processed food

tryin2die2self

When I talk about "processed", I really mean it to be overly processed or unnecessarily processed . I think artificial or frankenfood is a different animal. However, as I try to follow a paleo bent so I stay away from "processed" foods too. The biggest problem with processed foods is really don't know what is involved in making the product, what was added and taken away that may not be in the final ingredient list. For instance, a lot of oils use chemical solvents to break down the products. They don't list those solvents or what was stripped away. Manufacturers don't have to list everything (at least in America) and some advertising can "bend" the rules of reality. For instance, a popular sugar substitute says it is zero calories. You then see the asterisk. Really it is zero calories based on the serving size. Pound for pound, it has 40% less calories than sugar. In what world is 40% less of a number zero (unless the original number is zero). Also if something is shelf stable for years chances are they added something to make that happen. I don't want to eat that and I don't want to feed it to my kids.

I think that is what the "he" from the OPs perspective was trying to eliminate.

AllOutof_Bubblegum

It depends if you really think that altering a food's texture will change its nutritional value.

tennisdude2004

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

WinoGelato wrote: »

people get so caught up in whether or not something is "allowed" then I think they miss out on many foods that could actually benefit them.

I agree with this sentence here SO much. When did we start viewing nutritional guidelines as hard and fast rules. It's not about what is "allowed", it's what is recommended.

I think this is also a great way of putting this, and thinking about your question (although you may have intended it to be a rhetorical one), I wonder if it is the distinction between dietary guidelines from medical or governmental agencies (ie the AMA, or myplate.gov, or any country's health organization) which tend to focus on recommendations of what you SHOULD eat, and the "for profit" entities looking to sell books, supplements, etc which seem to be the ones focus on the labels and restrictions, and the things you "SHOULDN'T" eat.

Honestly since joining these forums I think it is that a great many people see everything as black and white, all or nothing. A recommendation to eat less saturated fat becomes avoid all saturated fat. Eat less fat becomes eat low fat. Reduce carbs becomes eat low carb. Eat more whole grains and less overly processed grains becomes never eat processed grains or even never eat grains at all.

It seems that many people can't seem to understand that saying we (as a nation) are eating too much of <this> doesn't mean <this> is dangerous in any amount.

Yep...

jgnatca

@tryin2die2self , then it turns out that "he" is Chris Powell. Who is inconsistent. Allows commercial taco chips but not home-made wholemeal bread. Allows shelf-stable whey powder.

My daughter thinks "solvents (chemicals)" as soon as she hears "purified" or "refined". But there are so many chemical free ways to process foods to make them easier to eat. There's grinding, washing with water (both ancient food processing methods), cooking (beans), sifting, centrifuge, sun bleaching, and precipitation.

I think part of this suspicion of processing comes from a general distrust of Big food industry. As the Brazilian food guide suggests,

"Be wary of food advertising and marketing -
The purpose of advertising is to increase product sales, and not to inform or educate people. Be critical and teach children to be critical of all forms of food advertising and marketing." - Food based dietary guidelines

I default at trust until proven otherwise. Complex interdependent societies are built on a general level of trust. Somewhere along the way we all decided to drive on the same side of the road, allowing us to get to where we want to go.

kshama2001

I default at trust with people but not corporations.

I'm not going to take that sentence to its logical conclusion lest it be considered divisive

jgnatca

Who's the wizard behind the curtain at MFP, hmmmmm?

I spent the bulk of my career working for a large bureaucracy. People are quick to cry "conspiracy" but after working in many of it's file rooms, I can say with confidence that there was nothing sinister about it's operations. Ignorance and obliviousness yes, but not deliberate harm.

A rampaging elephant squashes the mouse as easily as a benevolent one, if it is unaware.

lemurcat12

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

lemurcat12 wrote: »

Need2Exerc1se wrote: »

A recommendation to eat less saturated fat becomes avoid all saturated fat. Eat less fat becomes eat low fat. Reduce carbs becomes eat low carb. Eat more whole grains and less overly processed grains becomes never eat processed grains or even never eat grains at all.

I am generally in favor of following nutrition guidelines (which might mean lowering those things, depending on your diet). I absolutely never suggest that's not a good goal. But quite often I see people who seem to think it's all or nothing -- either you overeat sugar massively or you cut out all sugar (including fruit), you eat the SAD or you become a raw food vegan (much less common) or do keto or do some other set plan. It's totally fine to do those things, if someone wants to, of course. What gets me is when it's suggested that those are the only healthy ways to eat and eating some or any sugar or sat fat or processed foods or whatever it is = unhealthy.

It seems that many people can't seem to understand that saying we (as a nation) are eating too much of <this> doesn't mean <this> is dangerous in any amount.

I don't think this is true. We (the US) as a nation are eating poorly, and I think no one much objects to that being acknowledged. I object to generalized advice that people should eat no white foods or the like (and that is how it's given, not that we should cut down), because (1) there are times when the white pasta might be worth it or be the healthier choice for other reasons, and (2) the person giving the advice has no way to know if I (or whoever else is addressed) actually overeats, say, refined grains, even though the country as a whole does.

I'm not quite following this last bit. What is it that you think is not true? Your post seems to be saying pretty much the same thing I posted, albeit a good deal more wordy.

I would have thought it was pretty obvious. What I think is not true is the statement immediately before my comment "I don't think this is true." Specifically, your assertion that: "It seems that many people can't seem to understand that saying we (as a nation) are eating too much of <this> doesn't mean <this> is dangerous in any amount."

I've seen no evidence that anyone has a problem separating those two concepts.