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 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.