Interesting article about processed food and social status /poverty

comptonelizabeth

http://angry-chef.com/blog/rise-of-the-ultra-foods-part-2

L1zardQueen

Thank you for sharing.

Packerjohn

Random blogger with no scientific backgournd calls out the WHO. IMO, waste of server resources.

JeromeBarry1

I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

L1zardQueen

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

Yes. It was narrow minded.

TonyB0588

The article is very long and I'll have to come back to it later, but I've made statements like this one myself about modern food - "bearing little resemblance to the fruit, vegetables, meat or fish used to cook a fresh meal at home".

Packerjohn

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

Packerjohn did read the whole article. I prefer to get my nutrition information from people actually trained and practicing science as opposed to a glorified fry cook.

Dude is just a Gary Taubes for the other side, randomly picks and chooses what he personally likes or doesn't like.

nvmomketo

Oh goody. Hall is doing research on ultra processed foods. IMO, he regularly misses the forest for the trees. He hyper focuses on one point and declares a sweeping result.

My guess is his results will be something along the lines of: when two groups are fed exactly the same calories and macros, and kept to the same activity level, for one month, their weight and health remained exactly the same. Therefore we can conclude that ultraprocessed foods have no effect on health and weight loss.... Because all people eat precise amounts of processed foods and its hyperpalatability has no effect on changes to health and weight, right? That correlation between poor health and ultraprocessed foods must be a coincidence? I wonder how he'll explain that away?

I hope he proves me wrong.

cmriverside

I like fried bologna and grilled cheese. Preferably white bread.

I'm not in poverty. ::shrug::

comptonelizabeth

Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

concordancia

comptonelizabeth wrote: »

Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

Sociology involves very scientific research methods, this sounds more like a personal opinion article.

comptonelizabeth

concordancia wrote: »

comptonelizabeth wrote: »

Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

Sociology involves very scientific research methods, this sounds more like a personal opinion article.

True re sociology (it's what I trained in) but research always starts with a hypothesis - it's rarely completely devoid of opinion.
Anyway I just found it to be an interesting slant on the subject

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

comptonelizabeth

sarahbums wrote: »

"In using the NOVA classification to shame people, we ignore the real problems of our broken and unfair society.

If you want to take away the foods that people currently eat, or tax them until they are out of reach, perhaps it would make sense to give them a better life first. To hand them the time, money and resources to improve their existence. To pay them a wage that would allow them to buy a table for their family to eat around, and afford to have the occasional culinary experiment fail. To provide enough financial security so they that can leave the oven on for a couple of hours if they want to slow cook a cheap cut of meat. And most of all, to let them be free from the constant, grinding stress of not having enough money to keep their children from hunger.

If not, your shame and vitriol over their food choices is just that. You are adding to the stress of already difficult lives. It may feel as if you are helping, but in reality you are making things far worse. "

i've only skimmed it so far, but this last paragraph seems very well said imo. I earned my Bachelor's degree in sociology with a concentration on the sociology of health and illness so this has always been an interesting topic for me.

I definitely think the link between poverty and obesity is much, much more complicated than many people realize, and we shouldn't waste time shaming those in poverty for choosing cheap, convenient (and yes, highly processed) foods when that's really all that's readily available to them. Instead of blaming each individual for their circumstances, we need to focus on broader societal changes- like improving health education/access, raising the minimum wage, and addressing issues like food deserts in rural/low income areas.

Yes, very much this! I read it as almost a political statement and a recognition that there are many, many factors involved in health.

Hamsibian

sarahbums wrote: »

"In using the NOVA classification to shame people, we ignore the real problems of our broken and unfair society.

If you want to take away the foods that people currently eat, or tax them until they are out of reach, perhaps it would make sense to give them a better life first. To hand them the time, money and resources to improve their existence. To pay them a wage that would allow them to buy a table for their family to eat around, and afford to have the occasional culinary experiment fail. To provide enough financial security so they that can leave the oven on for a couple of hours if they want to slow cook a cheap cut of meat. And most of all, to let them be free from the constant, grinding stress of not having enough money to keep their children from hunger.

If not, your shame and vitriol over their food choices is just that. You are adding to the stress of already difficult lives. It may feel as if you are helping, but in reality you are making things far worse. "

i've only skimmed it so far, but this last paragraph seems very well said imo. I earned my Bachelor's degree in sociology with a concentration on the sociology of health and illness so this has always been an interesting topic for me.

I definitely think the link between poverty and obesity is much, much more complicated than many people realize, and we shouldn't waste time shaming those in poverty for choosing cheap, convenient (and yes, highly processed) foods when that's really all that's readily available to them. Instead of blaming each individual for their circumstances, we need to focus on broader societal changes- like improving health education/access, raising the minimum wage, and addressing issues like food deserts in rural/low income areas.

Yes! With most of my old clients (case worker and youth counselor), the struggle to maintain a healthy lifestyle was real. Disabled, Working at least 2 jobs, raising young kids, living in unsafe neighborhoods, living paycheck to paycheck, food deserts are common obstacles. It seemed impossible to eat on a regular basis let alone have healthy options.

Don't get me started on food shelves.

Packerjohn

comptonelizabeth wrote: »

Ok, the way I interpreted this blog was not as a scholarly, evidence based article and I don't think it pretends to be one. What I found interesting was the take on 'processed food' and the extent to which it does or doesn't impact on our health. It's more of a sociological paper rather than a piece of research.
Surely people other than those with a scientific background can have opinions and share them?

Of course they can. It's also said opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one. Personally prefer to read information regarding nutrition authored by someone with some training in the science. Others are obviously free to do what they want.

JeromeBarry1

Packerjohn wrote: »

JeromeBarry1 wrote: »

I read the whole thing. Packerjohn doesn't seem to have done so.

Packerjohn did read the whole article. I prefer to get my nutrition information from people actually trained and practicing science as opposed to a glorified fry cook.

Dude is just a Gary Taubes for the other side, randomly picks and chooses what he personally likes or doesn't like.

The very last point he made, about babies needing to eat food whether it was moms or formula, was very valid. That does not strike me as in the same league as advocating for bad sciencey sounding stuff as Mr. Taubes.
The point he made about a randomized controlled good science study to determine any evidence to be found about highly processed foods was also a very valid point. He advocates that we demand good science and wait for real results. That's a commendable standard.