Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

Are Processed Foods "Bad"?

Options
1…456810

Replies

  • nvmomketo
    nvmomketo Posts: 12,019 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    johnslater461 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    dra760 wrote: »
    ladyhusker39 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Some processed foods are great. Some are pretty calorie heavy and nutrient poor.

    Can't make a blanket statement

    I don't usually see people who claim to avoid processed foods to distinguish between the ones that are "great" and the one that are calorie heavy and nutrient poor.

    Besides, what's wrong with a delicious piece of cake on occasion esp if it's within the context of an overall balanced diet?

    You can have cake and not have it be processed. i think it's about the ingredients. to me processed food contains chemicals (such as preservatives) that does not occur naturally in food. i personally avoid processed food such as margarine and stick with foods if they are boxed and canned that do not have preservatives. Sometimes this is hard such as coconut milk because it contains guar but I still eat it. Just keep in mind avoiding food that never goes bad.

    Explanation of processed food based on Weston A. Price:
    Unfortunately, in modern times, we have substituted local artisanal processing with factory and industrial processing, which actually diminishes the quality of the food, rather than making it more nutritious and digestible. Industrial processing depends upon sugar, white flour, processed and hydrogenated oils, synthetic food additives and vitamins, heat treatment and the extrusion of grains.
    https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/modern-foods/dirty-secrets-of-the-food-processing-industry/

    Can you show me the nearest cake tree? There's nothing about cake that is not processed.

    My friuit cake contains only self ground almonds and raisins which currently I'm eating daily.

    I don't know what to call this but it certainly wouldn't be "cake".

    Thankfully you do not have a say in what I call it. I like being able to have my cake and eat it too on my WOE. :)

    You can call it whatever you want. I can start introducing my cat as a purple mountain gorilla. Still doesn't make it so.

    All true. The definition of cat is set more or less by science. Science has not gotten into defining cake yet. :)

    LOL :D
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    J_Fairfax wrote: »
    Fresher tastes better

    I agree, nothing sadder than stale Oreos....

    I didn't know this was possible. How long does it take for Oreos to get stale?









    (I don't have this problem because Oreos are not something I can moderate, and they haven't been in my house for years.)
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    happytree923 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    happytree923 wrote: »
    Everyone can provide their own personal stories and preferences as much as they want. It does not change the fact that on average, high fat, salt, and sugar foods are highly rewarding and make you want to eat more of them. This, combined with the convienence of processed/junk/fast/whatever food, makes it easy to overeat. If you are trying to lose weight this is a good thing to be aware of.

    Again, though, the topic here is "processed" food, not "junk food."

    Processed food is VERY varied and need not be the kinds of foods you are describing as high fat, salt, and sugar food (whereas, again, plenty of homecooked foods could be).

    Processed foods include things like an Amy's frozen meal, instant oats with NOTHING but oats added, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, canned tuna, quick cook rice and beans, the kinds of Indian foods pictured above, smoked salmon, kimchi, pickles, boneless skinless chicken breast, pretty low cal chicken sausages, a canned soup (low sodium), and so on.

    That it is preserved (the original reason for it) or intended to make things more convenient does not say anything about the ingredients involved or whether it's high or low cal, nutritious or not, so on.
    Honestly I’m not sure why this is so controversial? What people usually mean when they say ‘processed food’ is junk food and I thought it was pretty commonly known that it’s way easier to gain weight on junk than chicken and broccoli.

    No, I would disagree that what people usually mean by "processed food" is junk food. If someone asks if I eat processed food I think about what I happen to eat and the answer is yes, I do -- I eat tofu, tempeh, soy milk, smoked salmon, peanut powder, occasional protein powder, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, greek yogurt, coffee and tea, lots of imported cheeses, and sure, occasional dark chocolate and ice cream. I don't consider the latter two more processed or different than the others, even though I wouldn't consider any of the others "junk food." That's my problem with the

    Ok, we disagree on what qualifies as ‘processed food.’ I think you’re being a little pedantic, the term has a colloquial meaning beyond ‘a food that has had heat applied to it before sale’ and I don’t know anyone else who uses the super broad definition you are using.

    Lots of people on MFP do use that super broad definition, and it is technically correct.

    However, no one I know in real life uses it. When they say "processed foods", they mean what the Brazilian government has defined as Ultra Processed Foods: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf
  • kshama2001
    kshama2001 Posts: 27,897 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    happytree923 wrote: »
    That's true, but I'd bet most home kitchens don't have a team of researchers tweaking recipes to make them as palatable as humanly possible. Large-scale food manufacturers do.

    Home kitchens don't need that. Ultra processed foods must make foods that taste good with an extensive shelf life and made for very cheap. Home cooks can easily make MUCH better food just using tried and true methods and ingredients (like butter!). There is NO packaged sweet that to my taste comes anywhere close to a really interesting fine dining dessert or even my own apple or strawberry-rhubarb pie or the many different kinds of homemade Christmas cookies some of us exchange at my office during Christmas season. My assistant has a catering business on the side, and she makes some delicious desserts too -- WAY better than anything you can buy at the grocery store or some fast food place or whatever.

    But that aside, that wasn't really my point. You seemed to be equating "processed food" and "junk food" and not all junk food is especially processed and CERTAINLY not all processed food is junk food...

    One of the things food manufactures do to save money is use ingredients like artificial vanilla or almond extract. Yes, these are WAY cheaper. But they may be what's giving packaged baked good mixes that chemically, artificial, wrong taste that makes me avoid them.

    When I first moved in with my OH, I saw how much he was paying for baked brownies and decided to make them myself. I went through this whole thing where I tried at least a half dozen make from scratch recipes and around that many brands of packaged brownie mixes. The ones with artificial flavors just taste wrong to me, but it doesn't bother him.

    Now, the Ghirardelli brownie mix does list artificial flavors, but these taste fine to me. Maybe they use less, or maybe a different kind /shrug/.

    Pillbury has a Purely Simple line that doesn't have any artificial colors or flavors. I tried this once, but it was pretty expensive for a cake mix and I had to go out of my way to find a store that carries it. (Target.) It didn't save me much time, either - adding leavening, salt, and sugar just takes a few minutes.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    stevencloser wrote: »
    dra760 wrote: »
    ladyhusker39 wrote: »
    Packerjohn wrote: »
    Some processed foods are great. Some are pretty calorie heavy and nutrient poor.

    Can't make a blanket statement

    I don't usually see people who claim to avoid processed foods to distinguish between the ones that are "great" and the one that are calorie heavy and nutrient poor.

    Besides, what's wrong with a delicious piece of cake on occasion esp if it's within the context of an overall balanced diet?

    You can have cake and not have it be processed. i think it's about the ingredients. to me processed food contains chemicals (such as preservatives) that does not occur naturally in food. i personally avoid processed food such as margarine and stick with foods if they are boxed and canned that do not have preservatives. Sometimes this is hard such as coconut milk because it contains guar but I still eat it. Just keep in mind avoiding food that never goes bad.

    Explanation of processed food based on Weston A. Price:
    Unfortunately, in modern times, we have substituted local artisanal processing with factory and industrial processing, which actually diminishes the quality of the food, rather than making it more nutritious and digestible. Industrial processing depends upon sugar, white flour, processed and hydrogenated oils, synthetic food additives and vitamins, heat treatment and the extrusion of grains.
    https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/modern-foods/dirty-secrets-of-the-food-processing-industry/

    Can you show me the nearest cake tree? There's nothing about cake that is not processed.

    My friuit cake contains only self ground almonds and raisins which currently I'm eating daily.

    Both of which are processed...

    As is 100% of the food from any grocery store. In my cake there are only two ingredients.

    Have you given up the Mickey D's round eggs and burger patties?

    Why should I? Do you have any science they lower your mitochondria count or their health?

    Not at all. I was just curious. I eat the round eggs on occasion myself.

    The almond/raisin cake was something I hadn't seen you mention before, and it seemed a little different in both prep and carb content, so l wondered whether you'd taken a different dietary direction. It seemed like a logical question to me, in context of the thread.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    happytree923 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    happytree923 wrote: »
    Everyone can provide their own personal stories and preferences as much as they want. It does not change the fact that on average, high fat, salt, and sugar foods are highly rewarding and make you want to eat more of them. This, combined with the convienence of processed/junk/fast/whatever food, makes it easy to overeat. If you are trying to lose weight this is a good thing to be aware of.

    Again, though, the topic here is "processed" food, not "junk food."

    Processed food is VERY varied and need not be the kinds of foods you are describing as high fat, salt, and sugar food (whereas, again, plenty of homecooked foods could be).

    Processed foods include things like an Amy's frozen meal, instant oats with NOTHING but oats added, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, canned tuna, quick cook rice and beans, the kinds of Indian foods pictured above, smoked salmon, kimchi, pickles, boneless skinless chicken breast, pretty low cal chicken sausages, a canned soup (low sodium), and so on.

    That it is preserved (the original reason for it) or intended to make things more convenient does not say anything about the ingredients involved or whether it's high or low cal, nutritious or not, so on.
    Honestly I’m not sure why this is so controversial? What people usually mean when they say ‘processed food’ is junk food and I thought it was pretty commonly known that it’s way easier to gain weight on junk than chicken and broccoli.

    No, I would disagree that what people usually mean by "processed food" is junk food. If someone asks if I eat processed food I think about what I happen to eat and the answer is yes, I do -- I eat tofu, tempeh, soy milk, smoked salmon, peanut powder, occasional protein powder, dried pasta, canned tomatoes, cottage cheese, greek yogurt, coffee and tea, lots of imported cheeses, and sure, occasional dark chocolate and ice cream. I don't consider the latter two more processed or different than the others, even though I wouldn't consider any of the others "junk food." That's my problem with the

    Ok, we disagree on what qualifies as ‘processed food.’ I think you’re being a little pedantic, the term has a colloquial meaning beyond ‘a food that has had heat applied to it before sale’ and I don’t know anyone else who uses the super broad definition you are using.

    Lots of people on MFP do use that super broad definition, and it is technically correct.

    However, no one I know in real life uses it. When they say "processed foods", they mean what the Brazilian government has defined as Ultra Processed Foods: http://189.28.128.100/dab/docs/portaldab/publicacoes/guia_alimentar_populacao_ingles.pdf

    I don't find that how people use the term offline lines up with the Brazilian ultra processed definition (which I don't find especially helpful or easy to understand). People would certainly call foods that have no "additives" like dried pasta or a packaged beans and rice with some spices "processed," would call canned tuna and smoked salmon processed, would call cheese (not just American, which is not favored in my social circles) processed, and would certainly call the other various foods I mentioned -- such as an Amy's frozen meal, Kind bar, canned tomatoes, dark chocolate, protein powder -- processed. There's no other reasonable use of the term.

    Using "processed" as a synonym for "junk food" as that poster indicated he or she was doing is a bizarre and senseless way to use it, especially as the term "junk food" already exists, and how processed vs. homemade something is is a separate issue from how high cal/low nutrient it is.

    The processed = junk food is also not how the Brazilian gov't uses the term.

    I think there are cultural reasons why that approach (focus on whole foods) may work particularly well in Brazil and for the reasons set forth above I think a diet based around whole foods IS often likely to be healthier and cooking yourself can help with calories if you care about them and make an effort, but that doesn't mean "processed foods are bad" as the question was posed.

    I think we mostly agree on these questions except that word usage in your social circles may be different than in mine, I dunno. I think I never really ate a lot of the super ultra processed foods, so when someone talks about processed foods that's not where my mind goes. It goes to the examples of processed foods that I find useful and include in my diet.
  • brassicaceae
    brassicaceae Posts: 7 Member
    Options
    kshama2001 wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    J_Fairfax wrote: »
    Fresher tastes better

    I agree, nothing sadder than stale Oreos....

    I didn't know this was possible. How long does it take for Oreos to get stale?

    (I don't have this problem because Oreos are not something I can moderate, and they haven't been in my house for years.)

    I've got a couple boxes of Girl Scout cookies from a year or two ago. They've probably gone bad by now.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    GaleHawkins wrote: »
    jgnatca wrote: »
    In certain contexts cake is also pudding.

    The almond patty is a calorie bomb whereas the single ingredient tomato slice is very low fat and has more vitamin E. That makes the tomato cake very much gooder.

    Unless the toxic nature of nightshade plants causes overt or subclinical health issues.

    The Solanaceae are a big family, botanically speaking. Humans have been eating many of them (many of the genus Solanum - potatoes, tomatoes, eggplant, etc.) and thriving, for centuries or millennia. I'll cheerfully take my chances.

    Others (Datura, Atropa belladonna a.k.a. Deadly Nightshade, etc.) are deadly to humans even in small amounts.

    It's a matter of which alkaloids they contain. But they're all "natural", and typically minimally (if at all) processed.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 32,085 Member
    Options
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    amusedmonkey wrote: »
    VUA21 wrote: »
    Unless one is actually allergic to a food, no food is "bad". It's about the balance of getting vitamins/nutrients while at a caloric level that fits your goals. If you normally eat nutrient dense/low calorie foods, having junk food isn't bad. Also, there are different levels of processing that goes into food. Milk from the supermarket is processed food, so is bread, and vitamins. "Processed" is just a vague term that has many different meanings and levels that you shouldn't focus on too much.

    I think that's where the communication line tends to turn into some weird game of telephone. When you say "no food is bad" it automatically translates into "eating nothing but junk is as good as eating nutritious foods". Any explanation used after that just evaporates as if it didn't exist.

    I was thinking, how do we improve communication on this particular subject? I still don't have a good answer. Maybe meet in the middle instead: there are bad foods, but that "badness" is not universal and needs context to be determined?

    I like your objective, but don't know how to get there.

    To a black and white thinker - which I fear includes many inclined to become "bad food/good food" advocates - I think badness is just bad. There is no contextualization needed or possible.

    "Is" is a tricky word: Identity/equivalence, class membership, and the possessing of attributes, among others. "That tree is a plant" and "that tree is green" have similar form, very different meanings. Abstractions are equally tricky: Almost the whole point is to leave out some nuance or specificity.

    What does it mean, to whom, to say a food is bad?

    Sadly, I think there's little point in careful language when many parties to a conversation don't consider meaning carefully: "Processed" and "natural" are two witnesses. I'm not sure how to find common ground when abstractions are fuzzily defined yet still demonized.

    I don't actually think the problem is a genuine difficulty with communication, as I've seen it explained as carefully and clearly as possible, and then someone PRETENDING to think the other is saying that eating only donuts is fine or some such. Maybe I'm just less nice or less patient than you and amusedmonkey, but IMO the kind of response amusedmonkey speaks of, given all the clarifications, just HAS to be bad faith, question is why? I think it's that they know they have no response, but get some ego boost from claiming to avoid processed foods or eat clean or what not (they get off on thinking that the rest of us must eat very poorly, since it's unimaginable to them that if you don't say foods are "bad" that you wouldn't then overeat them). Hmm, maybe it's that they secretly think the foods they have identified as good are undesirable and can't imagine anyone eating them willingly, without telling them that eating anything else will make them fat and dead? Don't know. But as I've said before, I'm just at the end of my rope with the fact that facts no longer seem to matter to a huge percentage of people and so I am ready to recognize it's not honest confusion.

    But that disagreement aside, it seems to me that there's no conflict between saying individual foods aren't "bad" but that you shouldn't eat only donuts, since diets can be good or bad. A good diet contains all the nutrients you need and does not contain excess calories or excess other foods that can be problems in excess (sat fat being one such example, others likely depend on the person, some would need to avoid excess sodium, so on). Mostly if a diet has all you need and a diverse set of foods, you don't really have to worry about getting too much (I do think too much added sugar/sweets may be an issue, but in a nutrient-sufficient, calorie-appropriate diet, you aren't eating enough on a daily basis for it to be an issue, so it's adequate to say "eat a good diet").

    And, as you and I agree on, it is my view that we probably don't know all the things that make foods that diets have contained for a long time, and which we now see have positive health correlations, good for us, so this is a reason to generally prefer the whole food to replacing it with just a vitamin (or perhaps protein powder) -- although this does not make vitamins or protein powder bad, just using them as your main source of those things. Thus, in my view a good diet does have a variety of whole foods or things that are made from whole foods (because that they are processed by someone else -- like the salad in a jar I bought from Farm Fresh yesterday (a vending machine) or, say, a wrap from Pret or those soups from Safeway we were discussing recently -- doesn't somehow remove the nutrients. Depending on the item it might, or might not, mean there's more of something you wish to consume in smaller amounts so may mean you need to cut back on that from other sources or not have whatever it is daily.

    I won't speak for amusedmonkey, who seems truly kind. But I think you are actually being nicer than I am: You're giving people more credit than I am for intelligence, reasoning, insight. Some otherwise seemingly intelligent and insightful people do say these things, and probably do have some ego or evangelical ("fix others", controlling) reasons for doing so. Who knows?

    But the whole construction of some of these arguments, and the nature of those same people's counter-arguments, make me believe a significant segment simply don't think very incisively. (My personal and professional life, and conversations on a variety of topics, lead me to this perspective, too. People don't have to agree with me for me to consider them clear-thinking, BTW . . . but careful use of language, and adequate logic, seem like signs of clarity).

    Reluctantly, looking at external behavior, I may be somewhat "patient" sometimes. Absent other problems, simple lack of incisiveness is not a character fault, they deserve to succeed, so trying different ways of communicating seems worthwhile. (I hate it when people are unkind and dismissive here to new people who obviously just don't know key concepts and definitions yet (see "toning" ;) ).) Moreover, misrepresentations should be countered in a way that's persuasive to silent readers, which usually requires a patient and kind tone, whether the writer feels patient or kind or not. I usually don't.

    P.S. To readers: Don't bother telling me the above sounds arrogant. I already know that. ;)

    I was actually thinking something similar and you articulated it very well. There are a lot of posters on here, namely the three directly above me (yourself, amusedmonkey and lemurcat) who take careful consideration that their words convey the true meaning of that they are trying to get across, they really try to engage in thoughtful conversation and understand what others are trying to convey when they post. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen lemur dissect a post that someone else throws out where they seem to imply one thing and a devout belief in that thing, and lemur patiently tries to engage and respectfully question their post to see if it’s just a misunderstanding, often leaving it with a simple “I’d be open to discussing this further” and then never gets an actual response.

    So I don’t know if it’s that some of these people feel challenged when their beliefs are questioned, no matter how respectfully the questions are written, if they are turned off by the thought of engaging in a long and pragmatic discussion with an Internet stranger, or if they just are so grounded in their simplistic rule set and have no intent of ever considering more complex, detailed logic behind WHY they believe the things they believe.

    It’s impressive to me that posters like yourself, amused monkey and lemur do continue to try to bridge that gap of simple misunderstanding, logical reasoning and/or cognitive dissonance to see if a more common semantic ground can be reached. I try as well but usually take a bit more of a provocative approach with a “why are processed foods bad” to see if the person can articulate more of their beliefs, but I rarely get an answer either, so I’m not sure my approach is working!

    This is simplsistic, but I think there's a grain of truth: People who don't see the value in taking time to use words carefully, don't mostly use them competently or successfully . . . just as people who don't see the value in taking the time to use screwdrivers or hammers carefully, don't mostly use them competently or successfully.

    You've seen the "words, words, words" or "TL;DR" responses to thoughtful posts on occasion here. To some people, talking about words, the useage of words, the logical structure of an argument, that sort of thing, is just a major waste of time. Competence in communication - reading or writing - will not ensue.

    Semantics isn't everyone's cup of meat. We all have our differing interests and talents, which lead to differing skills and competencies. S'OK. Gotta be. ;)

Categories