breakfast, but it's probably good to eat them every so often for fiber.
And yes fermented greens like sauerkraut or kimchi may be better in many ways.
Fermentable fiber is food for lots of symbiotic bacteria in the gut. Our health depends on the health of many of those bacteria populations. They produce proteins for us for which we don't have the genes, modulate immune functions, etc.
You don’t need gut bacteria at all if you’re only eating food humans can efficiently metabolize on their own. E.g. if you eat only animal products, your body can completely break down the food into fats, peptides, etc. with no need for bacteria. There is no chance that my ancestors depended on bacterial symbiosis because there would have been long stretches of time each year where the only foods they had significant access to would have been the kind that gets absorbed before bacteria even have a chance to try to eat it.
Research has indicated that the profile of the gut microbiota is the key determinant of the levels of tryptophan catabolites (TRYCATs) in the systemic circulation. Consequently, the profile of the gut microbiota is an indirect contributor to the degree to which serotonin is present in the brain. As serotonin is a fundamental neuro-transmitter at every signaling terminus of the gut–brain axis (O’Mahony et al. 2015), this is a consequential fact. Aberrances regarding TRYCATs are known to play a role in the onset and progression of depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and somatoform disorder (Maes et al. 2007, 2011; Maes and Rief 2012), and aberrances in the levels of neurotoxic and immunomodulatory TRYCATs have been observed in several neurodegenerative and neuroimmune diseases (Morris et al. 2016).
As evidence regarding the impact of the human gut microbiota on the health of the gastrointestinal tract continues to grow, the significant correlation between these factors is becoming indisputable (Klose et al. 2010). Moreover, it is becoming clear that a highly responsive and mutual connection exists between the resident species of the gut microbiota and the host, primarily insofar as the host metabolome status is regulated by the microbiota locally and systemically (Zhang et al. 2015).
Disruptions to the human gut microbiota have widespread implications. For instance, they are associated with diseases external to the intestine, including the systemic immune system, the genital system, the central nervous system, and adipose tissues (Ciarlo et al. 2016)
Right, tomatoes, pepper, cucumbers are basically water (specially the ones we buy in supermarket), very little nutritional value but fills you up quickly so no good if you are trying to properly feed a child who is picky. Good fiber but that's all
To be nitpicky, startch is a polysaccharide, i.e. a long chain of sugars. Although it's ultimately made of glucouse, polysaccharides are normally not considered sugars, perhaps partly because they're usually not sweet, but also because of their complexity that sets them apart from their constituent sugars. So a bit like we don't call a house "brick".
The hamburger in the study had tomatoes and lettuce (but they explicitly pointed out no pickles or onions). So there was some vegetable material there already.
It isn't a question of whether eating only burgers, fries, and soda is a common problem or not. It is a question of a paper going on about Ultra Processed Foods as if that is a well defined thing, when it should have said "eating only a burger, fries, and soda causes rats problems"
I agree that the study really doesn't support what the headline conveys nor does it support the opposite. Thanks for doing the work of downloading the supplemental data and pointing out the rather important details.
A few years ago I decided to get serious about my many years of chronic obesity and started deep-dive studying nutrition science. I was appalled by the pervasive lack of scientific rigor in most nutrition science. Even widely accepted parts of public health policy, like the "food pyramid" that was preached to kids in elementary school, were based on shockingly weak observational studies with many uncontrolled confounding variables. Most of the "Large N" studies are based on "diary data." Essentially, asking people via written surveys to estimate what they typically eat and extrapolating that over years. Yeah, not kidding.
In short, I used to assume "nutrition science" was a somewhat rigorous field akin to biology or chemistry but discovered, for the most part, it's not. My N=1 experience has been that cutting out most carbs was tremendously effective for my metabolism type and I lost 85 pounds in 7 months without increased exercise. Since then I've kept it off for four years by sticking to a rigorous low-carb diet. It was difficult for the first few months but my palette and preferences adapted and now I plan to never go back. Eating low carb has the side benefit of cutting out most processed foods which may have helped improve my health. However, I don't recommend what I did for everyone because I've learned that metabolisms vary enough that what worked great for me may not work great for you. Instead, my advice is to do your own reading, develop hypotheses and experiment on yourself until you find a combination that works for your body, lifestyle and goals. Ultimately, weight loss is obviously a function of calories in vs calories out but in practice there are different ways of achieving the necessary caloric deficit. For me, low carb worked because it altered my blood sugar-driven hunger cycle. In all my years of failed dieting I'd never tried cutting carbs before cutting calories. Turns out it's much easier to cut calories when you're not hungry!
> Even widely accepted parts of public health policy, like the "food pyramid" that was preached to kids in elementary school, were based on shockingly weak observational studies with many uncontrolled confounding variables.
It's even worse in fact. The Food Pyramid was originally developed by the US Department of Agriculture, and then edited by the Secretary of Agriculture's Office, which represent the interests of the farming industry. USDA nutritionists initially made some healthier recommendations, but were overruled to cater for farmer's interests.
Here's an excerpt from an essay by Luise Light, one of the USDA nutritionists who's recommendations were rewritten:
"Back in the early ‘80s, I was the leader of a group of top-level nutritionists with the USDA who developed the eating guide that became known as the Food Guide Pyramid.
Carefully reviewing the research on nutrient recommendations, disease prevention, documented dietary shortfalls and major health problems of the population, we submitted the final version of our new Food Guide to the Secretary of Agriculture.
When our version of the Food Guide came back to us revised, we were shocked to find that it was vastly different from the one we had developed. As I later discovered, the wholesale changes made to the guide by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture were calculated to win the acceptance of the food industry. For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour — including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats — at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
You got the story right but the details wrong. The food pyramid and medical advice has pushed low fatx high carb and completely ignores the 50x volume increase of omega6s through seed oils.
The industry lied about grains and sugars, largely based on a faulty Ancel Keys study and promoted by a bunch of corporations like Kelloggs, led by 7th Day Adventists, who thought meat created "impure thoughts". It was bad science, financial corruption and religious ignorance all wrapped in one.
>> Most of the "Large N" studies are based on "diary data." Essentially, asking people via written surveys to estimate what they typically eat and extrapolating that over years. Yeah, not kidding.
That is one kind of study. There are also studies that measure the amounts of nutrients, or their byproducts, excreted by study subjects. These usually have small study populations or are restricted to hospital patients etc. There are also in vitro studies or in-vivo interventional studies that are most commonly conducted on animal models, like the study in the article.
So like you say, many of the studies that have the largest populations are questionnaire studies, or have populations that are not very representative of the general population. But it's very difficult, if not impossible in practice, to do any other kind of study on a large population, because it's very difficult to observe what a few thousand people eat day-in, day-out. The logistics of such a study would be absolutely mad.
The results of such large-scale diary studies do not have great statistical power, but you are not right to say that there is a "pervasive lack of scientific rigor". A study can be rigorous while having low statistical power. Neither does a study absolutely need to conduct double-blind RCTs to be considered rigorous. For example, cosmologists cannot conduct experiments on black holes. Anyway "rigor" is not well-defined, whereas statistical power is an objective measure that can be calculated from the elements of a study. Whether this is done right is another matter and it depends on the study, but nutrition science is not exceptional in this.
Btw, I'm not a nutritional scientist. But I hear your complain often and while I understand your frustration, I think you're allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We know some things about nutrition, many with low certainty. But, what are we going to do? Ignore all the knowledge and evidence we have because it's not as much or as good as we'd like, and instead ignore the important questions about the food we eat?
Edit: another thing I've noticed is that your comment accuses nutritional science of not being rigorous but at the same time it freely uses concepts from nutritional science, such as "carbohydrates" and "calories". Even grouping foods together in particular groups like "carbs" is a practice that comes from nutritional science. And nutritional science will certainly tell you that carbohydrates are high-energy foods that can cause weight gain if eaten in excess. So you, too, must accept that there is something in the work of nutritional scientsts that is useful to you. In that case, if I were you (if I was trying to adress some problems in the way I eat that is) I'd be very careful not to allow myself to selectively pick only those parts of nutritional science I like, and dismiss all the rest as "sloppy science". It's important to be aware that we all have very strong confirmation biases when it comes to food (me, for example, I make cheese so I'll never, ever believe it can be bad for you).
Man I kept reading that whole thing looking for a definition of what Ultra Processed Food even means, and didn't see it. It has been such a pet peeve of mine that we use "processed foods" as a category that is bad. There are lots of different foods that get processed, they get processed in many ways! Is oatmeal made from steel cut oats processed? Is steamed broccoli processed? You steamed it. Is bread a processed food? Cooked meat?
It is just this vauge idea, "no you know what I mean by processed foods, the bad stuff, stuff in a package". Raw carrots come in a package, are they bad? "no the bad stuff".... so bad food is bad, ok.
I feel like you're being intentionally obtuse and contrary.
If I state "processed foods" I typically mean anything factory made that contains seed oils (cotton seed, sunflower, soybean, canola, etc)
I would throw most sweets into this as well.
Its essentially middle aisle food at the grocery store that is more recognizable as a brand name on a box rather than a plant, animal or dairy product.
Why does the location in which the food is prepared affect the health benefits? If I used a small centrifuge in my home to isolate fatty acids to create my own emulsifier, is that no longer “processed” because the same operation wasn’t done in a factory?
if you're talking about how it's defined in the study, yes, it's defined very badly and it isn't very scientific.
But as far as nutritional advice goes - it's difficult to convey with any brevity or any precision, the plethora of substances added to food due to industrial process that are bad for human health, especially in the long term.
If you're to build a diet and do-able meal plan, shopping plan, and recipe/cooking/prep plan around food, it's easier to just state "processed"/middle-aisle/high-seed-oil/food-in-a-box.
or more simply, focus more on the white list of haves rather than the long list of things you shouldn't - produce, dairy, grass fed/antibiotic meat, pasture raised eggs and light on the whole grains . '
general conversation of "processed foods" evokes this contrary response that seems, frankly, to justify the consumption of Velveeta Shells and Cheese, fast food, Cheese-its, Doritos, and soda. Unless you're running a study that requires precision, this level of autist specificity isn't practically helpful.
Unprocessed foods include the natural edible food parts of plants and animals. Minimally processed foods have been slightly altered for the main purpose of preservation but which does not substantially change the nutritional content of the food. Examples include cleaning and removing inedible or unwanted parts, grinding, refrigeration, pasteurization, fermentation, freezing, and vacuum-packaging. This allows the food to be stored for a greater amount of time and remain safe to eat. Many fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, meats, and milk fall into this category.
Processed culinary ingredients
Food ingredients derived from a minimally processed food by pressing, refining, grinding, or milling. They are typically not eaten on their own but used to prepare minimally processed foods. Examples include oils from plants, seeds, and nuts, or flour and pastas formed from whole grains.
Processed foods
Foods from either of the two previous groups that have added salt, sugar, or fats. Some canned fruits and vegetables, some cheeses, freshly made bread, and canned fish are examples. These foods usually are made from at least 2-3 ingredients and can be readily eaten without further preparation.
Ultra-processed foods
Also commonly referred to as “highly processed foods,” these are foods from the prior group that go beyond the incorporation of salt, sweeteners, or fat to include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. Several processing steps using multiple ingredients comprise the ultra-processed food. It is speculated that these foods are designed to specifically increase cravings so that people will overeat them and purchase more. They are typically ready-to-eat with minimal additional preparation. Not all but some of these foods tend to be low in fiber and nutrients. Examples are sugary drinks, cookies, some crackers, chips, and breakfast cereals, some frozen dinners, and luncheon meats. These foods may partially if not completely replace minimally processed foods in some people’s diets. One study using data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that ultra-processed foods comprised about 60% of total calories in the U.S. diet. [4] An association has been suggested between the increasing sales of ultra-processed foods and the rise in obesity. [3]
My rule of thumb is that "processed food" is the food cooked in one's kitchen, made from base ingredients with added salt, fat or sugar. "Ultra processed food" is the stuff that is not normally made in a kitchen, but in a factory.
My personal anecdotal position on this, is there's something with the wheat in America. European wheat tastes different.
Wheat is the number one component of food that is over eaten by those that are obese.
That'll be a fun one to throw at my kooky aunt, who insists that pasta in America gives her problems, but the stuff in Italy does not. She thinks it's GMO. I told her "GMO wheat" isn't even a thing.
> As of 2020, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted, with one wheat variety, Bioceres HB4, obtaining regulatory approval from the Argentinian government.
Lots of dietary science seems to study "processed food", but none seems to break down the effects they find to the specific food ingredients or processing steps.
For example, a hot dog is ultra processed by most definitions. But if you feed mice the raw ingredients that go into a hot dog, but not yet ground up into a hot dog, do they have the same health effects?
How about when you start adding and removing ingredients?
I suspect a specific processing step or ingredient causes many of these developmental issues, yet no study seems to attempt to find it
Rats are pretty good models for humans, but they are a leaky abstraction like all models. Obviously no one is arguing junk food is good for you, but rats have rather different dietary and metabolic needs than humans. Both Homo sapiens and Rattus norvegicus are garbage disposals of the animal kingdom, but believe it or not humans are actually a little better equipped to handle extreme diets vs rats. Feeding lab rats ultra-high fat diets is pretty much guaranteed to result in obesity, insulin resistance, and all the problems that come with it, but Inuits and other groups have survived thousands of years with exactly such a diet for large parts of the year.
Also, rats are wicked smart and even the "human" conditions for lab rats are likely insufficiently stimulating physically and mentally.
>The concept of processed foods seems so vague that it’s hard to study or reason about.
Is it? Or is that what the food companies want you to believe. They have a history of obfuscating the facts to make processed food sound like its good for you - e.g. yoghurt with sweetened fruit added.
My rule of thumb - did it exist 100 years ago? Then it's fine. There are a few corner cases - hummus comes to mind, its processed but by hand (traditionally), and is high in fat so don't eat too much of that, and it is hard to eat a lot of hummus imho. Packet Potato chips are high in fat and didn't exist a hundred years ago so ultra processed.
Do they define (or is there a commonly understood) definition of what makes a food ultra-processed, vs. processed, vs. not processsed? A quick cmd-f does not tell me what this means in the context of the study.
Wouldn't we see the increase in broken bones over the last 100 years if this was the case in humans? Also it seems to affect bone size. Wouldn't this result in the population getting shorter but we're getting taller. Not that eating hamburgers every day is healthy and increases diabetes and heart disease. i don't see study results manifesting in on our population.
Your speculations might be true if all other variables were held constant, but obviously there are many other variables which have changed in that time too.
Is it what is in processed food that is bad for us or what is lacking in fast foods that is bad? If it is what is lacking then supplements (maybe based on blood tests) could help. If it is what is in the food the only thing that would help is to stop eating them. It's probably both, but identifying what is missing could at least let us repair some of the harm. Beyond vitamins and fiber what else does processed food lack? Specific forms of protein? Variety? Bacteria for your microbiome? Long term energy providing complex carbs to keep you active?
126 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 175 ms ] threadHigh fat and high calorie doesn't seem clear cut and scientific enough.
Definitions vary, but the U.S. Department of Agriculture says anything that changes the fundamental nature of an agricultural product – heating, freezing, dicing, juicing – is a processed food.
"Those little baby carrots that you get in a supermarket – that's a processed food," said Penny Kris-Etherton, registered dietitian and distinguished professor of nutrition at Pennsylvania State University's Department of Nutritional Sciences. So are frozen vegetables, or even broccoli that's been cut into florets.
Ultra-processed food takes things further. Nutritionists started using the term about 10 years ago, and again, definitions vary. One diet classification system called NOVA sums it up as "snacks, drinks, ready meals and many other products created mostly or entirely from substances extracted from foods or derived from food constituents with little if any intact food."
From here: https://www.heart.org/en/news/2020/01/29/processed-vs-ultra-...
It's all subjective, feels very much like a "you know it if you see it" kind of thing.
Raw fish filet / Canned Fish / Frozen Fish Fingers
Corn on the cob / Frozen Corn / Corn Chips
Raw chicken breast / Rotisserie Chicken / Chicken patty
Peanuts / Peanut Butter / Peanut M&Ms
Milk / Cheese / Powdered cheese sauce mix
Brown rice / White rice / Rice Krispies
Wheat / Simple bread / Chocolate chip cookies
This is tough. Maybe a good definition could involve how the food hits your blood sugar levels compared to its completely whole equivalent.
Even corn chips, they're just corn meal, oil, and salt. Unless you mean something like favored Doritos, normal corn chips are aren't remotely "ultra processed".
If I was to go by gut feelings on unprocessed to processed on your list, assuming I was making each of them myself, on a scale of 1 to 10
1 Raw fish filet
1 Canned Fish
2 Frozen Fish Fingers
1 Corn on the cob
1 Frozen Corn
2 Corn Chips
1 Raw chicken breast
2 Rotisserie Chicken
1 Chicken patty (it's chopped chicken)
1 Peanuts
2 Peanut Butter
3 Peanut M&Ms
1 Milk
2 Cheese
10 Powdered cheese sauce mix (unless this is easier to make than I understand)
1 Brown rice
2 White rice
3 Rice Krispies
1 Wheat
2 Simple bread
3 Chocolate chip cookies
Basically only 1 item on your list would even fit "processed" for me. I think many of those numbers are also misleading. I wouldn't put white rice as 2x processed over brown rice. More like 1.25. Same with cheese, rotisserie chicken
In the fish fingers and chicken patty examples, they may by definition just be ground up meat with breadcrumbs on it, but the actual store bought versions are often full of other stuff:
High Liner Fisher Boy Fish Sticks
>MINCED FISH BLEND (COD, POLLOCK, HADDOCK, SOLE, WHITING), WATER, WHEAT FLOUR, VEGETABLE OIL (CANOLA OIL, COTTONSEED OIL, AND/OR SOYBEAN OIL), SOY FLOUR, ENRICHED WHEAT FLOUR (FLOUR, NIACIN, FERROUS SULFATE, THIAMINE MONONITRATE, RIBOFLAVIN, FOLIC ACID), MODIFIED CORN STARCH, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF: SUGAR, NATURAL FLAVORS, SALT, SPICES, DEXTROSE, ONION POWDER, LEAVENING (SODIUM ALUMINUM PHOSPHATE, SODIUM BICARBONATE), TITANIUM DIOXIDE, HYDROLYZED CORN PROTEIN, BUTTER FLAVOR (MALTODEXTRIN, ENZYME MODIFIED BUTTER, FLAVOR), YEAST, SODIUM TRIPOLYPHOSPHATE (TO RETAIN MOISTURE). CONTAINS: FISH (COD, POLLOCK, HADDOCK, SOLE, WHITING), WHEAT, SOY, MILK
Walmart brand Chicken Patties
>BONELESS SKINLESS CHICKEN BREAST WITH RIB MEAT, WATER SALT, TURBINADO SUGAR, DRIED GARLIC, ONION POWDER, SEA SALT, NATURAL FLAVORING. BREADED WITH: WHEAT FLOUR, WATER, CONTAINS 2% OR LESS OF THE FOLLOWING: CORN STARCH, EXTRACTIVES OF PAPRIKA, LEAVENING (CREAM OF TARTAR, SODIUM BICARBONATE), NATURAL FLAVORING, SALT, SOYBEAN OIL, SPICE, SUGAR, YEAST, YEAST EXTRACT, YELLOW CORN FLOUR. BREADING SET IN VEGETABLE OIL.
I'm not necessarily making specific judgements about any individual ingredients here, but I think that this is what these studies are getting at.
Perhaps corn chips were not the best example, but a tour through the chips aisle at the supermarket will offer a grand selection of extremely salty, oily stuff that's, I think, fairly clearly very far from its original raw ingredients of corn or potatoes in terms of nutrition.
"intact" food is important because of bioavailability of nutrients as well as metabolic responses like insulin. You can't add fiber or vitamins back into fruit juice with the same effect as eating whole fruit, for example.
Edit: Even fully synthesized food that counts as "super duper ultra processed" can be more nutritious than unprocessed food, but as a general rule outside of medicine it isn't.
I know it's not the correct interpretation in reality, but it's fun thinking that by this definition, all beef is processed unless you buy the whole live cow.
I too wish to know what exactly is meant by the term “processed” and whether, say, an industrial sausage is any worse than “all natural” shake having exactly the same macros (- preservatives)
food we eat every day that has been significantly changed from its original state, with salt, sugar, fat, additives, preservatives and/or artificial colours added.
https://www.heartandstroke.ca/articles/what-is-ultra-process...
It's not clear to me what attribute of UPF is bad. I know sugar is not good. But fat? Additives, preservatives and/or artificial colors?
Fats in ultra-processed tend to be low quality industrial seed oils, like soybean, sunflower, etc.
Additives/preservatives/artificial colors can be of dubious safety as the standards for “safe to eat” are very lax.
These foods tend to be very calorie-dense, which encourages you to eat too much of them. They provide those calories without a lot of other things (fiber, calcium, and possibly other unknown micronutrients). There's some suggestion that their high concentrations also throw off the complex balance of gut flora, but that's harder to pin down.
The additives, preservatives, colors, etc. are probably safe in and of themselves. They've generally passed at least some basic level of safety testing (including being fed in megadoses to rats). They tend to be added to convenience foods to make them even more appealing and available. So they're correlated with negative health outcomes, but without being the cause of it.
It's still possible that there's something wrong with the additives themselves, but if you avoid them by eating less-processed products, you'll likely do better regardless of the additive safety. Generally, that means doing more cooking yourself, or at least selecting menu items that more closely resemble home cooking.
Why? Lots of reasons, one if which is that calorie counting is hard. Totting up every calorie you eat is incredibly tedious. "Eat fewer calories" would be less onerous, but only if you're eating regular and consistent meals so that it's easy to identify what "less" means.
So they try to give easy-to-follow advice, like "eat fewer foods with a lot of calories". How do you identify those? Well, they're the ones that have been through a lot of industrial processes that take out not-fun stuff (water, fiber) and add in a lot of things that are purified to the calorie-rich parts (sugar, oil, butter).
They're looking for another way to say "Don't go to McDonald's and don't eat candy bars or drink soda" for a long time. If those are things that you do, and you stop it, you will almost certainly lose weight. But we can't even get people to do that, even though it's been the same advice for decades.
"Ultra processed foods" are convenience foods. If "convenience foods" were to be their next iteration of the advice, I'd be fine with that. It's not about the fundamental nutrition; they've been trying to get people to do the same thing for decades without any headway. It's about communication and persuasion, which are far harder jobs.
what does 1 calorie of ice cream looks like?
What about 1 calorie of broccoli?
1 calorie of steak?
The solution is to switch to a macro focused diet, which still uses calories under the hood.
With Macros you'll get a target of x g fats / y g protein / z g carbs which makes it much easier for a person to learn and reason about the food they are eating by sight and weight.
The second factor is, our much more sedentary lifestyle means that often a 2000 calorie diet is 200-400 calories off or a lot of people.
Cut the obvious junk. Cook more for yourself, with more focus on vegetables. Don't worry about trying to limit yourself; just aim for sensible foods. Try that alone for a few months, and see if your weight stabilizes and declines a little, which it should.
If that works, you can start substituting more processed stuff, as a treat or convenience. There you can look at calories or macros to help: "Ok, I was going to eat dinner, which is ordinarily around 800-1000 calories. This frozen pizza is... holy crap!" Have it anyway; you just know what it means now.
Overall, what I recommend is not to go on a restrictive diet, but to start eating for the weight you wish to be, and plan to remain there forever. (If you're a lot overweight, you may need to do that in stages.) A lot of people want to diet and then switch to a maintenance phase. I think it's better to go directly to maintenance, and let that asymptotically lower your weight. You suffer less and thus bounce back less.
But that's just my $.02. This is all brain stuff; whatever persuades you to eat right and exercise is good.
I would like to find the written definition myself.
> The diet chosen here exemplifies the Western UPD with unbalanced levels of micro- and macronutrients
Generally speaking, "unprocessed" foods are raw whole foods. "Processing" means cooking, cutting, adding stuff, etc. (of course none of this is bad in any way). "Highly processed" and "ultra processed" mean there's high calorie density without protein, fiber, micro-nutrients, etc. AKA it's very easy to overeat and throw your nutrient balance off. Of course products like Soylent are technically highly "processed" but that's rarely what these articles mean.
Say burgers. A home made Burger made of freshly ground meat is a 'processed food.'
A Patty created in a factory out of a slurry of smooshed up animal, parts, binders and preservatives then flash frozen and shipped to various places where it's then thawed and cooked using an industrial grill and assembled by a teenager for minimum wage...that's ultra processed.
Do you have some special definition of that which wouldn't include "everything".
https://www.businessinsider.com/i-went-to-a-mcdonalds-factor...
I.e. nobody knows what “processed” means, they just know it’s bad somehow.
It should be no mystery that refined sugar is devastating to bones.
Is it tho? High-fructose corn-syrup is ever-present in most convenient foods in the US down to such basics like bread and the hilariously oversized sodas, while obesity and diabetes rates have reached epidemic proportions [0]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4887150/
Made me think about:
> Oatly has voluntarily agreed to stop marketing its oatmilks as containing 'n added sugars' in ad campaigns followir a complaint by Campbell Soup drawing attention to its oatmilk production process, which breaks down oat starch into simple sugars.
Almost everything is sweetened to an extreme level.
Why? What particular qualities does sugar have that directly affects bone?
I took a look and found one study[1] that indicated Fructose doesn't affect bone growth. This study[2] indicates that Fructose strengthens bones. This meta-analysis [3] says that there can't be any conclusions drawn due to not enough evidence.
[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27832314/ [2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24267046/ [3] https://academic.oup.com/nutritionreviews/article/66/6/301/1...
> The overconsumption of dietary sugar has the potential to increase the risk of osteoporosis by: a) increasing the urinary excretion of both calcium and magnesium, b) reducing the intestinal absorption of calcium by lowering the levels of active vitamin D, and c) impairing bone formation by reducing osteoblast proliferation and increasing osteoclast activation as well as lactic acid production.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6140170/
"“We are what we eat,” but do you really know what’s in your food? Our first paper on the Nutritional Dark Matter is in Nature Food, about the 26,000+ chemicals that are in our diet, and their impact on our health. " (2019)
https://twitter.com/barabasi/status/1204413768987361282
Seems we are really poisoning us with the typical diet of most people.
OMG PROCESSED FOOD CAUSES BONE PROBLEMS </s>
They even avoided including cheese, to increase the size of the calcium deficiency.
One could contrive a "zero processed food" study that yielded identical results.
I know many humans who have diets not far off from that. Maybe deep fried chicken tenders as a substitute for hamburgers. Granted, most of them eat ketchup, which is a serving of vegetables in some states.
Seriously though, this problem is more common that I think a lot may realize. Something about a high-sugar, high-salt, fast food diet has the long-term effect of destroying peoples' ability to eat other foods. I've seen kids grow up on fast food who find the idea any green vegetable completely revolting.
I see some of my friends not far beyond chicken fingers for every meal and shudder...
So thanks, Mom! You were right. Here's to "Dinner is what I cooked, and if you want something else then breakfast is in 12 hours."
BUT! Their kids eat 3 meals for dinner: pizza, chicken nuggets with French fries, or easy Mac. For lunch they have pb&j, for breakfast eggs or cereal. Chips and candy for snacks. Throw in some applesauce you suck out of little pouches. That's it.
I'm pretty much appalled. The kids seem healthy, although I'm not an expert. But man, they're missing out on literally all the good stuff.
I hope they come around in a couple years. I haven't asked them their plan or anything.
I'm firmly in the camp of not cooking around kids unless they really hate one particular thing, or it's too spicy perhaps, or an allergy.
I literally didn't eat a single vegetable or fruit that wasn't an onion or tomato sauce until age 20, and my diet consisted mostly of "kid food" - hamburgers, hot dogs, breakfast cereal, milk, etc.
Meanwhile, my family was eating lots of home cooked mediterranean meals. I can't count the number of times I'd be eating a hot dog while they were enjoying something like stinky artichokes.
My parents cooked around me. Never forced me to eat anything I didn't like. Never insisted I "just try" a food that was going to make me gag.
Shortly after I turned 20, something just clicked and I started eating everything. Now my diet is more varied than the rest of my family.
Don't force your kids to eat stuff they hate.
If they're not actually malnourished or obese, they'll likely turn out fine. The last thing you want to do is establish a pattern of stress and anguish re: meals and food. That probably never turns out well in the long run.
Not being a parent, I have no idea whether this works. I'd be interested to hear whether anyone has tried an approach like this. I'm sure kids can find some way to defeat it no matter how good it sounds.
Personally, my biggest issue growing up was less pickiness (like a lot of kids, I went through a picky phase and emerged from it not picky), and more that my parents had the classic "finish what's on your plate" rule, which I think has definitely contributed to unhealthy eating habits in adulthood.
We have convinced her to eat other foods, but she gags every time. I suspect she has an eating disorder. She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist who specializes in eating disorders. In any case, she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt.
What's amazing to me is I was completely unaware of these kinds of disorders before she came along. I think she wants to eat veggies (because she really believes us when we say they are good for her), but her body strongly resists.
You eat a raw clam with a "tail", and everything else relatively adjusts itself, re: gag reflex.
When I was a kid, I hated the texture of most foods. They made me gag. It wasn't necessarily the taste, and I really did wish I could eat vegetables because I knew they were good for me. They even smelled and looked good. But I just couldn't get past the texture.
My pediatrician was "old school" and told my parents that I was just a picky eater and not to worry about it. Did I eat dairy? Fortified cereals? Eggs and meat? If so, I'd be fine. His point was that kids just need macronutrients, and the vitamins sprayed on cereal plus a daily supplement was more than enough.
Did I under eat as a result? Probably. Was I a little under weight? Yeah, but not dangerously. Honestly, it probably helped me long term because my weight has never been a problem as an adult. I'm also normal height.
So, did I have an eating disorder? I mean, in a way, maybe. But it was a reaction to a sensation. I didn't have any other reason past "it feels gross in my mouth." I'm not an expert, but doesn't disordered eating need to be accompanied by "wrong thinking?" I had no other cause or motivation for my picky eating.
> she seems physically healthy; she runs and plays and doesn't get hurt
Again, I'm not trying to give advice because I don't know the specifics, but maybe don't worry too much unless she is actually presenting as physically unhealthy. Like, unless blood work shows some nutritional deficiency that can't be corrected with a vitamin supplement.
> She has been seeing a therapist, but I wonder if she needs to see a different therapist
Again, I don't know your situation, so maybe she is seeing a therapist for other reasons - but I believe that being made to see a therapist as a kid for my picky eating would have made things worse, especially since I didn't have any other problems. It may have even made me believe I had other mental problems.
I just didn't like the texture of most foods. Even as a kid I realized how weird that was, and that I should be eating more foods. I just couldn't do it physically until I was older and outgrew it. Now I'm fine. I'm an adventurous eater. I eat anything and everything, and I'm quite healthy.
Side note, I have adult friends who I learned were even pickier eaters than me as kids and who never really grew out of it. They're all fine, if maybe a little underweight.
There's evidence suggesting that super restrictive diets can extend lifespan. Also, hey, some people are just a little bit eccentric and have weird eating habits. Maybe they don't need to be "fixed." ymmv.
I don't understand the idea that not wanting to eat food you hate makes you a "spoiled brat". Adults aren't expected to eat food they hate, and they don't. It's one of the few things kids are forced to do that has no analog in the adult world. This isn't the same thing as teaching a kid how to wake up early or do chores. Eating food you hate isn't like, a necessary life skill.
If a kid is a picky eater, you're usually not cooking up an elaborate meal for them - you throw a hot dog in the microwave or pour them a bowl of cereal. That seems easier than just about any other technique for dealing with a kid who doesn't want to eat "adult" food.
> I can't fathom how one would call this traumatic
It's not traumatic like a car crash, but pick a food that would make you vomit and imagine a person in authority and twice your size trying to force it down your throat. This happened to me in preschool, and it sucked. At home I was allowed to eat (or not eat) in peace.
I wonder how much environment shapes how open one will be to food. Most picky eaters I've met come from places with cultures of TV-centric dinners (America, Australia, UK) opposed to family-centric ones (Japan, Germany, Singapore), which makes me wonder if there's a link or just coincidence in experience.
We were also more involved in the production/acquisition of the food of the day- go fetch some eggs from the hens, go ask the folks next door for some lemon grass, that kind of thing. I really do think being a part of the creation of the meal was good for our development. It certainly made me more interested in tasting what the adults did with the ingredients we brought them!
yeah but like, what makes you think that "what was served" was served with absolutely no concern for what members of the family liked or disliked.
I've often said that if I could get away with not eating - I would not eat anything.
Socially - this is a huge handicap.
Your friend is more likely to die at a younger age and have health problems when they are older.
We take a different approach.
1) We explain to our kids their tastebuds are different and you have to learn to like some of the things that are healthy for you. Then we ask them to eat some to help learn and then then they can fill up on the rest.
2) We bury veg into food. It's amazing what you can grate into bolonaise sauce and similar and no-one knows.
3) Within reasonable bounds they don't have choice. We see some parents pander to their kids dislike. Of course the kids then learn they can refuse and get 'tasty' stuff. When kids have this option naturally they are more likely to push for the alternate and promote how bad veg etc is. To a degree restricting choice makes life easier.
And generally I respect kids are different and our experience of not having issues around this can be luck of the draw, also I think some people simply don't want the extra initial effort to establish boundaries. And as a parent I feel it's our duty to fuel a developing body and mind with the best we can as this is a core foundation for life.
The minute you add Tomatoes + Cheese (found in pizza), you're suddenly fixing a major vitamin A deficiency (that Hamburgers / Potatoes lack).
Like, at least round out the meal with other ultraprocessed foods if you want to prove something.
-----------
What causes bone deficiency? Well, a lack of calcium (also found in cheese) and Vitamin D (needed to process calcium more efficiently), which potatoes also lack.
Pizza, Tacos, and Ice Cream would fix that, no joke, if I'm thinking about the "worst foods" that still hit those vitamins.
I'm not sure below what level constitutes deficiency. Perhaps that small amount is enough.
I'm not sure about the tomato paste either, but if the majority of the paste is the additives and the tomatoes have been heat treated and salted and sugar'd to an inch of their lives, you're not getting anything but calories, like mywittiname's comment suggests.
That's something to keep in mind with any processed foods: many of the materials in them are not there to provide nutrition, and don't.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprino_Foods
> Leprino supplies cheese to 85% of the pizza market, including Pizza Hut, Domino's, Little Caesars, Papa John's, Hungry Howie's, Tombstone, Tony's, Jack's, and Digiorno.
Unless those veggies are soaked & boiled, fermented, or sprouted, chances are they're adding little nutritional value to your diet and can even cause anemia or other issues if you're just eating them raw.
And yes fermented greens like sauerkraut or kimchi may be better in many ways.
You don't know what you're talking about. See https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00726-017-2493-3 as an example (one of many).
Specifically:
Research has indicated that the profile of the gut microbiota is the key determinant of the levels of tryptophan catabolites (TRYCATs) in the systemic circulation. Consequently, the profile of the gut microbiota is an indirect contributor to the degree to which serotonin is present in the brain. As serotonin is a fundamental neuro-transmitter at every signaling terminus of the gut–brain axis (O’Mahony et al. 2015), this is a consequential fact. Aberrances regarding TRYCATs are known to play a role in the onset and progression of depression, chronic fatigue syndrome, and somatoform disorder (Maes et al. 2007, 2011; Maes and Rief 2012), and aberrances in the levels of neurotoxic and immunomodulatory TRYCATs have been observed in several neurodegenerative and neuroimmune diseases (Morris et al. 2016).
As evidence regarding the impact of the human gut microbiota on the health of the gastrointestinal tract continues to grow, the significant correlation between these factors is becoming indisputable (Klose et al. 2010). Moreover, it is becoming clear that a highly responsive and mutual connection exists between the resident species of the gut microbiota and the host, primarily insofar as the host metabolome status is regulated by the microbiota locally and systemically (Zhang et al. 2015).
Disruptions to the human gut microbiota have widespread implications. For instance, they are associated with diseases external to the intestine, including the systemic immune system, the genital system, the central nervous system, and adipose tissues (Ciarlo et al. 2016)
People don't come to weigh 350lbs eating vegetables daily.
The most redeeming ingredient in a burger, fries, and soda combo is the meat patty.
A few years ago I decided to get serious about my many years of chronic obesity and started deep-dive studying nutrition science. I was appalled by the pervasive lack of scientific rigor in most nutrition science. Even widely accepted parts of public health policy, like the "food pyramid" that was preached to kids in elementary school, were based on shockingly weak observational studies with many uncontrolled confounding variables. Most of the "Large N" studies are based on "diary data." Essentially, asking people via written surveys to estimate what they typically eat and extrapolating that over years. Yeah, not kidding.
In short, I used to assume "nutrition science" was a somewhat rigorous field akin to biology or chemistry but discovered, for the most part, it's not. My N=1 experience has been that cutting out most carbs was tremendously effective for my metabolism type and I lost 85 pounds in 7 months without increased exercise. Since then I've kept it off for four years by sticking to a rigorous low-carb diet. It was difficult for the first few months but my palette and preferences adapted and now I plan to never go back. Eating low carb has the side benefit of cutting out most processed foods which may have helped improve my health. However, I don't recommend what I did for everyone because I've learned that metabolisms vary enough that what worked great for me may not work great for you. Instead, my advice is to do your own reading, develop hypotheses and experiment on yourself until you find a combination that works for your body, lifestyle and goals. Ultimately, weight loss is obviously a function of calories in vs calories out but in practice there are different ways of achieving the necessary caloric deficit. For me, low carb worked because it altered my blood sugar-driven hunger cycle. In all my years of failed dieting I'd never tried cutting carbs before cutting calories. Turns out it's much easier to cut calories when you're not hungry!
It's even worse in fact. The Food Pyramid was originally developed by the US Department of Agriculture, and then edited by the Secretary of Agriculture's Office, which represent the interests of the farming industry. USDA nutritionists initially made some healthier recommendations, but were overruled to cater for farmer's interests.
Here's an excerpt from an essay by Luise Light, one of the USDA nutritionists who's recommendations were rewritten:
"Back in the early ‘80s, I was the leader of a group of top-level nutritionists with the USDA who developed the eating guide that became known as the Food Guide Pyramid.
Carefully reviewing the research on nutrient recommendations, disease prevention, documented dietary shortfalls and major health problems of the population, we submitted the final version of our new Food Guide to the Secretary of Agriculture.
When our version of the Food Guide came back to us revised, we were shocked to find that it was vastly different from the one we had developed. As I later discovered, the wholesale changes made to the guide by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture were calculated to win the acceptance of the food industry. For instance, the Ag Secretary’s office altered wording to emphasize processed foods over fresh and whole foods, to downplay lean meats and low-fat dairy choices because the meat and milk lobbies believed it’d hurt sales of full-fat products; it also hugely increased the servings of wheat and other grains to make the wheat growers happy. The meat lobby got the final word on the color of the saturated fat/cholesterol guideline which was changed from red to purple because meat producers worried that using red to signify “bad” fat would be linked to red meat in consumers’ minds.
Where we, the USDA nutritionists, called for a base of 5-9 servings of fresh fruits and vegetables a day, it was replaced with a paltry 2-3 servings (changed to 5-7 servings a couple of years later because an anti-cancer campaign by another government agency, the National Cancer Institute, forced the USDA to adopt the higher standard). Our recommendation of 3-4 daily servings of whole-grain breads and cereals was changed to a whopping 6-11 servings forming the base of the Food Pyramid as a concession to the processed wheat and corn industries. Moreover, my nutritionist group had placed baked goods made with white flour — including crackers, sweets and other low-nutrient foods laden with sugars and fats — at the peak of the pyramid, recommending that they be eaten sparingly. To our alarm, in the “revised” Food Guide, they were now made part of the Pyramid’s base. And, in yet one more assault on dietary logic, changes were made to the wording of the dietary guidelines from “eat less” to “avoid too much,” giving a nod to the processed-food industry interests by not limiting highly profitable “fun foods” (junk foods by any other name) that might affect the bottom line of food companies."
You got the story right but the details wrong. The food pyramid and medical advice has pushed low fatx high carb and completely ignores the 50x volume increase of omega6s through seed oils.
The industry lied about grains and sugars, largely based on a faulty Ancel Keys study and promoted by a bunch of corporations like Kelloggs, led by 7th Day Adventists, who thought meat created "impure thoughts". It was bad science, financial corruption and religious ignorance all wrapped in one.
That is one kind of study. There are also studies that measure the amounts of nutrients, or their byproducts, excreted by study subjects. These usually have small study populations or are restricted to hospital patients etc. There are also in vitro studies or in-vivo interventional studies that are most commonly conducted on animal models, like the study in the article.
So like you say, many of the studies that have the largest populations are questionnaire studies, or have populations that are not very representative of the general population. But it's very difficult, if not impossible in practice, to do any other kind of study on a large population, because it's very difficult to observe what a few thousand people eat day-in, day-out. The logistics of such a study would be absolutely mad.
The results of such large-scale diary studies do not have great statistical power, but you are not right to say that there is a "pervasive lack of scientific rigor". A study can be rigorous while having low statistical power. Neither does a study absolutely need to conduct double-blind RCTs to be considered rigorous. For example, cosmologists cannot conduct experiments on black holes. Anyway "rigor" is not well-defined, whereas statistical power is an objective measure that can be calculated from the elements of a study. Whether this is done right is another matter and it depends on the study, but nutrition science is not exceptional in this.
Btw, I'm not a nutritional scientist. But I hear your complain often and while I understand your frustration, I think you're allowing the perfect to be the enemy of the good. We know some things about nutrition, many with low certainty. But, what are we going to do? Ignore all the knowledge and evidence we have because it's not as much or as good as we'd like, and instead ignore the important questions about the food we eat?
Edit: another thing I've noticed is that your comment accuses nutritional science of not being rigorous but at the same time it freely uses concepts from nutritional science, such as "carbohydrates" and "calories". Even grouping foods together in particular groups like "carbs" is a practice that comes from nutritional science. And nutritional science will certainly tell you that carbohydrates are high-energy foods that can cause weight gain if eaten in excess. So you, too, must accept that there is something in the work of nutritional scientsts that is useful to you. In that case, if I were you (if I was trying to adress some problems in the way I eat that is) I'd be very careful not to allow myself to selectively pick only those parts of nutritional science I like, and dismiss all the rest as "sloppy science". It's important to be aware that we all have very strong confirmation biases when it comes to food (me, for example, I make cheese so I'll never, ever believe it can be bad for you).
n=1 applies to you ya know.
It is just this vauge idea, "no you know what I mean by processed foods, the bad stuff, stuff in a package". Raw carrots come in a package, are they bad? "no the bad stuff".... so bad food is bad, ok.
If I state "processed foods" I typically mean anything factory made that contains seed oils (cotton seed, sunflower, soybean, canola, etc)
I would throw most sweets into this as well.
Its essentially middle aisle food at the grocery store that is more recognizable as a brand name on a box rather than a plant, animal or dairy product.
Food is complex and people try to find simple rules that prevents us from not consuming a ton of stuff that's not good for us.
Indeed, what many people here are missing is that 'processed' isn't a scientific category, it's an ideological one.
But as far as nutritional advice goes - it's difficult to convey with any brevity or any precision, the plethora of substances added to food due to industrial process that are bad for human health, especially in the long term.
If you're to build a diet and do-able meal plan, shopping plan, and recipe/cooking/prep plan around food, it's easier to just state "processed"/middle-aisle/high-seed-oil/food-in-a-box.
or more simply, focus more on the white list of haves rather than the long list of things you shouldn't - produce, dairy, grass fed/antibiotic meat, pasture raised eggs and light on the whole grains . '
general conversation of "processed foods" evokes this contrary response that seems, frankly, to justify the consumption of Velveeta Shells and Cheese, fast food, Cheese-its, Doritos, and soda. Unless you're running a study that requires precision, this level of autist specificity isn't practically helpful.
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods...
Unprocessed or minimally processed foods
Unprocessed foods include the natural edible food parts of plants and animals. Minimally processed foods have been slightly altered for the main purpose of preservation but which does not substantially change the nutritional content of the food. Examples include cleaning and removing inedible or unwanted parts, grinding, refrigeration, pasteurization, fermentation, freezing, and vacuum-packaging. This allows the food to be stored for a greater amount of time and remain safe to eat. Many fresh fruits, vegetables, whole grains, nuts, meats, and milk fall into this category.
Processed culinary ingredients
Food ingredients derived from a minimally processed food by pressing, refining, grinding, or milling. They are typically not eaten on their own but used to prepare minimally processed foods. Examples include oils from plants, seeds, and nuts, or flour and pastas formed from whole grains.
Processed foods
Foods from either of the two previous groups that have added salt, sugar, or fats. Some canned fruits and vegetables, some cheeses, freshly made bread, and canned fish are examples. These foods usually are made from at least 2-3 ingredients and can be readily eaten without further preparation.
Ultra-processed foods
Also commonly referred to as “highly processed foods,” these are foods from the prior group that go beyond the incorporation of salt, sweeteners, or fat to include artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability. Several processing steps using multiple ingredients comprise the ultra-processed food. It is speculated that these foods are designed to specifically increase cravings so that people will overeat them and purchase more. They are typically ready-to-eat with minimal additional preparation. Not all but some of these foods tend to be low in fiber and nutrients. Examples are sugary drinks, cookies, some crackers, chips, and breakfast cereals, some frozen dinners, and luncheon meats. These foods may partially if not completely replace minimally processed foods in some people’s diets. One study using data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that ultra-processed foods comprised about 60% of total calories in the U.S. diet. [4] An association has been suggested between the increasing sales of ultra-processed foods and the rise in obesity. [3]
My rule of thumb is that "processed food" is the food cooked in one's kitchen, made from base ingredients with added salt, fat or sugar. "Ultra processed food" is the stuff that is not normally made in a kitchen, but in a factory.
> As of 2020, no GM wheat is grown commercially, although many field tests have been conducted, with one wheat variety, Bioceres HB4, obtaining regulatory approval from the Argentinian government.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetically_modified_wheat
https://grainstorm.com/blogs/blog/is-wheat-genetically-modif....
For example, a hot dog is ultra processed by most definitions. But if you feed mice the raw ingredients that go into a hot dog, but not yet ground up into a hot dog, do they have the same health effects?
How about when you start adding and removing ingredients?
I suspect a specific processing step or ingredient causes many of these developmental issues, yet no study seems to attempt to find it
Also, rats are wicked smart and even the "human" conditions for lab rats are likely insufficiently stimulating physically and mentally.
Is oatmeal considered Processed, what about ground beef, canned vegetables, olive oil?
Is it? Or is that what the food companies want you to believe. They have a history of obfuscating the facts to make processed food sound like its good for you - e.g. yoghurt with sweetened fruit added.
My rule of thumb - did it exist 100 years ago? Then it's fine. There are a few corner cases - hummus comes to mind, its processed but by hand (traditionally), and is high in fat so don't eat too much of that, and it is hard to eat a lot of hummus imho. Packet Potato chips are high in fat and didn't exist a hundred years ago so ultra processed.