Is a burger highly processed? Home-made burgers seem not to fall into that bucket. (Hot dogs, I can buy as being it, but burgers not.)
No, it’s flour, which is a heavily processed wheat product.
> mozzarella
Which is a heavily processed food that differs greatly from the input products.
> tomato sauce
Also processed. Likely has added sugar.
It’s interested to read these conversations and see that the frame of reference has shifted so much that obviously highly processed ingredients aren’t tripping people’s processed food detectors. Then the language used isn’t picking up on the processing (calling it wheat instead of flour).
Putting it into bread products with flavor enhancing additives and shelf life enhancing preservatives like you see in the hamburger buns at the store would make it ultra processed.
> Are we going to have a discussion on the ultra-processed diet of the medieval peasant?
Are you intentionally missing the point? A medieval peasant processing whole wheat into flour and then making a recipe out of it without added sugar and preservatives is a lot less processed than modern white flour production that goes into hyper-palatable foods on the shelf.
The average pizza that kids or adults consume is not from fresh, hand-made flour like a medieval peasant. It’s from the industrial process and it generally has flavor enhancing additives (sugar). We’re talking Domino’s pizza for most people, not an artisanal handmade pizza with freshly ground flour.
Just had to jump in on this. We have gotten way too accustomed to calling out sugar as a particular villain in stories like this, and it misses the forest for the trees. It makes it easy to think that removing sugar suddenly makes a product healthy. In the same way that we as a society went through that very foolish period where we thought "low fat" made a product healthy.
An average pizza dough for a large pizza has about 270g of 00 white flour. 75% of that flour is glucose chained into starches, or about 202g of glucose.
The same pizza dough will have around 1.5 tsp of sugar, or about 6g of sucrose. About 3g of that is glucose.
So in that pizza dough people will often shriek and point at the 3g of glucose courtesy of the sugar, blind to the fact that the flour added an enormous 202g of glucose. Glucose that will end up as blood glucose extremely rapidly (the body close to instantly cracks starches of refined flours into individual glucose molecules).
I've harped on here about this a lot, but sugar is simply not the big problem people think it is, at least relative to many diets where it is absolutely dwarfed by the glucose contribution of simple carbs. And to be extra clear, such a meal is perfectly fine if you're highly active and follow it up by a game of soccer or a hike or some other venture that uses that glucose to feed muscles. But for the average person it's followed by doing nothing, and their already insulin resistant body goes through trials to deal with the flood.
And overloading your liver with fructose is linked to non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, visceral fat and inflammation - just like drinking alcohol
Medieval flour would have had the entire grain -- the bran, germ and endosperm -- ground into the resulting product. The product would be high in fibre and nutrients, and with a ratio of good fats as well.
Modern flour separates out just the starch endosperm and discards the rest, then refining it to an ultra digestible product.
Nutritionally the former is healthy. The latter is not great, especially for people with a caloric surplus and a sedentary lifestyle, where it's just a massive glucose blast as that flour is 75% almost immediately turned into blood glucose.
I was responding to a comment that said “highly processed”.
Regardless, the mozzarella and tomato sauce purchased from the local store inside of a package or jar with long shelf life is likely to be ultra-processed.
But discussing the best-case scenario where all ingredients are sourced perfectly is missing the point. When someone says pizza or hamburger they’re not talking about the theoretically optimal perfectly produced pizza to minimize processed food content, they’re talking about what people are really buying and eating.
I don't know what "garbawarb" meant with "basic pizza", a frozen one or pizza in general? I just argued that flour, mozzarella and simple tomato sauce are not the best examples for UPF.
Regular flour is processed, not ultra processed. If it’s sweetened and laden with preservatives it’s ultra processed.
I can't determine whether the study differentiates between healthy home made sandwiches and junk food that contains some kind of "bread".
That would include baking your own bread which is not common in the US afaik.
That doesn't mean you can't find decent bread even at supermarkets, but it's not the default and quite a lot more expensive. The main exception in Ireland is Lidl, which sells decent bread for a decent price.
Sorry but this is UPF bread and their rolls are sometimes made in China.
> sell at supermarkets in Ireland or the UK
At least in London there are many shops now that sell bread that at least looks like bread (Ole & Steen, Gail's, ...). I can't remember any ingredient lists, so likely UPF as well...
All Lidls that I know only have an oven and bake delivered dough pieces (produced all over Europa, China, ...) full of artificial enzymes, glucose syrup, ... Might look like mediocre sourdough bread but is closer to a sponge.
> If the ingredients include artificial colors and chemicals that aren’t normally found in the kitchen, the item is likely ultra-processed.
Curious to see sandwiches included in the list (and the top "offender", no less). Home-made ones can be pretty healthy!
Edit to add: the study says:
> "Ultra-processed foods tend to be hyperpalatable, energy-dense, low in dietary fiber, and contain little or no whole foods, while having high amounts of salt, sweeteners, and unhealthy fats".
The study page also contains a more precise definition (using something called Nova classification).
An unprocessed slice of tomato and lettuce if you’re lucky.
Conversations about processed foods reveal a lot about how our perspectives have shifted so much. Something like a burger is stacked with highly processed items.
I give you a tomato, that's unprocessed. I squash it a bit and maybe add some salt? That's processed. I boil the hell out of it and mix it with 30 other ingredients (like salt, sugar, flavoring, preservatives, other additives, etc.), especially in large quantities? That's heavily processed or above. As you can see, the processing is what made a tomato worse for the health.
The term is perfectly apt.
Hence "processed" is not necessarily bad. And thus the term, imho, is not suitable.
The modern interpretation of "processing" only begins at the next level. When the process has a lot more added steps and ingredients which in practice are almost guaranteed to be less healthy. But when we say "ultra-processed" it's guaranteed that it has significant health downsides. Ultra processed food has decreased nutritional content due to the processing, and high levels of unhealthy ingredients or components (like sugar, salt, trans fats, preservatives, and all kinds of other additives). Many ultra processed foods have more sugar, salt, or trans fats than they have the purported main ingredient. I'm just looking at a jar of "pistachio cream" that has 50% more sugar than pistachio.
So for all intents and purposes, in practice, processed food makes it less healthy and ultra-processed is synonymous with very unhealthy.
It’s spreading. The notion that if a child is hungry the only solution is to feed them immediately.
The best example of this phenomena is the movies. People start snacking the moment they enter and continue through the whole show, which is a conditioned response that theatres quite literally created -- normalizing that it's a "part of the experience" -- for revenue production.
Can people really not fathom going a couple of hours without stuffing their faces? It's bizarre.
I feel the same way about flying. It's amazing how demanding people are to be fed on even short flights, when the whole process is just annoying and overbearing.
72% overweight rate for US adults, 45-60% for most European countries.
https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/indicator/sh-sta-owad-zs...
> The color-coded visualization shared by Brilliant Maps shows that in many U.S. states, obesity rates exceed 30 percent, with some surpassing 40 percent. Southern and Midwestern states, such as Mississippi and West Virginia, report the highest levels, while Western states like Colorado and Hawaii have comparatively lower rates, though still above most European nations.
> Comparatively, obesity rates in most European countries remain below 25 percent, with some nations, particularly in Southern and Western Europe, reporting levels under 15 percent.
https://www.newsweek.com/map-reveals-obesity-rates-us-compar...
Whole grain cereal with low sugar contents fall under ultra-processed, and it could still be more nutritious and less sugary than freshly squeezed OJ.
That said, I think framing all UPFs or processed foods as "bad" misses the point. What really matters is the nutritional value of the food itself. A food being ultra-processed doesn’t automatically make it less healthy than a minimally processed one.
We should focus more on what’s actually in the food: the sugar content, fiber, protein, fat, micro-nutrients, rather than just whether it’s been processed or not.
TLDR: It's the label telling what is in the food that matters, not the processes it underwent, although that can be VERY helpful for certain people who value how their food is made for moral/ethical/health reasons.
Figuring out which ultra processed foods are ok and which ones aren't is very difficult and can be manipulated. I think it's much easier to avoid that stuff and cook from scratch.
These are the NOVA classifications, where processed and ultraprocessed are groups 3-4 respectively. These definitions have evolved over time [1], which means that it can be confusing to read different studies, when the formal definitions have changed after publication. So the best thing is to ignore the "ultraprocessed" category as a general term and instead read what the methodology was in any given study.
What researchers mostly don't do is lump all sorts of things into an undefined bucket of whatever processes and ingredients they think are unhealthy that day. This is what pop-sci media does, and may be what the podcast is railing does. But studies on ultraprocessed foods tend not to do this.
Examples of processed food:
> Canned or bottled vegetables and legumes in brine; salted or sugared nuts and seeds; salted, dried, cured, or smoked meats and fish; canned fish (with or without added preservatives); fruit in syrup (with or without added anti-oxidants); freshly made unpackaged breads and cheeses.
https://openknowledge.fao.org/server/api/core/bitstreams/527...
As a heuristic it correlates quite well to many measures. The more someone’s diet falls on the ultra-processed end of the spectrum and the less they eat of unprocessed foods, the higher the rate of health problems.
A simple example of the effects of processing would be considering an apple: Eating a whole apple is the healthiest because you consume all of the fiber and the digestion process is slowed because you have to break it down. Crushing it into something like apple sauce preserves much of the structure but now it absorbs faster and it’s easier to overeat it before your body can recognize it’s full. Processing it further to apple juice removes the fiber and now makes it spike your blood sugar and it’s easy to consume a lot of sugar.
Ultra processed would take this even further, packaging it in a container with added sugar and some preservatives for shelf life. This is where it enters kids (and adults) diets, where it is far removed from the unprocessed Apple it started as.
Congrats, you found an example involving a basic item that works. I suppose that means something, and now people should go drink unpasteurized milk and RFK Jr. was right all along.
The reason telling people not to eat chemicals is dumb is precisely because you lose the richness of the structure of the argument by taking the category of chemicals and casting them all in the same 1 dimension. Like saying, "Pharmaceuticals are dangerous."
Proponents of the dumbing down basically suggest just memorizing all the counter examples. Congratulations, you successfully reduced the problem of recognizing junk food down the problem of recognizing junk food. I'll avoid processed food except the processes that are good, like baking bread instead of eating raw flour, and it's good when it is bread but bad when it's cookies.
In reality, the measures that people need to legitimately follow aren't actually all that complex. You don't need to reduce it down to one dimension. You would be much better off if you just kept track of these 3 or 4 dimensions.
1. How many calories do you eat in a typical day. 2. How satiated they are after a reasonable number of calories. 3. If they aren't pooping well, eat more fibre. 4. If you really want to get nerdy about it, track macros.
Doing so isn't actually all that complicated. In fact, I don't think a lack of knowledge or recognition of the issues in their diets is the issue. It's really the harsh reality that people struggle to manage the vices they already are fully aware of, and telling them about the dangerous of "processed" foods doesn't meet this issue in any way.
Equating the research to RFK Jr is a strange attack, given that this is actual research that you’re dismissing and replacing with your own idea that you can sense if your food is healthy by some arbitrary criteria you came up with.
It’s also ironic that you dismiss it as a dumbing down and then propose your own extremely reductive criteria as a replacement which completely misses the issues being studied. It’s possible to have a eucaloric diet and eat enough fiber while also having significant negative health effects ranging from glycemic control issues to rapidly progressing cardiovascular disease.
False, based publicly available data, even data pushed by the UPF cultists there is no correlation between UPF consumption and 'Life Expectancy at Birth', 'CVD Deaths per 100K', 'Heart Disease Deaths per 100K', 'Cancer Incidence Rate per 100K', 'Stroke deaths per 100k', '%age Population with High Blood Pressure ISCED standard', 'Mean Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHG)', or shockingly 'BMI'.
In fact, in some cases there is an anti correlation such as life expectancy, now it would be absurd to suggest UPFs increase longevity of course but the reality is richer countries eat more processed foods and richer countries live longer.
https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310
> Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low).
I’m amazing how anti-science this conversation always becomes on HN, with those who don’t understand the research claiming to have the scientific upper hand.
Even your apple example is lacking! There's a difference between unsweetened apple sauce which is crushed and the most common applesauces which have juice and sugar added.
They're both vague you-know-what-I-mean terms, and don't have any place in research papers, which really ought to be asking more specific questions. Are ultra-processed foods bad for you? You might as well ask whether "yucky foods" are good for you, or what the health effects of "appetizers" are.
If you want to know if white bread or artificial colors or emulsifiers are unhealthy, ask that question directly instead of using this vague proxy category.
This is false. There are specific criteria for these categories in the research papers.
It’s also acknowledge that it’s not a 100% perfect objective all-encompassing measure, but it is a very good heuristic.
I don’t know why some people read a headline and think they know more about the topic than the research papers (which they clearly also have not read)
If you think emulsifiers are unhealthy, conduct a study on emulsifiers. If you think the absence of Nova group 1 foods is unhealthy, study that. I am questioning the value of studying foods with emulsifiers OR no group 1 ingredients OR added sugar OR were extruded OR were moulded OR which have "sophisticated packaging" OR have fruit juice concentrates OR hydrogenated oils OR etc. etc. etc., as if they formed a single scientifically meaningful group.
xandrius•6mo ago
v5v3•6mo ago
If they broke it down to demographics then would show a divide depending on income/education levels, area and so on.
xandrius•6mo ago