What are ultra-processed foods? What should I eat instead?

[Rudynate]

3 hours ago, arnemgreeves said:

Not just cancer though, it's also lifestyle diseases. Not all cancers are attributable to diet. 

Like there is the COP27 conference going on - we need a UN-enabled global food treaty. The health of humanity is at stake, just as the environment is. 

People usually say "It's MY FREEDOM TO EAT BAD FOOD!" OK, yes it is. But freedom isn't absolute. Freedoms have bounds. No country has banned smoking but it's illegal in lots of states to smoke indoors. Freedoms also rely on responsibility. By this logic, the freedom to drive is categorically compromised by being legally mandated to wear seatbelts. Is it really? We just acknowledge that it's safer for drivers concerned. These frankly childish arguments of "freedom to eat junk food" forget that shit happens in contexts and seldom in vacuums. 

We curb many things that are unsafe or unhealthy not to be killjoys or to be authoritarian but because they not conducive to the common good.  

 

Don't confuse constitutionally-protected individual rights with the bullshit idea that everyone is free to do what they damn well please no matter how much it harms other people.

[Guest]

On 11/7/2022 at 9:29 PM, Rudynate said:

hydrogenated fats in foods were banned by the FDA several years ago.

Close, but not quite. The FDA banned partially hydrogenated fats/trans fats, but not completely hydrogenated fats, or fully saturated fats. Although perhaps counter-intuitive to those with limited nutritional knowledge, trans fats (which are unnatural and dangerous) are actually more dangerous than fully saturated/hydrogenated fats. Saturated fats are bad (and cis fats are good, especially monounsaturated oils such as fish oils), but trans fats are actually more hazardous to health.

 

 

In other words, being straight is bad; being bent is good! 😁

 

 

Edited November 9, 2022 by Unicorn

[Guest]

On 11/7/2022 at 9:56 PM, samhexum said:

...A study published Monday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimated that in 2019, the deaths of around 57,000 Brazilian people between the ages of 30 and 69 were attributable to the consumption of ultra-processed food....

That "study" was not really presenting data from any scientific experiment. While I agree that one should probably minimize consumption of saturated fats, sugars, and simple carbohydrates from one's diet (and completely eliminate trans fats), to simply make an observation that there were certain dietary changes over time and that there were changes in cardiovascular mortality over that time at best shows an association. Obviously, there were other changes which took place during that period of time (including screen time, activity levels, obesity rates, etc.). To imply causality is a fallacy, and, quite frankly, rather childish in my view.

[Guest]

11 hours ago, arnemgreeves said:

...People usually say "It's MY FREEDOM TO EAT BAD FOOD!" OK, yes it is. But freedom isn't absolute. Freedoms have bounds. No country has banned smoking but it's illegal in lots of states to smoke indoors. Freedoms also rely on responsibility...

I'm all for freedom when it doesn't infringe on the rights of others. However, people should take responsibility for their decisions, as you say. I fully support carefully-crafted legislation which taxes people who make unhealthful food choices, with said taxes going to help keep Medicare or public health programs. We do this already to target those who choose to smoke or drink alcohol, of course. Same should go with snacks which are loaded with sugar and/or saturated fat. Of course, the laws have to be written carefully to make sure manufacturers and supermarkets don't try to introduce subsidies to reduce the effect of a tax differential between say rice cakes and fried potato chips, Coke vs Coke Zero. 

[Rudynate]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:18 PM, Unicorn said:

To imply causality is a fallacy, and, quite frankly, rather childish in my view.

That's the fault of the study, not the reader.  It is often difficult for people who are not scientists/statisticians to understand the difference between a statistical association and a causal relationship.  

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Rudynate said:

That's the fault of the study, not the reader.  It is often difficult for people who are not scientists/statisticians to understand the difference between a statistical association and a causal relationship.  

You're right. I didn't mean to imply it was you who was being childish, and apologize if you took it that way. 

[Rudynate]

On 11/10/2022 at 11:28 AM, Unicorn said:

You're right. I didn't mean to imply it was you who was being childish, and apologize if you took it that way. 

I didn't take it that way.  I can't do analytics because I'm not a data scientist or a statistician.  I am very familiar with analytics because I have had a number of clients whose technologies rely on predictive analytics.