Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
100%. This is a laughable sentence:
"Ultraprocessed foods are unambiguously associated with an increased risk for chronic disease"
Everything about that sentence is actually ambiguous. What do they mean by "associated"? I assume if they meant there's a causal link they would have said so. What exactly is "Ultraprocessed"? The article implies there are "healthier" ultraprocessed foods. What makes them thus? Maybe the study is good, but the reporting is awful.
It's a state that food reach when mastering being food at a godly level and then going even further beyond. It's food that is capable of being food even without thinking on it. Of course toei will forget about it and treat as a power up because it's easier than coming up with scenes with the food dodging attacks etc..
>"Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods"
What a ridiculous "definition". So let me get this straight, if I buy a high-quality frozen meal, with no preservatives or funky stuff, it is "ultraprocessed" because it is "ready-to-eat"? But if I buy all the same ingredients and make the same meal and freeze it, that is not "ultraprocessed."
This sounds more like an emotional term than a scientific one, to me. I think it has a lot more to do
>"Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods" What a ridiculous "definition".
>"Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods"
It isn't a definition, though? If you can't tell the difference between a list of examples and a definition, why are you pretending to care about the definition?
Just say what you really mean:
If you say something macho before eating it, the cancer can't see you.
No need for the run-around, and all the pretending.
Better food is not less pleasurable.
Perhaps not, but it involves way much effort to cook it, or money for someone else to cook it for us, and that's significant.
Does it involve much effort, really? I am feeding myself all the time, and this effort is so occasional, costs me nearly nothing, while entertaining with handling your own whims for what you are interested-in at the moment. But above anything else, components, I am choosing, more often will be raw, unprocessed - which makes all the critical difference on article topic. And, of course, I will be pouring-in very decent olive oil, one never would be getting at fast food outlet or in shopping mall preprocessed
You do not account how pleasurable is the handling of the food. I do not see it as "spending time". It is part of food dealing, which ends in great dishes right there, where you are - you do not have to rush elsewhere, wait, pay somebody, leave tips, be spending on pricier drink, that you could be making for yourselves too as quickly. The whole industry made you think, you are getting a lot for your expense, while in fact you are to either pay times more, or are getting poor choice for your money.
I wish no one would post "is this a surprise?" about scientific studies, and no one would upvote such posts.
The study found a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer. It didn't set about trying to find *whether* there was a link. It set about *measuring* the strength of that link. That's what makes it science.
One problem people have is identifying what is an "ultraprocessed" food. Sure, we all know that sausage and Spam is bad for you. But is every food that has ground meat in it, equally bad for you? Why or why not? What about ground grains, like wheat? Is bread "ultraprocessed" and bad for you? These articles seem to assume we all know what "ultraprocessed" means, but to me, it's not clear at all, and I'd imagine it's not clear to a lot of other people.
One problem people have is identifying what is an "ultraprocessed" food. Sure, we all know that sausage and Spam is bad for you. But is every food that has ground meat in it, equally bad for you? Why or why not? What about ground grains, like wheat? Is bread "ultraprocessed" and bad for you? These articles seem to assume we all know what "ultraprocessed" means, but to me, it's not clear at all, and I'd imagine it's not clear to a lot of other people.
The other problem is what if you cook "ultraprocessed" foo
For you, I believe you when you say this is true.
For me, every time I've altered my diet to remote an unhealthy food, my quality of life improved. OTOH, I do a lot of cooking, and I've gotten good at it.
Shopping for food takes very little time. Buy more on each trip. There are also delivery services.
If those foods contain the things like nitrates then sure. But stainless steel?
Impossible burgers are, of course, an example of the highly processed food that is not good for us. It is a food created and marketed to meet a market demand for food that might not be as damaging to the planet. It is created for people who ideologically believe that meat is life
infotainment outfit like CNN might have missed this vital piece of SEO.
The "quality" of this site is THEIR work and their choice.
They have trivially easy "jobs" they can do from a phone, anywhere yet could not care less about quality.
I'm sick of weasel headlines that use the word "linked". There may very well be a causal link, but there wasn't even an attempt to prove that. So the CNN headline "significantly increases men's risk" is just wrong. CNN is garbage, please stop using them. It would have been way better to write a summary just from the study.
I'm sick of weasel headlines that use the word "linked". There may very well be a causal link, but there wasn't even an attempt to prove that. So the CNN headline "significantly increases men's risk" is just wrong. CNN is garbage, please stop using them. It would have been way better to write a summary just from the study.
Stop with your bullshit. The word "linked" is used because that is exactly what the study suggests. In fact, that is what is said in the article:
“Literally hundreds of studies link ultra-processed foods to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality,” said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University and author of numerous books on food politics and marketing, including 2015’s “Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning).” “These two studies continue the consistency: Ultraprocessed foods are unambiguously associated with an increased risk for chronic disease,” said Nestle, who was not involved in either study.
“Literally hundreds of studies link ultra-processed foods to obesity, cancer, cardiovascular disease, and overall mortality,” said Marion Nestle, the Paulette Goddard professor emerita of nutrition, food studies and public health at New York University and author of numerous books on food politics and marketing, including 2015’s “Soda Politics: Taking on Big Soda (and Winning).”
“These two studies continue the consistency: Ultraprocessed foods are unambiguously associated with an increased risk for chronic disease,” said Nestle, who was not involved in either study.
But since this comes from a reputable news source and not one which says it's no big deal to have hundreds of classified documents in someon's private residence available for sale to the highest bidder, it's not surprising you'd ignore reality.
one of the richest dudes in history
one of the richest dudes in history
I'm sick of weasel headlines that use the word "linked". There may very well be a causal link, but there wasn't even an attempt to prove that. So the CNN headline "significantly increases men's risk" is just wrong. CNN is garbage, please stop using them. It would have been way better to write a summary just from the study.
I'm sick of weasel headlines that use the word "linked". There may very well be a causal link, but there wasn't even an attempt to prove that. So the CNN headline "significantly increases men's risk" is just wrong. CNN is garbage, please stop using them. It would have been way better to write a summary just from the study.
You're just not good enough with words to realize that "linked" is a synonym for correlated, not caused.
Also cows, pigs, chickens, fish.
Although I'd stay away from fresh water caught salmon. That stuff is nasty and can have parasites growing in it.
I'd stay away from fresh water caught salmon. That stuff is nasty and can have parasites growing in it.
I'd stay away from fresh water caught salmon. That stuff is nasty and can have parasites growing in it.
So can the ocean caught salmon. In fact, a majority of salmon have anisakid nematodes.
Even better is that you don't need to cook it so hot (as that will diminish the flavor/texture) if you can hold it at that temperature for longer. For reference, the hottest recommended sous-vide temperature from Anova/Kenji Lopez Alt is 54C (130 F) (and even at yogurt-making temperature, 43C, it looks noticeably cooked). This sort of fact is useful because it's a reference of what temperature you might use if you had complete control of temperature and time, so it can be applicable to other cooking forms d
Although I'd stay away from fresh water caught salmon. That stuff is nasty and can have parasites growing in it.
Although I'd stay away from fresh water caught salmon. That stuff is nasty and can have parasites growing in it.
There are only a few species that taste good raw, and salmon isn't one of them. And it tastes so good cooked that it is an incredible waste of flavor.
What is the general risk of getting colorectal cancer? I hate studies like this. They donâ(TM)t control properly, ever. It could be one particular food. It could be lifestyle choices of people who eat TV dinner. Who knows? We are left to guess and speculate and turn to so called health food and other BS. If you are afraid of chemicals, do you know how many chemicals are in a fruit? You are telling me random plant alkaloids are healthy? What about ricin?
"We found that men in the highest quintile of ultraprocessed food consumption, compared those in the lowest quintile, had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer,"
"We found that men in the highest quintile of ultraprocessed food consumption, compared those in the lowest quintile, had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer,"
In a self-reported study of food habits, a 29% difference is within the margin of error.
In a self-reported study where food habits are only queried once every four years, this result is indistinguishable from noise.
Lifetime risk of American men getting diagnosed with colrectal cancer is 1 in 23. (4.3%)
Note that other cancer rates have also been found to increase with ultra-processed food consumption.
Are Oreos and Hostess cupcakes on the list?
The same people that warn of overly processed foods appear to come out of the same group that believe eating meat is bad. I've listened to dietitians that commented on this before and they point out the impossibility of finding a healthy diet without meat or artificial supplements.
Humans evolved on a diet of cooked meat and vegetables. I'll hear people claim that people were not meant to eat meat because their digestive system is not like carnivores. That's because carnivores evolved to eat raw meat. Humans have been able to evolve to the highly intelligent species we are because we've been able to figure out how to "partially digest" meat and vegetables by cooking them. We get the nutrition for time spent doing science and stuff because we aren't spending so much time an energy to get nutrition from uncooked food. An important part of this nutrition is from meat, specifically cooked red meat.
People can't live on eating native vegetables because no climate on Earth will grow the proper mix of vegetables for a complete diet. This means we have to ship food in from far off places, grow foods in artificially created climates, get nutrients from artificial supplements, or eat cooked red meat. Vegetable burgers are a highly processed food with too much salt and artificial sweeteners, artificial flavorings, and often artificial nutritional supplements, in order to trick our primitive minds and digestive tracts into thinking we are eating cooked red meat.
So, just eat some cooked red meat. This is good for the body, and certainly better than some artificial substitute. Do so in moderation, as we should in anything we eat. Eat your vegetables. Eat your meat. And after you've done that maybe have some pudding. I seem to recall being asked, "How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"
Very few people claim that fake meat is more healthy for you, especially given its sky-high sodium content.
The main advantage of fake meat is that it's better for the environment. Steps like this are made necessary because we have NOT IN ANY FSCKING WAY solved global warming, and beef production is one of the top causes of climate change.
Beef is one of the top cause of climate change? I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity. Substituting beef with other sources of nutrition is not going to bring zero CO2 emissions so even if we eliminated all beef from our diets then just how much closer have we got to solving the problem? Maybe 1%? I'm sure you can find the study I refer to with a quick search of the web.
Of all the things to focus on
I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity
I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity
I'm so surprised! Big beef producing state public university says beef is OK! They undoubtedly came up with 1.9% by cherry picking stats for some small subset of the beef production process.
Why don't you look up why the Amazon rain forest is being mowed down as we speak?
I'm not claiming fake meat is especially healthy or that we didn't evolve to eat a portion of meat in our diet. However, eating a reasonable amount of something like chicken would be both healthier and much more environmentally sound than th
I'm so surprised! Big beef producing state public university says beef is OK! They undoubtedly came up with 1.9% by cherry picking stats for some small subset of the beef production process.
I'm so surprised! Big beef producing state public university says beef is OK! They undoubtedly came up with 1.9% by cherry picking stats for some small subset of the beef production process.
How about instead of FUD and ad hominem you find a better source to share. What's the "real" impact? Ten times higher? Pretty sure petroleum use for transportation is about 30% of CO2, coal and natural gas for electricity is also 30%, cement and metal refining is about 20%, with the rest shattered among agriculture, industry, and other. With "other" including beef and low CO2 energy sources.
Given that solar power produces something like 2 to 10 times the CO2 per unit of energy produced from wind, hydro,
Beef is one of the top cause of climate change?
I thought I'd look that up and a study from Oklahoma State University says beef production causes 1.9% of the CO2 emissions from human activity.
That's called confirmation bias. You went looking for a specific answer, you ignored all of the reliable sources and all of the evidence contradicting the answer you wanted, and you latched on to the first random thing that kinda-sorta looked like the answer you wanted.
In this case you quote a fragment about CO2, an
If you don't like my source then perhaps you can provide one that is better. How can anyone else lurking in this discussion come away knowing that you are correct if you provide nothing to back up your claims? You not only didn't give a source but no numbers to show just how far off my source was. Beef production emitted one third of all human caused methane? That means nothing without some context. How does this compare to natural methane emissions? How much impact does this have on global warming?
Not gonna waste 23 minutes watching some random Youtube video linked by a random slashdot armchair expert, but a quick scan of the comments makes it clear that this is just yet another contrarian guy's opinion. Sorry, that doesn't make the statement FSCKING WRONG.
Why is it only me with the economic agenda? I'm pretty sure that there's plenty of hidden agendas to go around.
Why my focus on red meat? Because that's what I was told. With some reflection I realize that there's cultures in Asia, Pacific Islands, and Americas that would have had little access to red meat. They'd get their protein mostly from fish and birds. That's not necessarily healthy for people that descended from people out of Europe and Africa where they'd eat red meat. Europeans supplemented t
As a matter of diet and evolution, humans are classed as omnivores.
The first indicator is the teeth. We have some front teeth that can tear meat, but also back teeth that can grind tough vegetables. If you look at the teeth of a cat. which is definitely a carnivore, the teeth are like daggers, and there are no grinding teeth. On the other hand, the teeth of a cow would be useless for tearing meat, but definitely good for grinding plant material in large quantities.
The next indicator is intestinal structure.
The same people that warn of overly processed foods appear to come out of the same group that believe eating meat is bad.
The same people that warn of overly processed foods appear to come out of the same group that believe eating meat is bad.
Pretty much any dietician will tell you ultra processed foods are bad for you and the vast majority of them are not pushing vegetarian agendas. I think you're just sensitive about the ones who are.
"How can you have any pudding if you don't eat yer meat?"
It's 2022, nobody believes old white men anyhow.
Fiber is an independent variable. More fiber tends to reduce chances of colorectal cancer, less tends to increase it. (Don't assume this applies to the extremes at either end, but also assume that it may.)
That said, I'm not sure all fiber is equal. I didn't read the study, just a pop summary. I'm not sure whether raw carrots are as good as oat bran or as wheat bran. But I tend to assume than all uncooked dietary fiber is the same. Without reason.
I've also read claims about fibre being good for cardiov
Fiber is an independent variable
What is "fiber"? I really doubt that "soluble fiber" has the same effects as non-soluble fiber.
Fiber is "long chain indigestible carbohydrate". Cellulose is a good, probably the main, example. Certainly there are differences between, say, oat bran and wheat bran, but IIUC they both act to prevent colorectal cancer.
OTOH, if there's a agreement as to how or why they do that, I don't know about it. They would seem to foster different species of bacterial growth, they change the consistence of the stuff in the guts. But a characteristic that they share is that they cause more stuff to move on through
First, don't be squeamish about them. They can knock you all the way out, or if you're like me and prefer to stay awake, there's only some mild cramping and you can talk to the doctor while it happens.
Second, they're INCREDIBLY effective. You should be getting regular colonoscopies in your 30s if you've got a family history, or in your 40s otherwise.
Polyps in the colon that are removed don't turn into cancer. It's as simple as that. It's remarkable how effective colonoscopies and pre-cancerous polyp removal
The article doesn't tell us, it just lists examples. But what factor in the making of these foods, makes them "ultraprocessed"? Is it the grinding, such as in sausage and hamburger? If so, is grinding always bad, as in flour used to make bread? Are all ready-to-eat meals "ultraprocessed" and bad for you, or just certain ones? Is it the freezing of frozen foods what makes them bad for you? If not, what is it exactly?
We know that cooking actually improves the nutritional value of some foods. https://www.healt [healthline.com]
I am speculating here, but possibly the consumption of highly processed foods is an indicator of a stressful lifestyle. It could be the stressful lifestyle that is the actual cause of illness. People who work too hard, and don't have enough spare time, tend to make more use of convenience foods, and those tend to be highly processed. I noticed quite a change in my diet, when I started working from home during the pandemic. I stopped buying ready meals that I could warm up quickly, and found time to do prope
From Wikipedia the definition seems to include nearly everything except the produce aisle and descriptions appear to be mostly POLITICAL in nature.
"Ultra-processed foods, also referred to as ultra-processed food products (UPP), are food and drink products that have undergone specified types of food processing, usually by transnational and other very large 'Big food' corporations.[1][2][3] These foods are designed to be "convenient, eaten on the go, hyperpalatable and appealing to consumers, and, most import
Gosh... any doctor or dietician could have told you this. This should be basic knowledge these days.
The 1980's callled.... they want their study of the perfectly obvious, confirmed-a-thousand-times, studied-to-death, effects of eating a highly processed diet back. Now piss off - breakfast is waiting and today is bacon and sausage day!
I am amazed by the number of comments supporting the consumption of unhealthy foods. I'm not sure if they're food industry sock-puppets or just people used to eating unhealthy food trying to justify not changing their diets.
ðY but isn't the correct response to this study a sincere "thank you".
It's not the "processing" inherently causing it, it's the chemical preservatives. Yogurt doesn't need additives, it's naturally preserved. What I'm getting from this is that the real issue is the chemical preservatives; some of them just aren't safe, but apparently the people running this study are afraid to get assassinated by the chemical manufacturing companies, so they're trying to phrase it in a way that seems to blame it on the concept of "processing" as a whole until you read between the lines.
The article was not well written, because organic plain yogurt is obviously different than crap that is half sugar with artificial flavors and colors.
Everyone knows what ultra-processed foods are, but they may not want to admit it. Hot dogs, salami, Dunkin Doughnuts, and from my time, the infamous Twinkies. They are full of chemicals and have little bearing on unprocessed foods, like a carrot or baked chicken. But even so, eating unprocessed foods also means you will be getting some extra chemical goodies b
It's not the "processing" inherently causing it, it's the chemical preservatives. Yogurt doesn't need additives, it's naturally preserved. What I'm getting from this is that the real issue is the chemical preservatives; some of them just aren't safe, but apparently the people running this study are afraid to get assassinated by the chemical manufacturing companies, so they're trying to phrase it in a way that seems to blame it on the concept of "processing" as a whole until you read between the lines.
It's not the "processing" inherently causing it, it's the chemical preservatives. Yogurt doesn't need additives, it's naturally preserved. What I'm getting from this is that the real issue is the chemical preservatives; some of them just aren't safe, but apparently the people running this study are afraid to get assassinated by the chemical manufacturing companies, so they're trying to phrase it in a way that seems to blame it on the concept of "processing" as a whole until you read between the lines.
The problem here is that, with our education system in the state it is in now, no one knows how to read between the lines. Hell, a vast portion of HS graduates can barely read.
No, the study doesn't say that. It basically says: "People who have specific bad stuff happen to them, we noticed that they also eat not only high salt and sugar and trans fat and low nutrient food, but also the food is highly processed."
It's an observation of a result and finding one common data point in the collection of. No adjustment for other life vectors other than weight.
Unlike many observational studies, this one isn't that great at pointing to something that needs more studying (and that's ALL these studies are intended to do). They have no clue why woman are impacted differently than men. No idea specifically what is common between the foods. No accounting for the fact that their "ultra..." is just "food" for the majority of the world. 2/3s of the American diet is "ultra...". But so is the vast majority of the worlds population's (any alcohol, sweets/candy, flour, etc etc).
Americans mostly eat a lot more meat, more sugar, and far less fiber than most of the world.
The whole "Chemical" thing is stupid. It's like saying "Air" is good for you. So 10% CO2 90% normal is fine then? No, it will kill you. Above 2% CO2 and below 10% O2 = bad for most mammals.
The problems with these studies and worst the presentation from articles of such is the false re-enforcement of assumed biases and the resulting horrible public polices and behaviors.
The perfect example is the referred fight against "Big Soda". "Sugary branded drinks bad" is the message people got. So... more chemicals, juices, simple carbs, uptick in quantities... The message should have been "reduce and don't spike your blood sugar levels"... but we aren't even headed in that direction... just away from certain specific products.
No, the whole thing just smells of bullshit and/or a waste of time, possibly to promote a lobby group meant too promote more expensive (but not necessarily better) higher profit margin food. The word "processed" is so vague as to be meaningless. Pulling a carrot out of the ground is processing it.
It's a weasel word, by definition.
Did they control for alcohol consumption? Did they control for tobacco use? Did they control for genetic predisposition? We already know nitrate cured meats lead to higher rates of
Which of these is more likely?
A) A coalition of scientists in the US and Italy conspired to generate propaganda for Whole Foods grocery stores
B) Meat packers since the 1800s have used nitrates as cheap preservatives that also make hot dogs pinker, and have been known since the 1950s to increase the risk of colon cancer, but meat packers keep using them because they are cheap preservatives that also make hot dogs pinker.
I'm trying to go down that rabbit hole of understanding what defines a food as "ultra-processed" for the purposes of this study, and the best I can come to is this paper, [cambridge.org] which defines the four groups of "minimally processed", "processed culinary ingredients", "processed foods" and "ultra-processed foods".
But aside from the following passage: The category of ultra-processed foods includes food items that normally undergo more intensive industrial processing like hydrolysis, or hydrogenation, extrusion, mou
Going through the Cambridge paper, I do wan to add something:
"Orange juice" is categorized as "minimally processed."
The problem is, there are two types of orange juice you can buy at a store. The first type is at the higher-end stores where orange juice is literally squeezed in front of you in large machines with hoppers full of oranges. That, sure--that I'd call "minimally processed", even though a dietician would say that even this level of processing reduces the health benefits of eating an orange by removing the fiber from the sugary sweet juice.
But the second type, which is what you commonly buy in the refrigerated section of the store--it's a marvel of food science. [gizmodo.com] "Minimally processed" my ass: the oranges are squeezed, pasturized, oxygen is removed, the juice is often concentrated and the whole thing stored for up to a year, then reconstituted by adding water, then a 'flavor pack' made from orange essence is added (because removing oxygen destroys the flavor).
Yet it's counted in the NOVA categorizations as "minimally processed."
Is this in the category of "molding" and "extruding" that makes a food "ultra-processed"?
Is this in the category of "molding" and "extruding" that makes a food "ultra-processed"?
Often extrusion is accompanied by high temperatures so the macaroni (or whatever) is cooked at the same time it is extruded. The high-temperature cooking might break down some proteins or vitamins that aren't broken down by normal cooking.
I'm trying to go down that rabbit hole of understanding what defines a food as "ultra-processed" for the purposes of this study,
It's literally, in the truest sense of the word, in the article:
Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods such as hot dogs, sausages, french fries, sodas, store-bought cookies, cakes, candies, doughnuts, ice cream and many more.
Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods such as hot dogs, sausages, french fries, sodas, store-bought cookies, cakes, candies, doughnuts, ice cream and many more.
Processed and ultraprocessed meats, such as ham, bacon, salami, hotdogs, beef jerkey and corned beef, have long been associated with a higher risk of bowel cancer in both men and women, according to the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research.
Processed and ultraprocessed meats, such as ham, bacon, salami, hotdogs, beef jerkey and corned beef, have long been associated with a higher risk of bowel cancer in both men and women, according to the World Health Organization, American Cancer Society and the American Institute for Cancer Research.
And later in the same article they explain why these foods are bad:
Why are ultraprocessed foods so bad for us? For one, they are “ready-to-eat-or-heat industrial formulations that are made with ingredients extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories, with little or no whole foods,” Zhang told CNN. These overly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers.
Why are ultraprocessed foods so bad for us? For one, they are “ready-to-eat-or-heat industrial formulations that are made with ingredients extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories, with little or no whole foods,” Zhang told CNN.
These overly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers.
Those are all examples of "ultra-processed food", not a definition. Pastrami is not on the list -- is it ultra-processed? What about smoked brisket? What kinds of levels of processing categorize a food in these groups?
And then, if some ultra-processed foods (like yogurt) reduce the same kinds of cancers among some people... how do we know which are good (or at least okay as part of a balanced diet)?
Right now I'm smoking a brisket. (It's in the electric smoker as I type this, and anxiously wait for the internal temperature probe to hit the target temperature.)
The Cambridge link I gave above gives meat a "1: lightly processed" rank.
But is smoking "ultraprocessing" the brisket? Am I guilty of ultraprocessing my food?!?
Nevertheless, the consumption of red meat is linked to higher rates of certain types of cancers, so regardless if it's "ultraprocessed" or not, I don't plan to do this very often.
Bacon is on the list, yet there is essentially no difference between bacon and the brisket you're cooking. It's smoked pork belly in slices.
That is where I think a lot of us struggle with research like this. I can accept that "ultraprocessed foods" may be bad and should be avoided, but I'll need some specifics to take action. Is Oscar Meyer bacon ultraprocessed, but the slab bacon I get from the local place is fine? Are they both bad? Neither?
What is it that really separates smoked pork belly from b
Why are ultraprocessed foods so bad for us? For one, they are âoeready-to-eat-or-heat industrial formulations that are made with ingredients extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories, with little or no whole foods,â Zhang told CNN. These overly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers. Was that so difficult?
Why are ultraprocessed foods so bad for us? For one, they are âoeready-to-eat-or-heat industrial formulations that are made with ingredients extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories, with little or no whole foods,â Zhang told CNN. These overly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers.
Why are ultraprocessed foods so bad for us? For one, they are âoeready-to-eat-or-heat industrial formulations that are made with ingredients extracted from foods or synthesized in laboratories, with little or no whole foods,â Zhang told CNN.
These overly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers.
Absolutely not, this makes perfect sense.
Obviously the reason ultraprocessed food is bad is because the food is is ready to eat, its ingredients were extracted from food or made in a lab or are mostly ultraprocessed.
How can anyone possibly shrug while uttering WTF after hearing such a clear logical explanation? What is wrong with you people?!??? It doesn't get any clearer than this!!!1!!!!!
Not sure if you are being sarcastic here. I climbed on a berry tree, a berry was hanging, it was ready to eat, so I ate it. So did the fact that it was ready to eat made my berry "ultra processed" ?
"Industrial formulation" is not a scientific term at all.
"ingredients extracted from foods" ? The berry is food, and one end of it was eaten by a worm, so I extracted the portion un eaten by work, and I ate it. So my extracted berry is now ultra processed?
"Or" synthesized in laboratories, so this part is optional
Not sure if you are being sarcastic here. I climbed on a berry tree, a berry was hanging, it was ready to eat, so I ate it. So did the fact that it was ready to eat made my berry "ultra processed" ?
Not sure if you are being sarcastic here. I climbed on a berry tree, a berry was hanging, it was ready to eat, so I ate it. So did the fact that it was ready to eat made my berry "ultra processed" ?
I'm being sarcastic. Lack of useful specificity and language that communicates nothing is not helpful.
I'm a bit unhappy with sausage being 'ultraprocessed' since proper sausage is just ground pork with seasonings like salt, pepper, and garlic, but in a casing. Hamburger meat is categorized as non-processed, and it is really no different if you cook it and season it. Now the sausages where they add chemical preservatives and other shite, they have a point. I guess you need to look at it somewhat critically. But I think overall this is a good paper.
I'm a bit unhappy with sausage being 'ultraprocessed' since proper sausage is just ground pork with seasonings like salt, pepper, and garlic
I'm a bit unhappy with sausage being 'ultraprocessed' since proper sausage is just ground pork with seasonings like salt, pepper, and garlic
That is not sold in stores in the United States, or probably anywhere in the world that middle class people can afford.
People like to tell themselves that is what they're eating. But it isn't. And they don't actually want the answer. That's why comments like yours get made. People who eat it... don't want to know. And won't listen if anybody tries to tell them...
Nonsense, I can buy sausage made instore at the grocery store down the street from my house made exactly as the above poster states, ground meat, salt and seasonings. A few miles beyond that grocery store is a straight up butcher shop that does all their own stuff as well.
Furthermore, their sausage is only a bit more expensive then the packaged stuff and is definitely not priced out of most people's price range.
While full service meat counters that actually make and butcher their own stuff dont exist at maj
You're simply unaware of what is in it.
You're unaware that it is illegal to sell sausage as described above.
You're not the 1st, 2nd, or 10th person to make this silly argument to me. I've checked. And you (obviously) haven't. You don't know what the required additives are. You just assume, and then shout.
Hahaha, oh lord. I actually do IT for the grocery store in question. You don't have a fucking clue about what you're talking about.
The sausage I describe above quickly changes color after a few days of storage, it does not have nitrates in it or celery juice which is basically just nitrates anyways. You can pretend all you want that I'm describing a fiction just know you're full of shit for it.
Hahaha, oh lord. I actually do IT for the grocery store in question.
Hahaha, oh lord. I actually do IT for the grocery store in question.
The salts used to cure meat are the preservatives that are responsible for colon cancer.
Duh, it's right in the snippet: "[O]verly processed foods are often high in added sugars and salt, low in dietary fiber, and full of chemical additives, such as artificial colors, flavors or stabilizers."
Tell you what, go to town on the processed food big in fat, sugar, and chemicals to keep them from going bad and get back to us in 20 years on how well you are doing. Don't hold back, get out there and start consuming!!
What are these "ultraprocessed foods"? Yoghurt is an example? But that one's not giving cancer. This doesn't add up. Not remotely.
What are these "ultraprocessed foods"? Yoghurt is an example? But that one's not giving cancer. This doesn't add up. Not remotely.
The category "ultraprocessed" food derives or at least gained prominence from its use in the NOVA food classification system [openfoodfacts.org]. The system puts foods into four groups of increasingly processed food, with Group 1 being the unprocessed or minimally processed foods and Group 4 being the "ultra-processed". (There are links to the primary sources in the link above.)
Ultraprocessed foods include prepackaged soups, sauces, frozen pizza, ready-to-eat meals and pleasure foods such as hot dogs, sausages, french fries, sodas, store-bought cookies, cakes, candies, doughnuts, ice cream
Yeah, that "processed" word does a lot of heavy lifting. I imagine if you grouped raw eggs, raw milk, raw salad, raw beans and raw mushrooms, that alternative wouldn't look so great either.
Maybe the term "ultraprocessed" is bogus? Maybe?
It isn't how much the food is processed. Its what you put into it that matters.
You'd be surprised to know that some of the stuff being sold under the moniker Yoghurt are actually not really yoghurt, it's a bunch of stuff mixed together with a minimal dash of yoghurt culture - hence the reference to it being an ultraprocessed food.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Problems Delay Launch of NASA's SLS Rocket - Again
'What Happened with CentOS Will Not Happen with Rocky Linux'
There has been a little distress selling on the stock exchange. -- Thomas W. Lamont, October 29, 1929 (Black Tuesday)