Don't eat that
October 16, 2022 2:26 PM Subscribe
How ultra-processed meals are unhealthier than you think Doctors have suspected for a while that ultra processed foods are bad for us, and in 2014, the Brazilian government took the radical step of advising Brazilians against eating them.
Now, more recent large-scale studies confirm that suspicion.
What are ultra-processed foods?
The NOVA system helps you figure it out. And you can even get an app.
Now, more recent large-scale studies confirm that suspicion.
What are ultra-processed foods?
The NOVA system helps you figure it out. And you can even get an app.
Not that these findings are false, but the people who are able to eat several scratch-cooked meals daily chock full of fruits and veg - what other benefits do they have that facilitate that lifestyle? Obviously they made some adjustments for confounding factors but it doesn’t look like socioeconomic status is one of them (apologies if I missed it). I feel like this is going to be one more piece of information that’s used as a weapon to shame people for what they eat, instead of a tool to improve people’s ability to eat more nutritious foods on a regular basis.
posted by obfuscation at 4:01 PM on October 16, 2022 [85 favorites]
posted by obfuscation at 4:01 PM on October 16, 2022 [85 favorites]
I have yet to see a study like this that controls for stress level. Stress is similarly associated with so many health issues and stressed people are more likely to eat ultraprocessed food. Would love to see someone try and tease that apart.
posted by brook horse at 4:36 PM on October 16, 2022 [38 favorites]
posted by brook horse at 4:36 PM on October 16, 2022 [38 favorites]
The Guardian article is claiming that the Nature paper is saying something that it isn't. The Nature paper seems to be spitballing reasons for why colorectal cancer might appear higher in younger groups, one of which may be increased screening and detection. Another reason Nature gives is "obesity" and I can just hear Michael Hobbes and Aubrey Gorden yelling "fuck off!" at the top of their lungs. So think I'll find something more rewarding to do with the rest of my Sunday, thank you.
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 4:45 PM on October 16, 2022 [35 favorites]
posted by The Ardship of Cambry at 4:45 PM on October 16, 2022 [35 favorites]
I have long believed that processed foods (ultra-processed, here) are worse for us than non-processed foods (unprocessed, minimally processed, or processed, here). I long believed that processed foods are making us unhealthier and more depressed, are contributing to our cancer risks, are making us more insulin resistant, are hardening our arteries, are making us gain weight more than other foods. I don't believe that "calories in, calories out" is the whole story. I truly believe that these foods, along with exposure to air pollution, noise and light pollution that force us to be constantly alert, and sedentary lifestyles, have an independent negative effect on our health and well-being.
Articles like this have been coming out with increasing frequency in recent years, and I wonder if these things I suspected are indeed true.
People often mock those who are worried about "chemicals" in foods using stupid arguments like, "Well, water is a chemical!" I think, though, that everyone knows what is meant by the generic shorthand of "chemicals": artificial colors, preservatives, added sugars, emulsifiers, thickeners, pesticides, PFAS, phthalates, etc. Yes, many of these are classified as "generally recognized as safe," and ingestion of small quantities may not kill us immediately, but it is clear that they can harm us with repeated exposure. In this arena, I think it's reasonable to be wary and to avoid things that haven't been proven to be unsafe. Categorizing some foods as "industrial" and "ultra-processed" helps lend credence to this approach to the way we eat.
To be more blunt, I firmly believe that the "ultra-processed food industry" is killing us for profit, and stricter, meaningful regulation is long overdue.
Is it possible that some of this information will be used to shame people for their food choices on either individual or societal levels? Yes, possibly. But this is still good research. I still want this information out in the open. If it helps change the way we regulate industry, market food, construct school lunches, and make individual choices, and thus ultimately lessens the negative effects of processed foods on our health, then it's absolutely reasonable to publicize this information.
posted by aquamvidam at 4:52 PM on October 16, 2022 [24 favorites]
Articles like this have been coming out with increasing frequency in recent years, and I wonder if these things I suspected are indeed true.
People often mock those who are worried about "chemicals" in foods using stupid arguments like, "Well, water is a chemical!" I think, though, that everyone knows what is meant by the generic shorthand of "chemicals": artificial colors, preservatives, added sugars, emulsifiers, thickeners, pesticides, PFAS, phthalates, etc. Yes, many of these are classified as "generally recognized as safe," and ingestion of small quantities may not kill us immediately, but it is clear that they can harm us with repeated exposure. In this arena, I think it's reasonable to be wary and to avoid things that haven't been proven to be unsafe. Categorizing some foods as "industrial" and "ultra-processed" helps lend credence to this approach to the way we eat.
To be more blunt, I firmly believe that the "ultra-processed food industry" is killing us for profit, and stricter, meaningful regulation is long overdue.
Is it possible that some of this information will be used to shame people for their food choices on either individual or societal levels? Yes, possibly. But this is still good research. I still want this information out in the open. If it helps change the way we regulate industry, market food, construct school lunches, and make individual choices, and thus ultimately lessens the negative effects of processed foods on our health, then it's absolutely reasonable to publicize this information.
posted by aquamvidam at 4:52 PM on October 16, 2022 [24 favorites]
The rampant naturalistic fallacy - basically woo - in this thread and the popsci interpretation of article makes me ashamed of both the writers and some of the participants.
posted by lalochezia at 5:00 PM on October 16, 2022 [48 favorites]
posted by lalochezia at 5:00 PM on October 16, 2022 [48 favorites]
The problem is that studies like this, especially when pitted against the interests of the food industry, doesn't often seem to lead to regulation. And it leaves the question about what, exactly, is it about highly processed foods that are unhealthy up in the air. Is it additives? Is it the means of processing? Is it the packaging? Is it the specific distribution of macro and micronutrients? Without some specific, measurable thing to avoid, all we're getting from the government is the "radical" step of yet more advice on diet that people are generally free to take or leave. And it leaves in place the psuedoscientific health-foods industry to fill in the gaps and provides ammunition to spread their own FUD--but don't worry, if you pay more for our "natural" stuff and our advice, you'll be just fine! Ignore that we are also capitalist and profit-motivated!
This isn't even addressing whether or not this specific study controlled for other factors like socioeconomic status, which I'd tend to agree is a much stronger predictor of health outcomes.
posted by Aleyn at 5:05 PM on October 16, 2022 [35 favorites]
This isn't even addressing whether or not this specific study controlled for other factors like socioeconomic status, which I'd tend to agree is a much stronger predictor of health outcomes.
posted by Aleyn at 5:05 PM on October 16, 2022 [35 favorites]
I have always assumed the logic of bad things cause inflammation, which is the vague root of all health problems, is nonsense, because of the context I have encountered it in, which often includes the idea that consuming mildly basic solutions will decrease the pH of your body and stop inflammation. So I assume the grauniad article is wildly off-base, even if it is also true that ultra processed foods are unhealthy.
posted by snofoam at 5:41 PM on October 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 5:41 PM on October 16, 2022 [3 favorites]
We should distinguish added sugars/calories from "artificial colors, preservatives, emulsifiers, thickeners, pesticides, PFAS, phthalates, etc." It's clear both wind up harmful, both represent "processed food", and both link to cancer, but we'd maybe regulate them differently, given some sugar is appropriate.
Amusingly, these processed foods often add sugar where inappropriate, like adding sugar makes potato chips taste but makes people eat more. We cannot necessarily regulate everything being eaten, but we could prohibit company secrets around processed foods, meaning make their research, board meetings, etc. all public record.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
Amusingly, these processed foods often add sugar where inappropriate, like adding sugar makes potato chips taste but makes people eat more. We cannot necessarily regulate everything being eaten, but we could prohibit company secrets around processed foods, meaning make their research, board meetings, etc. all public record.
posted by jeffburdges at 7:23 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
I really like how there seems to be some sort of new "you must label some types of added sugars as added sugars on nutrition labels" law here in the US.
posted by aniola at 7:31 PM on October 16, 2022
posted by aniola at 7:31 PM on October 16, 2022
Obviously they made some adjustments for confounding factors but it doesn’t look like socioeconomic status is one of them (apologies if I missed it)
The BMJ study is sourcing from three cohorts of health professionals. I don’t know exactly how much diversity is included within that sample but it is presumably more homogeneous than general population (which is good!)
posted by atoxyl at 8:02 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
The BMJ study is sourcing from three cohorts of health professionals. I don’t know exactly how much diversity is included within that sample but it is presumably more homogeneous than general population (which is good!)
posted by atoxyl at 8:02 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
Here are the two studies cited in the articles: the Moli-sani cohort study (~23k adults in southern Italy) and the US cohort study (3 cohorts of health professionals). The CNN article provides links to the studies, the Guardian article does not.
The US study (data from 1986-2015) only finds "men in the highest fifth of consumption had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer" (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.53) and "[n]o association was observed ... among women." The focus on colorectal cancer and the fact that it was only significant for men makes me think of p-hacking, where you compute a bunch of statistics and report the ones that are most significant.
The Moli-sani study (diet data from 2005-2010) looks a little more solid; it reports "multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for all cause ... mortality" was 1.19 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.35), i.e., an increase of possibly 19% in the death rate.
I don't trust the NOVA classification, though. If you dig through the supplementary data, you can find a list of foods classified as ultra-processed; it's a mix of everything from processed meat to yogurt to breakfast cereal. It seems like the ultra-processed food label is just a way to lump all processed food together. Certainly, that seems to be the way that the Guardian article is using the data when it pivots to an attack on oat milk and vegan food out of nowhere.
posted by ectabo at 9:00 PM on October 16, 2022 [15 favorites]
The US study (data from 1986-2015) only finds "men in the highest fifth of consumption had a 29% higher risk of developing colorectal cancer" (95% confidence interval 1.08 to 1.53) and "[n]o association was observed ... among women." The focus on colorectal cancer and the fact that it was only significant for men makes me think of p-hacking, where you compute a bunch of statistics and report the ones that are most significant.
The Moli-sani study (diet data from 2005-2010) looks a little more solid; it reports "multivariable adjusted hazard ratios for all cause ... mortality" was 1.19 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.35), i.e., an increase of possibly 19% in the death rate.
I don't trust the NOVA classification, though. If you dig through the supplementary data, you can find a list of foods classified as ultra-processed; it's a mix of everything from processed meat to yogurt to breakfast cereal. It seems like the ultra-processed food label is just a way to lump all processed food together. Certainly, that seems to be the way that the Guardian article is using the data when it pivots to an attack on oat milk and vegan food out of nowhere.
posted by ectabo at 9:00 PM on October 16, 2022 [15 favorites]
I found the podcast "A Thorough Examination" an interesting treatment of so-called "Ultra Processed Foods:"
"Chris and Xand van Tulleken are doctors, scientists and identical twins - except that Xand is clinically obese. Now Chris is on a mission to get Xand to quit ultra-processed food."
It sounds gimmicky but it seems well researched and well-founded.
posted by Rumple at 10:07 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
"Chris and Xand van Tulleken are doctors, scientists and identical twins - except that Xand is clinically obese. Now Chris is on a mission to get Xand to quit ultra-processed food."
It sounds gimmicky but it seems well researched and well-founded.
posted by Rumple at 10:07 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]
Are there governments that are doing something other than nagging people and taxing "bad" things? Is anything else considered socialism or something?
posted by meowzilla at 10:22 PM on October 16, 2022
posted by meowzilla at 10:22 PM on October 16, 2022
I'd say that government funding of research counts but we have waaaaaay too many instances of scientific fraud driven by the "publish or perish" tenure process. Social science is just the tip of the replication iceberg, and in areas where money is on the line is even more fraught. So if we're just using science to justify pre-existing beliefs, its probably for the best that science is not all that influential on policy.
Not that we shouldn't do science, or trust statistics. The "How to Lie With Statistics" guy was wholly embraced by the tobacco industry! But that we need better processes for research that address p-hacking, file drawer effects, and the occasional outright fraud.
posted by pwnguin at 12:04 AM on October 17, 2022
Not that we shouldn't do science, or trust statistics. The "How to Lie With Statistics" guy was wholly embraced by the tobacco industry! But that we need better processes for research that address p-hacking, file drawer effects, and the occasional outright fraud.
posted by pwnguin at 12:04 AM on October 17, 2022
Strongly agree with Ectabo - I've seen people quote studies that were including bacon, preserved meats, cola, candy bars, etc to argue against seitan.
Some processed foods contain ingredients that are actively harmful, but the problem with most is simply that they have an unhealthy recipe - what we used to just call junk food. High fat, low fibre, few vegetables. You can eat just as unhealthily in a restaurant with fresh cooked food, but not as cheaply, and quickly, every day, and that's the problem - not that they were precooked in a factory.
posted by BinaryApe at 12:19 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
Some processed foods contain ingredients that are actively harmful, but the problem with most is simply that they have an unhealthy recipe - what we used to just call junk food. High fat, low fibre, few vegetables. You can eat just as unhealthily in a restaurant with fresh cooked food, but not as cheaply, and quickly, every day, and that's the problem - not that they were precooked in a factory.
posted by BinaryApe at 12:19 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
How ultra-processed meals are unhealthier than you think
I wish they actually addressed this at all. It just claims that processed food is less healthy, not how it's less healthy.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 AM on October 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
I wish they actually addressed this at all. It just claims that processed food is less healthy, not how it's less healthy.
posted by Dysk at 12:39 AM on October 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
In the second linked article, there is a description of a clinical study by Kevin Hall et. al., who were originally skeptical of the theory (for many of the reasons posted here):
I do believe our choices should be informed choices though, and the pile of evidence against eating UPFs is growing.
I have childhood memories of being given Findus Crispy Pancakes and spaghetti hoops followed by Angel Delight for tea, exactly like the author of the second article, and I very much get it. But I also feel it is more likely that the processed food industry is out to poison me and addict me to their products than that "big carrot" is.
(BTW, I went out to the fridge at looked at the label on our oat milk, and there are no additives, just oats, salt and water. So pure products exist. Nice to know).
posted by mumimor at 1:06 AM on October 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
At the end of 2018, Hall and his colleagues became the first scientists to test – in randomised controlled conditions – whether diets high in ultra-processed foods could actually cause overeating and weight gain.I had expected some pushback here, on the comment section of first linked Guardian article, there is a guy who is posting almost desperately, the same again and again: he isn't eating veggie burgers for health, but for the planet! We need to save the planet! And that is not wrong, but the question is wether fake sausage is absolutely necessary for that task. To some it is, because they feel cooking from scratch is overwhelming, and IMO, that is a fair choice. Specially in the US and UK, it's been four or five generations of industrial food, and to be honest, I'd rather have fish fingers than my mother's home cooking even today.
For four weeks, 10 men and 10 women agreed to be confined to a clinic under Hall’s care and agreed to eat only what they were given, wearing loose clothes so that they would not notice so much if their weight changed. This might sound like a small study, but carefully controlled trials like this are considered the gold standard for science, and are especially rare in the field of nutrition because of the difficulty and expense of persuading humans to live and eat in laboratory conditions. Barry Popkin, a professor of nutrition at the University of North Carolina, has praised Hall’s study – published in Cell Metabolism – for being “as good a clinical trial as you can get”.
For two weeks, Hall’s participants ate mostly ultra-processed meals such as turkey sandwiches with crisps, and for another two weeks they ate mostly unprocessed food such as spinach omelette with sweet potato hash. The researchers worked hard to design both sets of meals to be tasty and familiar to all participants. Day one on the ultra-processed diet included a breakfast of Cheerios with whole milk and a blueberry muffin, a lunch of canned beef ravioli followed by cookies and a pre-cooked TV dinner of steak and mashed potatoes with canned corn and low-fat chocolate milk. Day one on the unprocessed diet started with a breakfast of Greek yoghurt with walnuts, strawberries and bananas, a lunch of spinach, chicken and bulgur salad with grapes to follow, and dinner of roast beef, rice pilaf and vegetables, with peeled oranges to finish. The subjects were told to eat as much or as little as they liked.
Hall set up the study to match the two diets as closely as possible for calories, sugar, protein, fibre and fat. This wasn’t easy, because most ultra-processed foods are low in fibre and protein and higher in sugar. To compensate for the lack of fibre, the participants were given diet lemonade laced with soluble fibre to go with their meals during the two weeks on the ultra-processed diet.
It turned out that, during the weeks of the ultra-processed diet, the volunteers ate an extra 500 calories a day, equivalent to a whole quarter pounder with cheese. Blood tests showed that the hormones in the body responsible for hunger remained elevated on the ultra-processed diet compared to the unprocessed diet...
I do believe our choices should be informed choices though, and the pile of evidence against eating UPFs is growing.
I have childhood memories of being given Findus Crispy Pancakes and spaghetti hoops followed by Angel Delight for tea, exactly like the author of the second article, and I very much get it. But I also feel it is more likely that the processed food industry is out to poison me and addict me to their products than that "big carrot" is.
(BTW, I went out to the fridge at looked at the label on our oat milk, and there are no additives, just oats, salt and water. So pure products exist. Nice to know).
posted by mumimor at 1:06 AM on October 17, 2022 [10 favorites]
The Guardian article:" last month a study in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology found that people born after 1990 are more likely to develop cancer before they’re 50 than people born before 1970".
Kudos to the journalist for actually linking to the paper cited - less kudos for their taking time to read it. Those who were suspecting that time travel to the year 2040 or so, and back might somehow be involved in that conclusion... will be disappointed.
posted by rongorongo at 1:09 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Kudos to the journalist for actually linking to the paper cited - less kudos for their taking time to read it. Those who were suspecting that time travel to the year 2040 or so, and back might somehow be involved in that conclusion... will be disappointed.
posted by rongorongo at 1:09 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Here's the complete Hall Study.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:10 AM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:10 AM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
The evidence against ultra-processed food isn't conclusive. Ideally we'd like to see a systematic review of many Randomized Controlled Trials.
But as far as I can tell only one RCT has been done, the Hall Study, which showed a significant effect of ultraprocessed foods causing weight gain.
That's supported by multiple, large, cohort studies showing an association of ultraprocessed foods with early death and increased disease.
So the evidence is not conclusive. Maybe the cohort studies are failing to control for other factors, and maybe the Hall study got something wrong. But the evidence is definitely worrying.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:16 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
But as far as I can tell only one RCT has been done, the Hall Study, which showed a significant effect of ultraprocessed foods causing weight gain.
That's supported by multiple, large, cohort studies showing an association of ultraprocessed foods with early death and increased disease.
So the evidence is not conclusive. Maybe the cohort studies are failing to control for other factors, and maybe the Hall study got something wrong. But the evidence is definitely worrying.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 1:16 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
I'm jumping in here with my MS in nutrition -- the problem is the media only reporting on these sorts of large epidemiological studies, and not on all the studies into the various mechanisms which have been found for specific elements of the diet causing issues. Without a deeper understanding of mechanisms you end up with a large, amorphous group of food being labeled as "bad" with seemingly no specific reasons that leads to confused frustration among the general public at best, and weaponization of diet advice at worse.
So here's some specifics.
Ultraprocessed food is usually low in fiber, so a diet high in ultraprocessed food is usually low in fiber. What does fiber actually do? Soluble fiber is fermented by bacteria in your colon, which then excrete short chain fatty acids like butyrate. These short chain fatty acids are used as fuel for the cells of your colon, and they also have antiproliferative effects (ie. they cause cells to not divide as fast, ie. they prevent cancer). Insoluble fiber also binds to cancer-causing substances passing through your digestive system and carries them out the body. So why do we see colorectal cancer in particular? Insoluble fiber increases transit time in the gut (it makes everything move through faster). If you're not eating enough insoluble fiber, all the beneficial short chain fatty acids from fermenting soluble fiber get used up at the beginning of your colon before they get a chance to reach the end of your colon. So the colon cells near your rectum lose out. So a mix of both fibers is best. Best source of soluble: oats, barley, and beans. Best source of insoluble: other grains. Here's a review article with plenty of links out supporting the specific claims.
Ok, so how about the meat? There's been some really interesting research into Neu5Gc, a cell-surface sugar that cells display on their exterior to help immune cells tell friend from fo, that seems to be implicated in why red meat is correlated with increased cancer in epidemiological studies. If you're wondering why the media doesn't report on it, well, it's complicated and sciency to explain, so probably wouldn't sell much advertising. But if you're interested: it's produced by all mammals except humans and a particular new world monkey (I forget which one), and we think we lost the ability to produce it long ago in our evolutionary past because not having it helped our cells hide from malaria. (Malaria has since evolved.) Even though our cells don't produce it, experimental studies have shown it is taken up from the diet (when you eat meat from mammals, so red meat including pork) and cells still have the machinery to push it out to their surfaces. The problem is a lot of us make antibodies to it, so our immune system will respond to cells displaying it. But it's not a strong response, just an inflamatory response the increases vascularization, etc. And here's the kicker -- when they radiolabel the chemical to try to find which of our cells grab this stuff and wave it around, it turns out it's mostly the cells that line our blood vessels and also cancer cells. (I can't find the link to the paper that made me stop eating red meat because it had images of radiolabeled tissues where you could actually see the outline of the blood vessels because of all the Neu5Gc.) Is this a nail in the coffin for red meat? It's enough for me, but for public health advice we probably need studies comparing diets that are alike in everything except that one group is eating red meat and the other is eating non-mammal meat that is otherwise similar in saturated fat profile, etc... like duck meat? Yeah, that research is unlikely to happen.
But anyway, there are reasons for specific effects but they're hard to report on, and the overgeneralizing that happens instead leads to same sort of thinking as the "all drugs bad!" mindset that creates a stigma for people ADHD seeking medication, for instance.
posted by antinomia at 1:24 AM on October 17, 2022 [48 favorites]
So here's some specifics.
Ultraprocessed food is usually low in fiber, so a diet high in ultraprocessed food is usually low in fiber. What does fiber actually do? Soluble fiber is fermented by bacteria in your colon, which then excrete short chain fatty acids like butyrate. These short chain fatty acids are used as fuel for the cells of your colon, and they also have antiproliferative effects (ie. they cause cells to not divide as fast, ie. they prevent cancer). Insoluble fiber also binds to cancer-causing substances passing through your digestive system and carries them out the body. So why do we see colorectal cancer in particular? Insoluble fiber increases transit time in the gut (it makes everything move through faster). If you're not eating enough insoluble fiber, all the beneficial short chain fatty acids from fermenting soluble fiber get used up at the beginning of your colon before they get a chance to reach the end of your colon. So the colon cells near your rectum lose out. So a mix of both fibers is best. Best source of soluble: oats, barley, and beans. Best source of insoluble: other grains. Here's a review article with plenty of links out supporting the specific claims.
Ok, so how about the meat? There's been some really interesting research into Neu5Gc, a cell-surface sugar that cells display on their exterior to help immune cells tell friend from fo, that seems to be implicated in why red meat is correlated with increased cancer in epidemiological studies. If you're wondering why the media doesn't report on it, well, it's complicated and sciency to explain, so probably wouldn't sell much advertising. But if you're interested: it's produced by all mammals except humans and a particular new world monkey (I forget which one), and we think we lost the ability to produce it long ago in our evolutionary past because not having it helped our cells hide from malaria. (Malaria has since evolved.) Even though our cells don't produce it, experimental studies have shown it is taken up from the diet (when you eat meat from mammals, so red meat including pork) and cells still have the machinery to push it out to their surfaces. The problem is a lot of us make antibodies to it, so our immune system will respond to cells displaying it. But it's not a strong response, just an inflamatory response the increases vascularization, etc. And here's the kicker -- when they radiolabel the chemical to try to find which of our cells grab this stuff and wave it around, it turns out it's mostly the cells that line our blood vessels and also cancer cells. (I can't find the link to the paper that made me stop eating red meat because it had images of radiolabeled tissues where you could actually see the outline of the blood vessels because of all the Neu5Gc.) Is this a nail in the coffin for red meat? It's enough for me, but for public health advice we probably need studies comparing diets that are alike in everything except that one group is eating red meat and the other is eating non-mammal meat that is otherwise similar in saturated fat profile, etc... like duck meat? Yeah, that research is unlikely to happen.
But anyway, there are reasons for specific effects but they're hard to report on, and the overgeneralizing that happens instead leads to same sort of thinking as the "all drugs bad!" mindset that creates a stigma for people ADHD seeking medication, for instance.
posted by antinomia at 1:24 AM on October 17, 2022 [48 favorites]
Once I learned the role of amino acids in neurotransmitters, and how glucose increases serotonin at the expense of other neurotransmitters, I realize what we eat is way more important than what is so commonly thought about.
I can see a few ways ultra processed foods would disrupt just neurotransmitter production because of that interaction, which would have an effect on mood and behavior and would play into long term health. And that’s just one tiny slice.
And I say this abhorring the woo stuff, but calories in-calories out doesn’t make any sense once you see there is a direct line from what you eat to how your brain operates.
I will still bristle at anyone that says “chemicals” are bad though. And you can pry my cookies from my cold, dead-to-soon hands.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:31 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
I can see a few ways ultra processed foods would disrupt just neurotransmitter production because of that interaction, which would have an effect on mood and behavior and would play into long term health. And that’s just one tiny slice.
And I say this abhorring the woo stuff, but calories in-calories out doesn’t make any sense once you see there is a direct line from what you eat to how your brain operates.
I will still bristle at anyone that says “chemicals” are bad though. And you can pry my cookies from my cold, dead-to-soon hands.
posted by [insert clever name here] at 1:31 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
obfuscation: several scratch-cooked meals daily chock full of fruits and veg
That is a very high standard, and one that's not at all needed to have a healthy diet. Two simple, cold meals (based on, for example, whole grains) and one cooked meal that has a good portion of vegetables, plus some fruits as snacks, can be very healthy... and seems so much more attainable. Why not aim for that?
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:35 AM on October 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
That is a very high standard, and one that's not at all needed to have a healthy diet. Two simple, cold meals (based on, for example, whole grains) and one cooked meal that has a good portion of vegetables, plus some fruits as snacks, can be very healthy... and seems so much more attainable. Why not aim for that?
posted by Too-Ticky at 1:35 AM on October 17, 2022 [7 favorites]
Why not aim for that?
It's also about what is available. I think in Germany, there are rules for bread (as for beer) that mean whole grain sourdough bread is very available at low prices. Here, pure, unflavored and unadulterated yogurt is the norm, and one can even choose between several strains of yogurt bacteria and between local, Greek, Turkish, French and Polish yogurts (that are actually from those countries). Obviously, it's easier to get fresh produce closer to where it is grown. In France, free range label rouge chickens are not cheap, but they are a lot cheaper than here. In Japan, fish are much cheaper. Etc.
That's why government intervention can be necessary, forcing distributors to provide a wider range of products, and to label produce transparently.
posted by mumimor at 1:54 AM on October 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
It's also about what is available. I think in Germany, there are rules for bread (as for beer) that mean whole grain sourdough bread is very available at low prices. Here, pure, unflavored and unadulterated yogurt is the norm, and one can even choose between several strains of yogurt bacteria and between local, Greek, Turkish, French and Polish yogurts (that are actually from those countries). Obviously, it's easier to get fresh produce closer to where it is grown. In France, free range label rouge chickens are not cheap, but they are a lot cheaper than here. In Japan, fish are much cheaper. Etc.
That's why government intervention can be necessary, forcing distributors to provide a wider range of products, and to label produce transparently.
posted by mumimor at 1:54 AM on October 17, 2022 [12 favorites]
The thing is that there are multiple possible mechanisms for what might be wrong with ultraprocessed food. It's quite possible that several of them are operating simultaneously.
I feel like in a sane world, given that consequences of something badly wrong with what most of us eat, there would be a massive research programme underway into which mechanisms are at work. But there seems to be hardly any.
Some of the mechanisms proposed are:
But nobody's that interested. People in power either want to ignore the problem completely, or are content to just lecture the public "OK everybody, triple your food preparation time."
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
I feel like in a sane world, given that consequences of something badly wrong with what most of us eat, there would be a massive research programme underway into which mechanisms are at work. But there seems to be hardly any.
Some of the mechanisms proposed are:
- Insufficent fiber
- The wrong kinds of fiber
- Too much red meat
- Something wrong with the processing of the meat
- Additives such as flavouring and preservatives
- Artificial sweeteners disrupting our perceptions of the calories we're consuming
- Added vitamins disrupting our signals. (E.g. without added vitamins we would crave fresh fruit/veg which also has other benefits, but with vitamins in our ultraprocessed food we don't feel like eating veg anymore).
- Hyperpalatable foods that just push our buttons and taste too good
But nobody's that interested. People in power either want to ignore the problem completely, or are content to just lecture the public "OK everybody, triple your food preparation time."
posted by TheophileEscargot at 2:32 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
If I ran the world I'd damn the cost and set up food labs that can run dozens of simultaneous trials, shove people in the labs on diets that can identify which of these mechanisms are at work, and find out what's going on.
Good point -- also if there was evidence that ultra processed food is bad, it would be easier to argue for less work hours (for the same pay obvs), at least here in Europe.
But anyone can see how the industry would argue against that, heck they probably are doing so already. Also, as someone trying to work towards zero CO2 in the construction industry, I bet there is probably a good bit of the fox guarding the hen house here: many of the scientists who could be doing the technical part of this research are "food scientists", people who are educated in an environment where all food is just chemicals.
posted by mumimor at 2:47 AM on October 17, 2022
Good point -- also if there was evidence that ultra processed food is bad, it would be easier to argue for less work hours (for the same pay obvs), at least here in Europe.
But anyone can see how the industry would argue against that, heck they probably are doing so already. Also, as someone trying to work towards zero CO2 in the construction industry, I bet there is probably a good bit of the fox guarding the hen house here: many of the scientists who could be doing the technical part of this research are "food scientists", people who are educated in an environment where all food is just chemicals.
posted by mumimor at 2:47 AM on October 17, 2022
I was glad the article mentioned the thing that always bugs me about this discourse, which is what the hell “processed” means. Olive oil, nutritionist’s fave, seems awfully processed to me, in that I can’t imagine doing it myself from raw ingredients. Is fresh pasta a different amount of processed than dry pasta? What if I make my own pasta, is that processed? What about dried vs canned beans? The vagueness of “processed” imparts an undertone of nostalgia for a time when women tended the home fires and nothing more.
So many of the association studies are doomed too by the unreliability of dietary self report measures. Not an issue for clinical trials, but external validity is hard there, because people can’t reproduce clinical trial conditions in their own lives, so adhering precisely to any dietary intervention outside a trial is very tricky.
posted by eirias at 3:22 AM on October 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
So many of the association studies are doomed too by the unreliability of dietary self report measures. Not an issue for clinical trials, but external validity is hard there, because people can’t reproduce clinical trial conditions in their own lives, so adhering precisely to any dietary intervention outside a trial is very tricky.
posted by eirias at 3:22 AM on October 17, 2022 [14 favorites]
Maybe "highly complex foods" would be a better term? For oat milk that has stabilizer, thickener, preservatives and sweetener vs. oat milk that has water and salt?
There also seems to be quite a bit of freeze-drying and pulverizing in HPFs. I've always wondered why there is powered milk instead of just milk or cream in canned soup, but it seems logical now that it is for the consistency of quality. It may be low quality, but it is always the same quality.
Anyway, I don't decide the terminology.
posted by mumimor at 3:30 AM on October 17, 2022
There also seems to be quite a bit of freeze-drying and pulverizing in HPFs. I've always wondered why there is powered milk instead of just milk or cream in canned soup, but it seems logical now that it is for the consistency of quality. It may be low quality, but it is always the same quality.
Anyway, I don't decide the terminology.
posted by mumimor at 3:30 AM on October 17, 2022
I read this article as thoroughly as this article read the paper it's about, and my takeaway is that I can eat anything I'd like so long as I also drink more wine.
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 3:52 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by Tom Hanks Cannot Be Trusted at 3:52 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
Re:Have the Brazilian people taken the gov up on this advice?
In 2014 Brazil was removed from the hunger index list. Since the fascist took power The UN found that 61.3 million Brazilians face food insecurity dispite being one of the worlds largest food producers. So I am guessing people are desperate to eat anything. I have never seen an obese person living on the street but there sure are a lot of them. (Both obese people and people living in the street).
posted by adamvasco at 4:51 AM on October 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
In 2014 Brazil was removed from the hunger index list. Since the fascist took power The UN found that 61.3 million Brazilians face food insecurity dispite being one of the worlds largest food producers. So I am guessing people are desperate to eat anything. I have never seen an obese person living on the street but there sure are a lot of them. (Both obese people and people living in the street).
posted by adamvasco at 4:51 AM on October 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
That is a very high standard,
I did not mean to imply that was the standard for having a healthy diet, but that people in the lowest quintile of processed food consumption likely are consuming a great deal more fruits & veg daily, something that is associated the privilege of having the time, energy, money, and knowledge to do so, and that does not exist in a vacuum on its impact on health.
posted by obfuscation at 6:12 AM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
I did not mean to imply that was the standard for having a healthy diet, but that people in the lowest quintile of processed food consumption likely are consuming a great deal more fruits & veg daily, something that is associated the privilege of having the time, energy, money, and knowledge to do so, and that does not exist in a vacuum on its impact on health.
posted by obfuscation at 6:12 AM on October 17, 2022 [1 favorite]
(BTW, I went out to the fridge at looked at the label on our oat milk, and there are no additives, just oats, salt and water. So pure products exist. Nice to know).
But per the Guardian article, this would still count as NOVA level 4 "ultra-processed." Personally I prefer soy milk to all the cow-milk-alternatives for the protein content but I am not going to go after anyone who likes oat milk, with or without the additives.
The definition of "ultra-processed" seems so wide as to be unusable for the average person who doesn't have time to cook 7 or 14 or 21 healthy meals a week for their family, let alone read labels.
Ok, so how about the meat? There's been some really interesting research into Neu5Gc, a cell-surface sugar that cells display on their exterior to help immune cells tell friend from fo, that seems to be implicated in why red meat is correlated with increased cancer in epidemiological studies.
I've always joked to people who say the tempeh or tofu or Impossible sausages I eat as part of my vegetarian/veganish diet are "overprocessed" that the difference between what I'm eating and their meat is the cow they are eating did the processing for them. It's still originally vegetable matter that was processed, just by a different mechanism and in the case of that beef burger, it's one that destroys the environment and causes animal suffering in the process. (I'm not saying the factories that make tempeh or tofu or Impossible sausages are in the clear from an environmental perspective, so don't come at me, but it's pretty clear that from a climate perspective alone eating meat is worse than not.) Maybe my joking was closer to the truth than I thought.
This quote from the article pissed me off:
As Sophie Medlin, dietitian and chair of the London branch of the British Dietetic Association has said: “The more you’re trying to make something imitate something that it’s not, the more processing it’s going to have to go through.”
Listen, I don't drink soy milk out of some arbitrary desire to "make something imitate something that it's not" - I drink it because I want something to put on cereal. I don't eat a fake sausage because I'm desperate to pretend I'm eating meat, I eat it because it has lots of protein and the form factor is easy to cook using common utensils and cooking methods.
I've been dealing with some personal life challenges (injured partner, sick pets, difficult job) that have reduced my capacity for other life stuff by quite a bit. One of the first things to go was my extensive meal planning and cooking homemade, often from scratch fully vegan meals for at least 5 dinners a week. Now it's more like 2 and the other meals are just pasta with a jar of sauce or some fake chicken nuggets over a bagged salad and premade dressing or ordering delivery. I have a privileged, easy life (no kids, middle class, skilled in using my well-equipped kitchen) and if even I can get to the point where cooking healthily goes more or less out the window, it's easy to see how it happens to literally anyone else. And once you're there, eating the chicken nuggets and ordering pizza once a week, it just becomes more and more part of your regular routine.
Point is, I don't think shaming people or making them feel even worse about what they are eating is going to help with this issue. I doubt anyone thinks chicken nuggets (real or fake) are as healthy as something cooked from scratch. What I want to know is what regulatory or policy changes would actually move the needle on helping overworked, underpaid, exhausted families be healthier. (Disclaimer that health is not guaranteed no matter what or how you eat and is not a moral value!)
posted by misskaz at 6:14 AM on October 17, 2022 [28 favorites]
But per the Guardian article, this would still count as NOVA level 4 "ultra-processed." Personally I prefer soy milk to all the cow-milk-alternatives for the protein content but I am not going to go after anyone who likes oat milk, with or without the additives.
The definition of "ultra-processed" seems so wide as to be unusable for the average person who doesn't have time to cook 7 or 14 or 21 healthy meals a week for their family, let alone read labels.
Ok, so how about the meat? There's been some really interesting research into Neu5Gc, a cell-surface sugar that cells display on their exterior to help immune cells tell friend from fo, that seems to be implicated in why red meat is correlated with increased cancer in epidemiological studies.
I've always joked to people who say the tempeh or tofu or Impossible sausages I eat as part of my vegetarian/veganish diet are "overprocessed" that the difference between what I'm eating and their meat is the cow they are eating did the processing for them. It's still originally vegetable matter that was processed, just by a different mechanism and in the case of that beef burger, it's one that destroys the environment and causes animal suffering in the process. (I'm not saying the factories that make tempeh or tofu or Impossible sausages are in the clear from an environmental perspective, so don't come at me, but it's pretty clear that from a climate perspective alone eating meat is worse than not.) Maybe my joking was closer to the truth than I thought.
This quote from the article pissed me off:
As Sophie Medlin, dietitian and chair of the London branch of the British Dietetic Association has said: “The more you’re trying to make something imitate something that it’s not, the more processing it’s going to have to go through.”
Listen, I don't drink soy milk out of some arbitrary desire to "make something imitate something that it's not" - I drink it because I want something to put on cereal. I don't eat a fake sausage because I'm desperate to pretend I'm eating meat, I eat it because it has lots of protein and the form factor is easy to cook using common utensils and cooking methods.
I've been dealing with some personal life challenges (injured partner, sick pets, difficult job) that have reduced my capacity for other life stuff by quite a bit. One of the first things to go was my extensive meal planning and cooking homemade, often from scratch fully vegan meals for at least 5 dinners a week. Now it's more like 2 and the other meals are just pasta with a jar of sauce or some fake chicken nuggets over a bagged salad and premade dressing or ordering delivery. I have a privileged, easy life (no kids, middle class, skilled in using my well-equipped kitchen) and if even I can get to the point where cooking healthily goes more or less out the window, it's easy to see how it happens to literally anyone else. And once you're there, eating the chicken nuggets and ordering pizza once a week, it just becomes more and more part of your regular routine.
Point is, I don't think shaming people or making them feel even worse about what they are eating is going to help with this issue. I doubt anyone thinks chicken nuggets (real or fake) are as healthy as something cooked from scratch. What I want to know is what regulatory or policy changes would actually move the needle on helping overworked, underpaid, exhausted families be healthier. (Disclaimer that health is not guaranteed no matter what or how you eat and is not a moral value!)
posted by misskaz at 6:14 AM on October 17, 2022 [28 favorites]
The studies are saying the problem with ultraprocessed meat is nitrates, but nitrates don't metabolize the same way when consumed with vegetables that they do with meat. In that case, are meat substitutes even ultraprocessed in a way that can give you cancer?
posted by Selena777 at 6:29 AM on October 17, 2022
posted by Selena777 at 6:29 AM on October 17, 2022
What I want to know is what regulatory or policy changes would actually move the needle on helping overworked, underpaid, exhausted families be healthier.
Disclaimer: I am not in America or the UK. But here, scientific evidence that ultra-processed food is a health risk and subsequent regulation could mean that the food in schools, hospitals and nursing homes would have to made from scratch. It would also mean that disabled people and others who qualify for assistance in their homes would have the right to get help with shopping and cooking, or to get food made from scratch delivered.
For instance, when I had my second child, we had a lot of social and health problems, and I had some assistance for a limited time period, that would have included help to shop and cook in such a scenario.
Regulatory changes and other such policies could also incite supermarket chains to procure and sell better produce. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such regulations in place within the EU, which is why we cannot buy American beef here, and why a lot of processed food has different ingredients than the same products in the US, (and soon also the UK).
posted by mumimor at 6:45 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
Disclaimer: I am not in America or the UK. But here, scientific evidence that ultra-processed food is a health risk and subsequent regulation could mean that the food in schools, hospitals and nursing homes would have to made from scratch. It would also mean that disabled people and others who qualify for assistance in their homes would have the right to get help with shopping and cooking, or to get food made from scratch delivered.
For instance, when I had my second child, we had a lot of social and health problems, and I had some assistance for a limited time period, that would have included help to shop and cook in such a scenario.
Regulatory changes and other such policies could also incite supermarket chains to procure and sell better produce. There are hundreds, if not thousands of such regulations in place within the EU, which is why we cannot buy American beef here, and why a lot of processed food has different ingredients than the same products in the US, (and soon also the UK).
posted by mumimor at 6:45 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
There are lots of theories, but nobody knows for sure what (if anything) is wrong with ultraprocessed foods. I found the theories in this podcast and transcript pretty fascinating, but there's not much solid evidence for them. One theory was about vitamins:
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:10 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
I finally found this body of research, and it turns out that vitamins utterly changed pig farming. Before the 1950s, farmers knew that you could give pigs corn and soy, that it was kind of like rocket fuel, gonna make them fat, but only for a limited period of time, if that’s all they ate, they would actually get a nutritional deficiency...Another was about artificial sweeteners:
The discovery of vitamins totally changed pig farming. All of a sudden, it wasn’t necessary anymore for your pigs to be out there in the field munching alfalfa. You could keep them penned up all day. You could give them this rocket fuel diet of corn and soy, and it was just… They were like a rocketship. They gained weight and put on fat like they never did before...
And that changed pig farming forever. That’s why we have these flesh factories where we keep pigs in kind of factory-like conditions, where we just jack them up full of corn, soy, and the vitamins necessary to metabolize that feed. That’s how we invented factory-farming. Vitamins played a huge role in that. So, oddly enough, what was such an important ingredient in making pigs gain weight optimally is what we’ve been doing to our food for more than a century, and we’re doing more and more of it.
So you can then say, if the brain is keeping track of things, what happens when one day sweet equals energy, and the next day sweet equals not so much energy or maybe more energy than I expected. This never happened historically, sweetness was always matched, a sweeter strawberry had more sugar than a tart strawberry, a sweeter apple, and so forth. It is only very recently that we have been able to create this difference between how food tastes and what you get, and what that is called is uncertainty...Those theories seem interesting to me because we're always moralizing and looking for "the bad stuff" in our modern diets. We want to believe it's the sugar or the fat or the preservatives or the stabilizers, and that's what we investigate. But what if the problem isn't the bad stuff at all? What if it's actually that the well-meaning food scientists are doing their best to make the food healthier: adding vitamins, reducing sugar, and that's had the unintended consequence of making everything worse?
...when the cue becomes uncertain, the rats become obsessed with the lever that they’re really, really interested in the lever, it turns out that making a cue uncertain ramps up motivation.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:10 AM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
The great nutrient collapse - The atmosphere is literally changing the food we eat, for the worse. And almost nobody is paying attention. [Previously]
Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong -
For decades, the medical community has ignored mountains of evidence to wage a cruel and futile war on fat people, poisoning public perception and ruining millions of lives. [Previously]
The obesity trend isn’t only affecting humans — chimps, pets, and lab rats are getting fatter too
"Animals in strictly controlled research laboratories that have enforced the same diet and lifestyle for decades are also ballooning."
Secular differences in the association between caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity with obesity
Everything You Know About Obesity Is Wrong -
For decades, the medical community has ignored mountains of evidence to wage a cruel and futile war on fat people, poisoning public perception and ruining millions of lives. [Previously]
The obesity trend isn’t only affecting humans — chimps, pets, and lab rats are getting fatter too
"Animals in strictly controlled research laboratories that have enforced the same diet and lifestyle for decades are also ballooning."
Secular differences in the association between caloric intake, macronutrient intake, and physical activity with obesity
Resultsposted by MrVisible at 7:26 AM on October 17, 2022 [9 favorites]
Between 1971 and 2008, BMI, total caloric intake and carbohydrate intake increased 10–14%, and fat and protein intake decreased 5–9%. Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).
Conclusions
Factors other than diet and physical activity may be contributing to the increase in BMI over time. Further research is necessary to identify these factors and to determine the mechanisms through which they affect body weight.
First off: I am not a nutritionist, dietician, nutritional scientist, biologist, doctor, or anyone with any relevant qualifications, and I welcome any kind of correction from anyone who knows more than me.
With that said: the more I look at the NOVA categories [pdf], the more they strike me as arbitrary, inconsistent, almost no-true-Scotsman definitions, based in our intuitions and culinary classifications (which are just a reflection of our food traditions, and thus just as arbitrary a reflection of our intuitions and preferences)>. Like, group 1 can contain:
natural foods altered by methods that include removal of
inedible or unwanted parts, and also processes that include drying, crushing, grinding,
powdering, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, pasteurization,
chilling, freezing, placing in containers, and vacuum packaging.
Why is non-alcoholic fermentation singled out? It's no less a form of processing, is it? Is it just that this one process is one we know products less healthy foodstuffs, so we put that in the more processed category? Then we find that the more processed foods - defined in part by being more unhealthy - are more unhealthy? Or is there some actual justification for singling out this one for of fermentation as more 'processing' than other types of fermentation?
Meanwhile, group 2 foods are:
substances derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes such as
pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying.
...but group 1 foods can be both unprocessed foods, and foods processed by "drying, crushing, grinding, powdering". So if I take a group 1 food, like tomatoes, and dry them, are they group 1 or 2? If I take whole grains and mill or grind them, is it group 1 or 2?
Like, their examples for group 1 list "fresh, powdered, chilled or frozen eggs; fresh, powdered or pasteurized milk;" Meanwhile honey is a group 2 food. The Nova Classification Reference Sheet lists "grits, flakes and flours made from corn, wheat or oats,
including those fortified with iron, folic acid or other
nutrients" as group 1, alongside "fresh or pasteurized vegetable or fruit juices with no added sugar or other substances". Why is fortifying flour minimal processing, but fortifying juice is not? And if a group 3 food is a group 1 plus a group 2, why is sugar (2) plus fresh fruit juice (1) listed as an example in group 4 (sweetened juice)?
The edges of all these categories are so fuzzy as to enable foods to slot in almost wherever we want them to, and the end result is that when something is more or less healthy than other things with its level of processing, we stretch and contort the definitions of processing to put it in a category with stuff that is similarly healthy/unhealthy.
Like, am I reading all this entirely wrong? Is there actually some meaningful definitional difference between eg processed and ultra-processed, or minimally processed and processed that doesn't amount to "I know it when I see it"?
posted by Dysk at 7:27 AM on October 17, 2022 [13 favorites]
With that said: the more I look at the NOVA categories [pdf], the more they strike me as arbitrary, inconsistent, almost no-true-Scotsman definitions, based in our intuitions and culinary classifications (which are just a reflection of our food traditions, and thus just as arbitrary a reflection of our intuitions and preferences)>. Like, group 1 can contain:
natural foods altered by methods that include removal of
inedible or unwanted parts, and also processes that include drying, crushing, grinding,
powdering, fractioning, filtering, roasting, boiling, non-alcoholic fermentation, pasteurization,
chilling, freezing, placing in containers, and vacuum packaging.
Why is non-alcoholic fermentation singled out? It's no less a form of processing, is it? Is it just that this one process is one we know products less healthy foodstuffs, so we put that in the more processed category? Then we find that the more processed foods - defined in part by being more unhealthy - are more unhealthy? Or is there some actual justification for singling out this one for of fermentation as more 'processing' than other types of fermentation?
Meanwhile, group 2 foods are:
substances derived from group 1 foods or else from nature by processes such as
pressing, refining, grinding, milling, and drying.
...but group 1 foods can be both unprocessed foods, and foods processed by "drying, crushing, grinding, powdering". So if I take a group 1 food, like tomatoes, and dry them, are they group 1 or 2? If I take whole grains and mill or grind them, is it group 1 or 2?
Like, their examples for group 1 list "fresh, powdered, chilled or frozen eggs; fresh, powdered or pasteurized milk;" Meanwhile honey is a group 2 food. The Nova Classification Reference Sheet lists "grits, flakes and flours made from corn, wheat or oats,
including those fortified with iron, folic acid or other
nutrients" as group 1, alongside "fresh or pasteurized vegetable or fruit juices with no added sugar or other substances". Why is fortifying flour minimal processing, but fortifying juice is not? And if a group 3 food is a group 1 plus a group 2, why is sugar (2) plus fresh fruit juice (1) listed as an example in group 4 (sweetened juice)?
The edges of all these categories are so fuzzy as to enable foods to slot in almost wherever we want them to, and the end result is that when something is more or less healthy than other things with its level of processing, we stretch and contort the definitions of processing to put it in a category with stuff that is similarly healthy/unhealthy.
Like, am I reading all this entirely wrong? Is there actually some meaningful definitional difference between eg processed and ultra-processed, or minimally processed and processed that doesn't amount to "I know it when I see it"?
posted by Dysk at 7:27 AM on October 17, 2022 [13 favorites]
(And on the subject of drying, dried meats are listed in group 3, despite drying being listed as an example of group 1 or group 2 processes!)
posted by Dysk at 7:39 AM on October 17, 2022
posted by Dysk at 7:39 AM on October 17, 2022
Thanks obfuscation for the good summary why I can't read any article on nutrition any more.
posted by 3j0hn at 8:42 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
I feel like this is going to be one more piece of information that’s used as a weapon to shame people for what they eat, instead of a tool to improve people’s ability to eat more nutritious foods on a regular basis.Even if we got good recommendations from these studies/articles, it always seems to back fire. For example, when "nitrates" were identified as the thing bad about processed meats, food companies rushed to do something. So now, a decade on, literally every processed meat in my grocery store is labeled "nitrate free" because all the added nitrates now come from plant sources and so no longer "count" as nitrates. But they all still have the same amount of nitrates afaik.
posted by 3j0hn at 8:42 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
But here, scientific evidence that ultra-processed food is a health risk and subsequent regulation could mean that the food in schools, hospitals and nursing homes would have to made from scratch. It would also mean that disabled people and others who qualify for assistance in their homes would have the right to get help with shopping and cooking, or to get food made from scratch delivered.
Without knowing what country this is, but applying my own US-centric views, I'd actually rather not eat institutional food made from scratch until there's universal paid sick leave. One of the benefits of frozen or factory-prepared meals is that, even if you lose some on nutrition, you're relatively assured that no infectious disease will have made its way in. It's a bad bargain either way. But I'd take long-term possible negative effects over short-term GI illness any day (and probably so would anyone you'd ask in a nursing home or other convalescent environment).
posted by knotty knots at 8:46 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
Without knowing what country this is, but applying my own US-centric views, I'd actually rather not eat institutional food made from scratch until there's universal paid sick leave. One of the benefits of frozen or factory-prepared meals is that, even if you lose some on nutrition, you're relatively assured that no infectious disease will have made its way in. It's a bad bargain either way. But I'd take long-term possible negative effects over short-term GI illness any day (and probably so would anyone you'd ask in a nursing home or other convalescent environment).
posted by knotty knots at 8:46 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
Wow, knotty knots, that's a huge cultural divide right there!
I read somewhere about the US focus on hygiene and how it makes sense and was a huge driver in the industrialization of food, but my google-foo is failing me.
posted by mumimor at 9:16 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
I read somewhere about the US focus on hygiene and how it makes sense and was a huge driver in the industrialization of food, but my google-foo is failing me.
posted by mumimor at 9:16 AM on October 17, 2022 [3 favorites]
I feel like this is going to be one more piece of information that’s used as a weapon to shame people for what they eat, instead of a tool to improve people’s ability to eat more nutritious foods on a regular basis.
100% agree. It's like any discussion on eating out vs cooking - it always devolves into "you're a horrible person for not having the time/ingredients/skills to cook a healthy meal every day". I have even seen that attitude right here on MeFi, more than once (thankfully not in this thread, yet). God forbid people have other responsibilities or jobs.
I will openly admit I probably do not eat as well as I should. I could easily afford anything at the store but I also work long hours and have to travel frequently. Ever try keeping a healthy supply of fruit and veg on hand in a hotel room without a fridge? Yeah it's impossible. You eat what you can find and have the time to consume.
posted by photo guy at 9:42 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
100% agree. It's like any discussion on eating out vs cooking - it always devolves into "you're a horrible person for not having the time/ingredients/skills to cook a healthy meal every day". I have even seen that attitude right here on MeFi, more than once (thankfully not in this thread, yet). God forbid people have other responsibilities or jobs.
I will openly admit I probably do not eat as well as I should. I could easily afford anything at the store but I also work long hours and have to travel frequently. Ever try keeping a healthy supply of fruit and veg on hand in a hotel room without a fridge? Yeah it's impossible. You eat what you can find and have the time to consume.
posted by photo guy at 9:42 AM on October 17, 2022 [5 favorites]
The focus on colorectal cancer and the fact that it was only significant for men makes me think of p-hacking, where you compute a bunch of statistics and report the ones that are most significant.
I know a handful of people who have colorectal cancer, but whose doctors advised against doing anything about it, because the treatment is invasive (and I know someone who died from complications), and the cancer itself is not particularly deadly. It's a 'monitor closely' cancer.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2022
I know a handful of people who have colorectal cancer, but whose doctors advised against doing anything about it, because the treatment is invasive (and I know someone who died from complications), and the cancer itself is not particularly deadly. It's a 'monitor closely' cancer.
posted by The_Vegetables at 9:46 AM on October 17, 2022
There are lots of theories, but nobody knows for sure what (if anything) is wrong with ultraprocessed foods.
Michael Pollan makes a really interesting inference from the history of nutritional science; that we never know precisely how the biochemical interactions work, and every time we focus on something identifiable at the chemical level that we can control (saturated fats, nitrites, nitrates, added vitamins, sugars, whatever) we always go badly wrong because diet and digestion and appetite are way more complicated than that.
That's why, he says, you'd be better off ignoring not just previous decades' debunked nutritional theories, but ignoring this decade's nutritional theories too, and the next lot; and instead, concentrating on traditional food practices with all the old folk wisdom that was embodied in them.
posted by vincebowdren at 11:34 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Michael Pollan makes a really interesting inference from the history of nutritional science; that we never know precisely how the biochemical interactions work, and every time we focus on something identifiable at the chemical level that we can control (saturated fats, nitrites, nitrates, added vitamins, sugars, whatever) we always go badly wrong because diet and digestion and appetite are way more complicated than that.
That's why, he says, you'd be better off ignoring not just previous decades' debunked nutritional theories, but ignoring this decade's nutritional theories too, and the next lot; and instead, concentrating on traditional food practices with all the old folk wisdom that was embodied in them.
posted by vincebowdren at 11:34 AM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Once Michael Pollan admits we're better off ignoring Michael Pollan, then I'll be satisfied.
posted by obfuscation at 12:45 PM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
posted by obfuscation at 12:45 PM on October 17, 2022 [6 favorites]
I feel like this is going to be one more piece of information that’s used as a weapon to shame people for what they eat, instead of a tool to improve people’s ability to eat more nutritious foods on a regular basis.
That would be sad. My interest in this is to lobby for better regulations and more transparency. I am a fat person. I am not ashamed of that fact, and I rarely experience body shaming. I don't diet, though I do think of my daily fruit and veg intake and fiber count (I never blame myself if I don't reach my goals). But I do believe we would all be better off with better access to healthy food, regardless of who we are, where we are or what our incomes are.
IMO, the food industry has far too much influence, globally and locally, and they need to be curtailed. The EU is better at this than the US, but not at all good enough. What anyone can learn from the EU is that industry can survive even heavy regulation and that it can become a competitive advantage. I know Asian countries buy tons of European pork because it is perceived as safe and sustainable, even though it is more expensive than local products.
posted by mumimor at 12:56 PM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
That would be sad. My interest in this is to lobby for better regulations and more transparency. I am a fat person. I am not ashamed of that fact, and I rarely experience body shaming. I don't diet, though I do think of my daily fruit and veg intake and fiber count (I never blame myself if I don't reach my goals). But I do believe we would all be better off with better access to healthy food, regardless of who we are, where we are or what our incomes are.
IMO, the food industry has far too much influence, globally and locally, and they need to be curtailed. The EU is better at this than the US, but not at all good enough. What anyone can learn from the EU is that industry can survive even heavy regulation and that it can become a competitive advantage. I know Asian countries buy tons of European pork because it is perceived as safe and sustainable, even though it is more expensive than local products.
posted by mumimor at 12:56 PM on October 17, 2022 [4 favorites]
Looks like some people cleverer than me have similar criticisms.
Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.
[...]
The definition of levels of food processing, as proposed by the NOVA classification, is complex and multidimensional. It does not really reflect the intensity of the processes used, but is a mix of technological considerations based more on socio-cultural aspects than on physical-chemical ones occurring during food processing.
posted by Dysk at 8:40 PM on October 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
Although assignments were more consistent for some foods than others, overall consistency among evaluators was low, even when ingredient information was available. These results suggest current NOVA criteria do not allow for robust and functional food assignments.
[...]
The definition of levels of food processing, as proposed by the NOVA classification, is complex and multidimensional. It does not really reflect the intensity of the processes used, but is a mix of technological considerations based more on socio-cultural aspects than on physical-chemical ones occurring during food processing.
posted by Dysk at 8:40 PM on October 17, 2022 [2 favorites]
That's why, he says, you'd be better off ignoring not just previous decades' debunked nutritional theories, but ignoring this decade's nutritional theories too, and the next lot; and instead, concentrating on traditional food practices with all the old folk wisdom that was embodied in them.
But what if the folk wisdom embedded in them is “we can’t afford to worry about cancer in twenty years time if we starve to death this winter”?
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 1:11 AM on October 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
But what if the folk wisdom embedded in them is “we can’t afford to worry about cancer in twenty years time if we starve to death this winter”?
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 1:11 AM on October 18, 2022 [6 favorites]
But what if the folk wisdom embedded in them is “we can’t afford to worry about cancer in twenty years time if we starve to death this winter”?
Indeed, yes. The advice is premised on the observation that traditional societies eating traditionally are much healthier overall; if that isn't true - if a traditional society has much worse health than a modern society - then you'd question the advice.
But as I understand it, the data available is that modern societies are much unhealthier (obesity, diabetes and so on) than traditional societies, even when you take cancer into account.
posted by vincebowdren at 3:30 AM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Indeed, yes. The advice is premised on the observation that traditional societies eating traditionally are much healthier overall; if that isn't true - if a traditional society has much worse health than a modern society - then you'd question the advice.
But as I understand it, the data available is that modern societies are much unhealthier (obesity, diabetes and so on) than traditional societies, even when you take cancer into account.
posted by vincebowdren at 3:30 AM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
The whole "Mediterranean diet" and Blue Zones thing came out of the discovery that some people in the Mediterranean and a few other places live very long lives in good health. It seems to be easier to achieve in warmer climates where fresh produce is available all year round.
We can't all live like Sardinian villagers, but IMO it's a good thing that research is being done on how to approximate their lifestyle. Not so much because of the longevity but because of the good health. And I don't entirely understand why reporting on research results is seen as shaming. Generally, if something is wrong on a societal level, it should be dealt with by society, not individuals. But I'm a socialist in a social democracy. What do I know?
posted by mumimor at 4:39 AM on October 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
We can't all live like Sardinian villagers, but IMO it's a good thing that research is being done on how to approximate their lifestyle. Not so much because of the longevity but because of the good health. And I don't entirely understand why reporting on research results is seen as shaming. Generally, if something is wrong on a societal level, it should be dealt with by society, not individuals. But I'm a socialist in a social democracy. What do I know?
posted by mumimor at 4:39 AM on October 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
The advice is premised on the observation that traditional societies eating traditionally are much healthier overall; if that isn't true - if a traditional society has much worse health than a modern society - then you'd question the advice.One big confound here is that traditional diets tend to correlate with people being far more physically active. There have been a number of studies showing that how you metabolize food varies based on how active you are afterwards along with the traditional limits on consumption (thinking of my disbelief as a child when my maternal grandfather mentioned that growing up he only ate beef a couple of times per year when their dairy farming cousins culled the herd).
But as I understand it, the data available is that modern societies are much unhealthier (obesity, diabetes and so on) than traditional societies, even when you take cancer into account.
I suspect that many of these claims will turn out like the Mediterranean diet where it turned out to be more complicated but there was an entire industry ready to say the answer was to do the easy part of switching cooking oils rather than consuming in moderation or not building an entire society where many people only exercise to the extent that they can’t find a closer parking space.
posted by adamsc at 5:06 AM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
I don’t have a problem with the theory that industrialised food production has created an unhealthy diet. I just don’t think ‘folk wisdom’ has anything to do with it. I don’t think my prehistoric ancestors who ate largely whole food were any wiser than my medieval ancestors who ate rough brown bread and drank beer or my Victorian ancestors who ate chemically leavened cakes and drank sugary tea.
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 5:10 AM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Bloxworth Snout at 5:10 AM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
The advice is premised on the observation that traditional societies eating traditionally are much healthier overall; if that isn't true - if a traditional society has much worse health than a modern society - then you'd question the advice.
I have a feeling it is extremely untrue. At least for the majority of the income cohorts in developed nations. That would mean that modern food processing has improved lives vs the past for the majority. That probably sucks to hear for a lot of people.
It could also be that we are the top of the bell curve, and lives will fall off in the future.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:30 AM on October 18, 2022
I have a feeling it is extremely untrue. At least for the majority of the income cohorts in developed nations. That would mean that modern food processing has improved lives vs the past for the majority. That probably sucks to hear for a lot of people.
It could also be that we are the top of the bell curve, and lives will fall off in the future.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:30 AM on October 18, 2022
It could also be that the modern health improvements are pretty marginal overall - like good luck arguing that the increased size of most mcmansions isn't an improvement for the people who get to to live there, but is adding a 3rd bathroom really that much of an life improver vs a 1200 sq ft home?
Same with modern cars vs a 1975 Ford Station Wagon, for the person who can afford it. They both got you from point A to B - but the end result is overall pretty similar, and the 3rd order effects like the environment are worse for the marginal improvements made.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:34 AM on October 18, 2022
Same with modern cars vs a 1975 Ford Station Wagon, for the person who can afford it. They both got you from point A to B - but the end result is overall pretty similar, and the 3rd order effects like the environment are worse for the marginal improvements made.
posted by The_Vegetables at 8:34 AM on October 18, 2022
Isn't the whole point that it is complicated?
Medicine has advanced incredibly in the last 30 years, but a huge amount of ressources in the health care systems go to patients with symptoms/diseases that are caused by contemporary society: we as a society are better at treating diabetes, but the increase in diabetes II patients is due to our more stagnant lives and (I believe) industrial food. Finally, cancer treatments are getting better, but they are used to treat millions who have cancer from environmental causes.
Since the end of WWII, much fewer people experience starvation -- and that is obviously a good thing -- but at the same time many more people are obese. A lot of starvation was and is caused by cynical rulers and landowners, rather than natural catastrophes, and perhaps it turns out that the obesity epidemic has similar causes. When we work for 12-14 hours and are forced to buy sub-par foods, it isn't our fault.
We have bigger houses, and bigger and more cars, but less community and less support from communities that aren't for profit churches or similar organizations. Perhaps that leads to stress, that can trigger bad health outcomes. We still no very little about the connections between mental and physical health.
So many factors play into what we eat and how we move and why. There will be no quick fix. No diet manuals or simple exercise tricks. We have to figure out how to live in this world of our own creation, where it is evident that we are no good at creating.
posted by mumimor at 8:53 AM on October 18, 2022
Medicine has advanced incredibly in the last 30 years, but a huge amount of ressources in the health care systems go to patients with symptoms/diseases that are caused by contemporary society: we as a society are better at treating diabetes, but the increase in diabetes II patients is due to our more stagnant lives and (I believe) industrial food. Finally, cancer treatments are getting better, but they are used to treat millions who have cancer from environmental causes.
Since the end of WWII, much fewer people experience starvation -- and that is obviously a good thing -- but at the same time many more people are obese. A lot of starvation was and is caused by cynical rulers and landowners, rather than natural catastrophes, and perhaps it turns out that the obesity epidemic has similar causes. When we work for 12-14 hours and are forced to buy sub-par foods, it isn't our fault.
We have bigger houses, and bigger and more cars, but less community and less support from communities that aren't for profit churches or similar organizations. Perhaps that leads to stress, that can trigger bad health outcomes. We still no very little about the connections between mental and physical health.
So many factors play into what we eat and how we move and why. There will be no quick fix. No diet manuals or simple exercise tricks. We have to figure out how to live in this world of our own creation, where it is evident that we are no good at creating.
posted by mumimor at 8:53 AM on October 18, 2022
We need a track back from ask.mefi tags like canieatit, foodsafety, etc.
posted by jeffburdges at 9:05 AM on October 18, 2022
posted by jeffburdges at 9:05 AM on October 18, 2022
The "Blue Zones" have been somewhat debunked (easily found on Google) but if you followed the researchers' continued exploration of them, they came down pretty heavily on the social connections, lower-stress, and active (up and down hills) lifestyle as being just as important as the so-called Mediterranean diet. There's a good recent The Happiness Lab episode on this.
Focusing solely on diet and nutrients may be one of our bigger health mistakes as a society. I particularly hate the conflation between "good diet" and "good person," and I find it's invaded wellness and alt-medicine spaces enough that...well, we see what happened over Covid with the wellness industry to far right pipeline. (See also the Maintenance Phase podcast for the discussion around Pete Evans).
That said, I am skeptical about industrially manufactured food. I have spent hours of labour making and serving whole foods, and trying to do it in a way that resulted in my kids enjoying it. I've got a list of tricks and recipes going way back.
The reality? Kraft Dinner encountered at a friend's house trumped hours of lovingly building flavours, at least temporarily. I served bean burgers, by which I mean beans mashed up with some egg substitute and herbs and onions and breadcrumbs from homemade bread, for a long time...but eventually my parents took my kid to Five Guys. And guess what? I grew up on those or similar things and I like them too. We try to have them rarely, but like...they're in our brains.
Manufactured food and fast food industries are far better at delivering something that tastes good, and the same every time, that doesn't require a pantry full of herbs and spices and aromatics, and represents celebration, than I can be in the 45 minutes after work it takes me to prepare and roast sweet potatoes and put the fixings for sweet potato and black bean tacos on the table - after I've ensured I have all the ingredients. So yes, I think it's very complicated and everyone has various challenges and hills to die on.
And I think it helps, but it may not help as much as the media represents.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:36 AM on October 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
Focusing solely on diet and nutrients may be one of our bigger health mistakes as a society. I particularly hate the conflation between "good diet" and "good person," and I find it's invaded wellness and alt-medicine spaces enough that...well, we see what happened over Covid with the wellness industry to far right pipeline. (See also the Maintenance Phase podcast for the discussion around Pete Evans).
That said, I am skeptical about industrially manufactured food. I have spent hours of labour making and serving whole foods, and trying to do it in a way that resulted in my kids enjoying it. I've got a list of tricks and recipes going way back.
The reality? Kraft Dinner encountered at a friend's house trumped hours of lovingly building flavours, at least temporarily. I served bean burgers, by which I mean beans mashed up with some egg substitute and herbs and onions and breadcrumbs from homemade bread, for a long time...but eventually my parents took my kid to Five Guys. And guess what? I grew up on those or similar things and I like them too. We try to have them rarely, but like...they're in our brains.
Manufactured food and fast food industries are far better at delivering something that tastes good, and the same every time, that doesn't require a pantry full of herbs and spices and aromatics, and represents celebration, than I can be in the 45 minutes after work it takes me to prepare and roast sweet potatoes and put the fixings for sweet potato and black bean tacos on the table - after I've ensured I have all the ingredients. So yes, I think it's very complicated and everyone has various challenges and hills to die on.
And I think it helps, but it may not help as much as the media represents.
posted by warriorqueen at 9:36 AM on October 18, 2022 [4 favorites]
I have long believed..I long believed...I don't believe...I truly believe...
Articles like this have been coming out with increasing frequency in recent years, and I wonder if these things I suspected are indeed true.
I think, though, that everyone knows...In this arena, I think..To be more blunt, I firmly believe
posted by [redacted] at 4:52 PM on October 16 [23 favorites +] [Flagged]
The rampant naturalistic fallacy - basically woo - in this thread and the popsci interpretation of article makes me ashamed of both the writers and some of the participants.
posted by [redacted] at 5:00 PM on October 16 [42 favorites +] [!]
This is pretty much the best we're capable of isn't it. It's like the confirmation bias wars: Youtube vs Reddit. I stopped there, should I keep going? I'm guessing no.
As someone with some minor expertise in this field, nutrition is INCREDIBLY complicated. In fact it is one of the most complex fields of science that doesn't get into quantum mechanics etc. These reductive takes on both sides only serve to entrench established assumptions.
posted by viborg at 10:58 AM on October 18, 2022
Articles like this have been coming out with increasing frequency in recent years, and I wonder if these things I suspected are indeed true.
I think, though, that everyone knows...In this arena, I think..To be more blunt, I firmly believe
posted by [redacted] at 4:52 PM on October 16 [23 favorites +] [Flagged]
The rampant naturalistic fallacy - basically woo - in this thread and the popsci interpretation of article makes me ashamed of both the writers and some of the participants.
posted by [redacted] at 5:00 PM on October 16 [42 favorites +] [!]
This is pretty much the best we're capable of isn't it. It's like the confirmation bias wars: Youtube vs Reddit. I stopped there, should I keep going? I'm guessing no.
As someone with some minor expertise in this field, nutrition is INCREDIBLY complicated. In fact it is one of the most complex fields of science that doesn't get into quantum mechanics etc. These reductive takes on both sides only serve to entrench established assumptions.
posted by viborg at 10:58 AM on October 18, 2022
I feel that the blue zones people are a bit like the bike people. They are not wrong, but their ideological enthusiasm sometimes leads them to exaggeration and bad science. They should trust their actual data more. I hesitated before linking to them, but in the end chose to do so because they are not wrong, and they do include all the not-food elements in their presentations.
Sunday, I made a simple pasta with pesto and asparagus. The pesto was made from scratch, and I forgot to put cheese in it, so we added that later. The asparagus were super cheap and steamed over the pasta water. All was finished within the cooking time of the pasta, so about 15 minutes. The thing I want to say is that it was a huge portion, and one of the kids brought the leftovers with him to work, where he shared it with a guy who grew up on UPF, just like he did. And they both loved it. I think a lot of people assume that we need to serve restaurant-grade food at all times, when very often something simple is more than good enough. Even simple with mistakes, like my pesto. Don't be a chef.
Home cooking in privileged parts of the world has been almost totally ruined during the 20th and this century by cookbooks, magazines and TV cooks and now YouTube cooks who all made cooking into a more or less complicated project. I can appreciate that it was originally in part to make it more apparent that home-making is a job and nutrition a science. And I personally love spending a day with a food project. But it has made a lot of people either fear or resent cooking. And a lot of the advice in popular cooking books such as Betty Crocker was plain wrong, based on industry capabilities rather than taste or nutrition.
In this country, there was a huge drive to make people eat margarine and the less palatable parts of the pig, so the butter and bacon could be sold to the UK. Earlier, in Portugal, people ate inestines and sardines so the colonizers could bring the better meat and fish on their warships. I'm pretty sure American casseroles with noodles and cream of mushroom soup are based on similar calculations, not about nourishment or taste, but about profit and selling surplus products. Don't even ask about American Cheese.
Making a simple pasta dish with all the nutrients requires a bit of skill. But shouldn't we all learn that skill as kids, just as we learn to spell and count? Isn't feeding oneself from basic elements as important as reading?
posted by mumimor at 11:37 AM on October 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
Sunday, I made a simple pasta with pesto and asparagus. The pesto was made from scratch, and I forgot to put cheese in it, so we added that later. The asparagus were super cheap and steamed over the pasta water. All was finished within the cooking time of the pasta, so about 15 minutes. The thing I want to say is that it was a huge portion, and one of the kids brought the leftovers with him to work, where he shared it with a guy who grew up on UPF, just like he did. And they both loved it. I think a lot of people assume that we need to serve restaurant-grade food at all times, when very often something simple is more than good enough. Even simple with mistakes, like my pesto. Don't be a chef.
Home cooking in privileged parts of the world has been almost totally ruined during the 20th and this century by cookbooks, magazines and TV cooks and now YouTube cooks who all made cooking into a more or less complicated project. I can appreciate that it was originally in part to make it more apparent that home-making is a job and nutrition a science. And I personally love spending a day with a food project. But it has made a lot of people either fear or resent cooking. And a lot of the advice in popular cooking books such as Betty Crocker was plain wrong, based on industry capabilities rather than taste or nutrition.
In this country, there was a huge drive to make people eat margarine and the less palatable parts of the pig, so the butter and bacon could be sold to the UK. Earlier, in Portugal, people ate inestines and sardines so the colonizers could bring the better meat and fish on their warships. I'm pretty sure American casseroles with noodles and cream of mushroom soup are based on similar calculations, not about nourishment or taste, but about profit and selling surplus products. Don't even ask about American Cheese.
Making a simple pasta dish with all the nutrients requires a bit of skill. But shouldn't we all learn that skill as kids, just as we learn to spell and count? Isn't feeding oneself from basic elements as important as reading?
posted by mumimor at 11:37 AM on October 18, 2022 [5 favorites]
The subjects were told to eat as much or as little as they liked.
Query, doesn't this mean that hyperpalatability, bulk (or lack thereof), and other factors might be affecting consumption and thence (likely) weight gain? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to test these diets using the same caloric content?
posted by praemunire at 11:41 AM on October 18, 2022
Query, doesn't this mean that hyperpalatability, bulk (or lack thereof), and other factors might be affecting consumption and thence (likely) weight gain? Wouldn't it have been more appropriate to test these diets using the same caloric content?
posted by praemunire at 11:41 AM on October 18, 2022
Hey mumimor I feel like you routinely have threads where you expound on nutrition, how everyone should know how to cook, and that it's not that hard while also simultaneously talking about the ways that food is subsidized differently in Europe. This is clearly something you're passionate about and I think that influences the time and energy you have for it, which is fine, but universalizing that experience probably isn't helpful. I'm not trying to put you down but to ask you to think about why this conversation seems to happen again and again.
posted by Ferreous at 11:59 AM on October 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
posted by Ferreous at 11:59 AM on October 18, 2022 [8 favorites]
Hi Ferrous
Thanks for asking. I believe changing our food habits is a huge part of cutting down CO2 emissions and thus part of my general activism for saving the planet. If you look, you will discover that I also post about agriculture, foresting, ocean ecology and the construction industry (which is where my professional work is rooted). It's what I do, here and in real life, and what I have been doing for my whole adult life (albeit sometimes with very little impact).
I have become aware, mainly from being here on MetaFilter, that changing food habits is a much harder challenge in the US and UK than in other parts of the world, and I can relate to that, having grown up in the UK and having lived in the US with a small child. Thus I don't want to judge anyone, but I do want to point to political rather than private solutions.
You might say that my last comment seemed like a private solution rather than a political one, but the point was that everyone should learn to eat sustainably, just like we learn to spell or count, and that is a societal/governmental responsibility.
Have a nice day :-)
posted by mumimor at 12:27 PM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Thanks for asking. I believe changing our food habits is a huge part of cutting down CO2 emissions and thus part of my general activism for saving the planet. If you look, you will discover that I also post about agriculture, foresting, ocean ecology and the construction industry (which is where my professional work is rooted). It's what I do, here and in real life, and what I have been doing for my whole adult life (albeit sometimes with very little impact).
I have become aware, mainly from being here on MetaFilter, that changing food habits is a much harder challenge in the US and UK than in other parts of the world, and I can relate to that, having grown up in the UK and having lived in the US with a small child. Thus I don't want to judge anyone, but I do want to point to political rather than private solutions.
You might say that my last comment seemed like a private solution rather than a political one, but the point was that everyone should learn to eat sustainably, just like we learn to spell or count, and that is a societal/governmental responsibility.
Have a nice day :-)
posted by mumimor at 12:27 PM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
Even taking that dish as an example though (Fred Meyer/Kroger pricing, so not upscale, store-brand where possible):
* 6oz. fresh basil, $10
* 3oz. cheese (guessing Parmesan, guessing not mostly-sawdust grade, domestic though), $4
* 2oz. pine nuts, $4
* Box of pasta, $2
* 1# asparagus, $4
* 2c olive oil, $6
* 1 head garlic, $1
It does sound lovely, but that's also over half a day's pay at gross federal minimum wage just on ingredients.
I don't think you're wrong in your goals, but there's a few layers of disconnect before that gets to "simple, quick, not restaurant-grade"
posted by CrystalDave at 12:35 PM on October 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
* 6oz. fresh basil, $10
* 3oz. cheese (guessing Parmesan, guessing not mostly-sawdust grade, domestic though), $4
* 2oz. pine nuts, $4
* Box of pasta, $2
* 1# asparagus, $4
* 2c olive oil, $6
* 1 head garlic, $1
It does sound lovely, but that's also over half a day's pay at gross federal minimum wage just on ingredients.
I don't think you're wrong in your goals, but there's a few layers of disconnect before that gets to "simple, quick, not restaurant-grade"
posted by CrystalDave at 12:35 PM on October 18, 2022 [3 favorites]
I don't think you're wrong in your goals, but there's a few layers of disconnect before that gets to "simple, quick, not restaurant-grade"
I'm in a different continent, with different food and price regulations. Which is my point that I have stated multiple times above. I clearly remember trying to feed my daughter whole, vegetable based foods in the US, and it was really hard.
posted by mumimor at 12:40 PM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
I'm in a different continent, with different food and price regulations. Which is my point that I have stated multiple times above. I clearly remember trying to feed my daughter whole, vegetable based foods in the US, and it was really hard.
posted by mumimor at 12:40 PM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
We all live in different places and gave different experiences, we should all be able to talk about them even if they don't apply to everywhere (since nothing does anyway).
posted by Dysk at 4:19 PM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by Dysk at 4:19 PM on October 18, 2022 [2 favorites]
So is “finely ground oats” another way of saying rolled oats?….because if it is, I'm fucked.
posted by brachiopod at 4:41 PM on October 18, 2022
posted by brachiopod at 4:41 PM on October 18, 2022
Rolled oats are totally not finely ground. I think they’re talking about oat flour and stuff like that. Oatmeal is pretty much universally regarded as healthy food, and it’s cheap and easy to make.
posted by chrchr at 5:25 PM on October 18, 2022
posted by chrchr at 5:25 PM on October 18, 2022
From what I can gather on wikipedia, "rolled oats" refers to a pretty wide gamut of sizes and levels of processing, partly dependent on where you are in the world? E.g. thick-rolled oats are basically just steamed, flattened whole oats (minus husk) whereas quick rolled oats are much finer, and often steam-treated a second time after rolling, seemingly much closer to a coarse oatmeal.
In conclusion, oat terminology is a land of contrasts.
posted by Dysk at 6:28 PM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
In conclusion, oat terminology is a land of contrasts.
posted by Dysk at 6:28 PM on October 18, 2022 [1 favorite]
Between 1988 and 2006, frequency of leisure time physical activity increased 47–120%. However, for a given amount of caloric intake, macronutrient intake or leisure time physical activity, the predicted BMI was up to 2.3 kg/m2 higher in 2006 that in 1988 in the mutually adjusted model (P < 0.05).
So if one takes this as true (at least for the US) then why on earth would the WHO put out a report saying that physical activity has decreased, is not generally being monitored in most countries, and put out the following dire paragraph:
WHO Global Physical Inactivity Report
"The economic burden of physical inactivity is large. Globally, almost 500 million
(499 208 million) new cases of preventable NCDs will occur between 2020 and 2030,
incurring treatment costs of just over US$ 300 billion (INT$ 524 billion) or around
US$ 27 billion (INT$ 48 billion) annually if there is no change in the current prevalence of physical inactivity. Nearly half of these new cases of NCDs (47%) will result from hypertension, and 43% will result from depression. Three quarters of all cases will occur in lower- and upper-middle-income countries. The largest economic cost is set to occur among high-income countries, which will account for 70% of health-care expenditure on treating
illness resulting from physical inactivity."
So I'm guessing the science as to if physical activity is increasing across all income cohorts in the US is debatable.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:24 AM on October 19, 2022
So if one takes this as true (at least for the US) then why on earth would the WHO put out a report saying that physical activity has decreased, is not generally being monitored in most countries, and put out the following dire paragraph:
WHO Global Physical Inactivity Report
"The economic burden of physical inactivity is large. Globally, almost 500 million
(499 208 million) new cases of preventable NCDs will occur between 2020 and 2030,
incurring treatment costs of just over US$ 300 billion (INT$ 524 billion) or around
US$ 27 billion (INT$ 48 billion) annually if there is no change in the current prevalence of physical inactivity. Nearly half of these new cases of NCDs (47%) will result from hypertension, and 43% will result from depression. Three quarters of all cases will occur in lower- and upper-middle-income countries. The largest economic cost is set to occur among high-income countries, which will account for 70% of health-care expenditure on treating
illness resulting from physical inactivity."
So I'm guessing the science as to if physical activity is increasing across all income cohorts in the US is debatable.
posted by The_Vegetables at 7:24 AM on October 19, 2022
It's hard to determine how physical activity and calorie intake have changed over time, as people may report differently and inaccurately.
But also the "Secular differences..." article seems to be talking about "leisure time physical activity" in particular, while the WHO report seems to be talking about physical activity in general. E.g. if people are walking less distance, relying more on delivery services and cars, doing less physical housework because they're relying on devices; they could be doing less overall physical activity, even if they're doing more leisure time activity.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:50 AM on October 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
But also the "Secular differences..." article seems to be talking about "leisure time physical activity" in particular, while the WHO report seems to be talking about physical activity in general. E.g. if people are walking less distance, relying more on delivery services and cars, doing less physical housework because they're relying on devices; they could be doing less overall physical activity, even if they're doing more leisure time activity.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 7:50 AM on October 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
Many areas of work are so much less physical these days as well.
I worked in couple of pretty big warehouses as a teenager, and all pallet movement was by pump truck, unless the upper racks were needed, where the one forklift would be taken into use. I've worked in much, much smaller warehouses in the last few years where all sick movement is PPT, counterbalance, or LLOP even for non-palletised loads. It's more efficient, it's quicker, easier, you need fewer staff, but nobody is doing anything physical. You've got your butt in a driver's seat all day. That's not too mention the proper big warehousing operations where the whole racking system is automated and robotised. People load and unload lorries, everything else is machines (and they use powered manual handling equipment for the bits that are done by humans).
I worked as a gravedigger (and church groundskeeper - graver, for any Danes reading) for a while, as well. I've spoken to some old-timers who used to do the job as well, and they used to dig graves with a shovel. We had a guy come and do it in a small JCB, though we still filled them back in by hand, with shovels (if it's been raining and your giant box of earth is soaked through, it can be a lot of weight to shift). Lots of church yards have their own diggers these days, and so do both ends of the process with machinery. Wheelbarrows have been replaced by mini-flatbeds and garden tractors with trailers. Manual mowers with powered mowers, and then ride-on. The work is much, much less physical than in the past.
It's going to be a similar story in many industries and jobs. Mechanisation, automation, and the ever-increasing use of industrial robots means we just do much less physical work in aggregate. And it just isn't feasible to replace a day's labouring with physical leisure activities after a day in the office. You can do a lot of it's your entire non-work life, but if you've got a nine to five in a chair, it's going to be tough to burn even remotely the same calories as someone labouring six to eight hours.
posted by Dysk at 10:10 AM on October 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
I worked in couple of pretty big warehouses as a teenager, and all pallet movement was by pump truck, unless the upper racks were needed, where the one forklift would be taken into use. I've worked in much, much smaller warehouses in the last few years where all sick movement is PPT, counterbalance, or LLOP even for non-palletised loads. It's more efficient, it's quicker, easier, you need fewer staff, but nobody is doing anything physical. You've got your butt in a driver's seat all day. That's not too mention the proper big warehousing operations where the whole racking system is automated and robotised. People load and unload lorries, everything else is machines (and they use powered manual handling equipment for the bits that are done by humans).
I worked as a gravedigger (and church groundskeeper - graver, for any Danes reading) for a while, as well. I've spoken to some old-timers who used to do the job as well, and they used to dig graves with a shovel. We had a guy come and do it in a small JCB, though we still filled them back in by hand, with shovels (if it's been raining and your giant box of earth is soaked through, it can be a lot of weight to shift). Lots of church yards have their own diggers these days, and so do both ends of the process with machinery. Wheelbarrows have been replaced by mini-flatbeds and garden tractors with trailers. Manual mowers with powered mowers, and then ride-on. The work is much, much less physical than in the past.
It's going to be a similar story in many industries and jobs. Mechanisation, automation, and the ever-increasing use of industrial robots means we just do much less physical work in aggregate. And it just isn't feasible to replace a day's labouring with physical leisure activities after a day in the office. You can do a lot of it's your entire non-work life, but if you've got a nine to five in a chair, it's going to be tough to burn even remotely the same calories as someone labouring six to eight hours.
posted by Dysk at 10:10 AM on October 19, 2022 [2 favorites]
(...used to dig graves with shovels and spades I should say!)
posted by Dysk at 11:39 AM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
posted by Dysk at 11:39 AM on October 19, 2022 [1 favorite]
Sunday, I made a simple pasta with pesto and asparagus.
Pasta was actually the time I was shamed by a nutritionist — I went with my MIL to her appointment since I’m the main food preparer and I was asking about substitutes because I had younger kids who like pasta and the nutritionist said really quite nastily, “you shouldn’t be serving that to your children either.”
My MIL was at the time being told she couldn’t eat grains, root vegetables, legumes, or more lean protein than a deck of cards sized portion once a day (bad kidney numbers) and try for low fat. I kind of flipped out and asked the nutritionist for a meal plan for 20 different meals and it was seriously a list of salads. I love salad but humans have been eating other things for a long time.
My MIL lost 100 lbs and her kidney function went from 18% to 33% over the next 3 years, but we had to figure it out ourselves. I still feel sick serving pasta, so we don’t have it much. And it actually does mess with her blood sugar (actual monitoring via a skin patch and an app is how we found what works for her, Which may not be other people.)
Also stress like a dentist visit puts her blood sugar out of whack as much as Halloween candy, imagine that.
I was surprised to see pasta under minimally processed foods. Take that, nutritionist!
posted by warriorqueen at 3:59 AM on October 20, 2022 [1 favorite]
Pasta was actually the time I was shamed by a nutritionist — I went with my MIL to her appointment since I’m the main food preparer and I was asking about substitutes because I had younger kids who like pasta and the nutritionist said really quite nastily, “you shouldn’t be serving that to your children either.”
My MIL was at the time being told she couldn’t eat grains, root vegetables, legumes, or more lean protein than a deck of cards sized portion once a day (bad kidney numbers) and try for low fat. I kind of flipped out and asked the nutritionist for a meal plan for 20 different meals and it was seriously a list of salads. I love salad but humans have been eating other things for a long time.
My MIL lost 100 lbs and her kidney function went from 18% to 33% over the next 3 years, but we had to figure it out ourselves. I still feel sick serving pasta, so we don’t have it much. And it actually does mess with her blood sugar (actual monitoring via a skin patch and an app is how we found what works for her, Which may not be other people.)
Also stress like a dentist visit puts her blood sugar out of whack as much as Halloween candy, imagine that.
I was surprised to see pasta under minimally processed foods. Take that, nutritionist!
posted by warriorqueen at 3:59 AM on October 20, 2022 [1 favorite]
Eat mushrooms, cut down on meat and use the microwave: the best diet for you and the planet
posted by mumimor at 3:55 AM on October 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
posted by mumimor at 3:55 AM on October 28, 2022 [2 favorites]
« Older “You really become that character when you are in... | Ecology and climate songs Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Selena777 at 3:11 PM on October 16, 2022 [2 favorites]