I agree with you in general and recognize the validity of your point, but in this particular case we all know they mean a combination of ‘meat, brain and bone slurry’, ‘HFCS-infused everything’ and ‘chlorine bleached <8% protein wheat flour’.
combination of ‘meat, brain and bone slurry’, ‘HFCS-infused everything’ and ‘chlorine bleached <8% protein wheat flour’.
Thanks for proving my point. You just described everything from toast to sausages and even laced in some unscientific thoughts on HFCS (hint: it’s sugar, sugar is bad but HFCS is no worse than sugar).
“You know - stuff I hear on Tik Tok is bad for you” is not a scientific conclusion.
I think you’re myopically focusing on my humorous hyperbole and missing my point. Purely scientifically speaking you might well be able to subsist on SCoP, casein powder in water, a dry pack of chow mein noodles and a daily multi-vitamin pill and be perfectly fine. Hell, you can probably scientifically design some sort of nutritionally perfect human kibble that the peons can wash down with Real Water ™, but is that desirable?
Now if you will excuse me, I have a sourdough bread to shove in the oven.
It feels like your null hypothesis is to keep eating it, though. Your argument is, “you’ve indicated it’s bad for me, but you aren’t saying why, therefore I’m going to keep eating it.”
But if you’re interested in the scientific result here, your null hypothesis should be to stay away from it until you have enough data. Maybe you’re not aware of the overwhelming amount of data that shows ultra processed foods are linked to all kinds of health disorders?
It’s like someone in the 50s telling you that smoking is linked to cancer, and you’re saying “yeah, but WHY? Until you tell me specifically what ingredient is harmful, there’s no reason for me to stop smoking!”
I have issues with sensitivity to unhealthy foods and even some vegetables set me off. Beans, potatoes, rice, sweet peas, anything spicy like onions, garlic, ginger, or peppers. Honey as well, due to being made up mostly of simple carbohydrates. A box of granola bars would spoil my day, a few slices of pizza would kick up arrhythmia, and a shot of vodka would put me in the hospital.
If it’s not a plain fruit, vegetable, nut, or meat like fish or chicken, it’s probably bad to at least some degree.
If you didn’t cook it with your own hands - don’t trust it. My mom was an old school Italian who made everything from scratch - including sauces. I was lucky enough to be raised in that environment. Bless that lady - she didn’t teach me but I watched. Today I love to cook but it’s difficult and yeah expensive… it’s not that much more if you do wise things. Today the wife and I will buy 2 whole chickens from Sams club ( 18 to 20 $ ) and carve them up ourselves into 7 or 8 bags of breasts… wings, etc ( 35 to 45 $ if you buy it individually ) . The remains will be saved for stock or broth and put in bags in the freezer. We’ve re- taken up pressure canning. Every veg we use, all the trimmings we would have thrown out is saved and used in the stocks. We got some 2.5 foot long pork tenderloins from the same place - like my forearm thick for maybe 22 $ and I cut chops and made packs of 4. I got maybe 24 chops which would have cost well over 100 $ just for the hassle of spending some time in the kitchen with some tunes and a knife. You can stretch a budget quite a ways if you don’t rely on purely convenience.
You’re spreading misinformation/FUD. At a minimum, Ultra Processed Food means it contains ingredients that are added because they “have” to to get it to your mouth, not because anyone wants you to put those ingredients in your body.
I agree that UPF is not rigorously defined yet, but to claim it is “so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers” is absurd. If it’s literally just kimchi, it’s not processed. If it’s kimchi that has a shelf-stable additive, and a dye to make it look pleasing, and chemicals to hide the taste of the machines that made it, then it’s processed.
If your FUD stems from your own ignorance about the subject matter, that’s a you problem, quit flaunting it around. If it stems from being a hired shill of General Mills, et al., then I hope you’re getting paid well.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
you don’t know what FUD is
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright. They are casting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the entire concept of being skeptical or critical of UPFs.
The only thing everyone agrees makes a UPF is the fact that it contains ingredients you wouldn’t otherwise seek out to put in your body. So your null hypothesis should be “let’s not put this in our body”, and not the other way around.
bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don’t mind manipulating useful idiots.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
then it’s processed.
What would make the kimchi ultra-processed?
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.
I’m guessing you don’t know how to read. This is a discussion about what constitutes ultra-processed food. It has nothing to do with whether ‘UPFs’ (the thing we’re still trying to define) are good or bad.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
Yeah, you’re too far gone. I hope you get the help you need.
“Ultra-processed food” is a meaningless phrase. The definitions for it are so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers.
Define the ingredients that are bad ffs. Stop with this ridiculous bs.
I love kimchi, some of my best cubicle-clearing work starts with kimchi.
I agree with you in general and recognize the validity of your point, but in this particular case we all know they mean a combination of ‘meat, brain and bone slurry’, ‘HFCS-infused everything’ and ‘chlorine bleached <8% protein wheat flour’.
No, the study cited in the article doesn’t share your definition.
This is my point. No, “we” don’t.
Thanks for proving my point. You just described everything from toast to sausages and even laced in some unscientific thoughts on HFCS (hint: it’s sugar, sugar is bad but HFCS is no worse than sugar).
“You know - stuff I hear on Tik Tok is bad for you” is not a scientific conclusion.
I think you’re myopically focusing on my humorous hyperbole and missing my point. Purely scientifically speaking you might well be able to subsist on SCoP, casein powder in water, a dry pack of chow mein noodles and a daily multi-vitamin pill and be perfectly fine. Hell, you can probably scientifically design some sort of nutritionally perfect human kibble that the peons can wash down with Real Water ™, but is that desirable?
Now if you will excuse me, I have a sourdough bread to shove in the oven.
Ah - it seems I may have been.
It feels like your null hypothesis is to keep eating it, though. Your argument is, “you’ve indicated it’s bad for me, but you aren’t saying why, therefore I’m going to keep eating it.”
But if you’re interested in the scientific result here, your null hypothesis should be to stay away from it until you have enough data. Maybe you’re not aware of the overwhelming amount of data that shows ultra processed foods are linked to all kinds of health disorders?
It’s like someone in the 50s telling you that smoking is linked to cancer, and you’re saying “yeah, but WHY? Until you tell me specifically what ingredient is harmful, there’s no reason for me to stop smoking!”
That’s not my argument at all.
I have issues with sensitivity to unhealthy foods and even some vegetables set me off. Beans, potatoes, rice, sweet peas, anything spicy like onions, garlic, ginger, or peppers. Honey as well, due to being made up mostly of simple carbohydrates. A box of granola bars would spoil my day, a few slices of pizza would kick up arrhythmia, and a shot of vodka would put me in the hospital.
If it’s not a plain fruit, vegetable, nut, or meat like fish or chicken, it’s probably bad to at least some degree.
That sounds like stience to me.
Scientifically speaking, I am basically a walking index on junk food.
If you didn’t cook it with your own hands - don’t trust it. My mom was an old school Italian who made everything from scratch - including sauces. I was lucky enough to be raised in that environment. Bless that lady - she didn’t teach me but I watched. Today I love to cook but it’s difficult and yeah expensive… it’s not that much more if you do wise things. Today the wife and I will buy 2 whole chickens from Sams club ( 18 to 20 $ ) and carve them up ourselves into 7 or 8 bags of breasts… wings, etc ( 35 to 45 $ if you buy it individually ) . The remains will be saved for stock or broth and put in bags in the freezer. We’ve re- taken up pressure canning. Every veg we use, all the trimmings we would have thrown out is saved and used in the stocks. We got some 2.5 foot long pork tenderloins from the same place - like my forearm thick for maybe 22 $ and I cut chops and made packs of 4. I got maybe 24 chops which would have cost well over 100 $ just for the hassle of spending some time in the kitchen with some tunes and a knife. You can stretch a budget quite a ways if you don’t rely on purely convenience.
You’re spreading misinformation/FUD. At a minimum, Ultra Processed Food means it contains ingredients that are added because they “have” to to get it to your mouth, not because anyone wants you to put those ingredients in your body.
I agree that UPF is not rigorously defined yet, but to claim it is “so broad as to cover everything from kimchi to Snickers” is absurd. If it’s literally just kimchi, it’s not processed. If it’s kimchi that has a shelf-stable additive, and a dye to make it look pleasing, and chemicals to hide the taste of the machines that made it, then it’s processed.
If your FUD stems from your own ignorance about the subject matter, that’s a you problem, quit flaunting it around. If it stems from being a hired shill of General Mills, et al., then I hope you’re getting paid well.
What would make the kimchi ‘ultra processed’?
I agree with the original commenter that these terms are sensationalist bullshit perpetuated by scumbags who don’t mind manipulating useful idiots.
Also, you don’t know what FUD is.
I was extremely clear about this in my previous comment. If re-reading a few times doesn’t clear things up, I don’t know how to help you.
They are doing the same thing that the right does for climate change: they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright. They are casting Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt on the entire concept of being skeptical or critical of UPFs.
The only thing everyone agrees makes a UPF is the fact that it contains ingredients you wouldn’t otherwise seek out to put in your body. So your null hypothesis should be “let’s not put this in our body”, and not the other way around.
And I better not find out you’re doing it for free.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
It is clear to me you didn’t click any of my sources and have no interest in this subject. Cheers.
It’s clear to me that you want me to say what you want me to say rather than what I am saying.
What would make the kimchi ultra-processed?
I’m guessing you don’t know how to read. This is a discussion about what constitutes ultra-processed food. It has nothing to do with whether ‘UPFs’ (the thing we’re still trying to define) are good or bad.
Yeah, you’re too far gone. I hope you get the help you need.
You’re Nestlé’s favorite kind of person. To the point that, I defy you to come up with rhetoric that is more favorable to ultra processed foods.
OMG. 🤣
Hey, don’t work for free, is all I’m sayin 😉