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.
Ultraprocessed food and increased mortality risk?
Options
Replies
-
I think in general, if you are eating a diet high in ultraprocessed food, you are probably eating a diet high in sodium, sugar, trans fat, and sat fat, and low in protein, fiber, and unsat fat. Also probably calorie dense and nutrient poor. So that would again probably lead to obesity, along with other lifestyle diseases. And there is probably a correlation between people who eat lots of "snacky" convenience foods and not being active.
Note all the probably's
So I think the correlation makes sense.
Having said that, I think it's certainly possible to fit some ultraprocessed foods into a healthy diet, and I think if someone were hyper-aware they could find some ultraprocessed foods that have reasonable macro and micro profiles.
I have a hard time thinking of most protein powder as anything other than "ultraprocessed", by any sensible definition of the term.
That doesn't mean I think people shouldn't consume it: It seems to help lots of people reach their protein goals.
It does amuse the *baby feline* out of me when people in some posts demonize "processed foods" in favor of "whole foods", but think protein powder is Just Swell.11 -
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
The problem is that when many people read this kind of stuff, they aren't thinking in terms of correlation only. So many other factors were left out...were they overweight/obese? That would increase mortality risk. Do the subjects exercise regularly? Lack of regular exercise also correlates with increased mortality risk. What was the subjects' diet like beyond the ultra-processed foods? Were they eating the recommended servings of veg and fruit? Etc, etc, etc.
Something like this could lead to many people thinking the Kraft dinner they were going to have because they were short on time and needed something quick is going to kill them because "ultra-processed."
I would wager that most people who have a diet that is substantially ultra-processed are probably not doing much in the way of protecting their health in general...I would wager that most would be overweight, lacking proper nutrition, probably don't exercise, and perhaps drink a lot and smoke. So would it be the ultra-processed food that is the issue or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle overall?
Abstract says:Ultraprocessed foods consumption was associated with younger age (45-64 years, mean [SE] proportion of food in weight, 14.50% [0.04%]; P < .001), lower income (<€1200/mo, 15.58% [0.11%]; P < .001), lower educational level (no diploma or primary school, 15.50% [0.16%]; P < .001), living alone (15.02% [0.07%]; P < .001), higher body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; ≥30, 15.98% [0.11%]; P < .001), and lower physical activity level (15.56% [0.08%]; P < .001).
I also wonder what some of the raw numbers look like. The abstract cites 44551 subjects and 602 deaths, which I'm assuming is the deaths within the whole group. 10% more mortality in a subgroup may still be a very small increase in actual mortality rate (dead people per thousand subjects, say).
And they seemed to have reached their conclusion (14% more ultraprocessed foods means 10% greater mortality) after what they describe as "after adjustment for a range of confounding factors" . . . confounding factors not specfied in the abstract.
Self-reported data, too. ("Participants were selected if they completed at least 1 set of 3 web-based 24-hour dietary records during their first 2 years of follow-up. Self-reported data were collected at baseline, including sociodemographic, lifestyle, physical activity, weight and height, and anthropometrics.")2 -
I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
Precisely my point. A purposeful omission? The design of experience disregards the elements leading to mortality. The establishment of the control group is also remarkably vague and disregards logistics - available vs. non-available food.
Reminiscent of the "links" between high voltage towers and various health issues that pop up from time to time.
Ah ok, understood. Thanks for taking the time to explain 1 -
I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
I think that's the point though. Unless you are looking at young adults (and probably even for them), most folks eating a diet high in ultraprocessed food will be eating too many cals for their activity level and will be, if not obese, then overweight. Which immediately increases their mortality risk. So people will read the study overview and say "Aha! Processed food will kill you!" rather than "Aha! Eating mostly processed foods means you have to eat too many calories to feel satisfied which makes you obese! I should make sure I moderate those foods with more nutrient dense whole foods so I can maintain a healthy weight and reduce my mortality risk!"
cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
The problem is that when many people read this kind of stuff, they aren't thinking in terms of correlation only. So many other factors were left out...were they overweight/obese? That would increase mortality risk. Do the subjects exercise regularly? Lack of regular exercise also correlates with increased mortality risk. What was the subjects' diet like beyond the ultra-processed foods? Were they eating the recommended servings of veg and fruit? Etc, etc, etc.
Something like this could lead to many people thinking the Kraft dinner they were going to have because they were short on time and needed something quick is going to kill them because "ultra-processed."
I would wager that most people who have a diet that is substantially ultra-processed are probably not doing much in the way of protecting their health in general...I would wager that most would be overweight, lacking proper nutrition, probably don't exercise, and perhaps drink a lot and smoke. So would it be the ultra-processed food that is the issue or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle overall?
Thank you folks - this is where my obvious lack of knowledge makes itself apparent. I do appreciate the explainations though, thanks.1 -
I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
I think that's the point though. Unless you are looking at young adults (and probably even for them), most folks eating a diet high in ultraprocessed food will be eating too many cals for their activity level and will be, if not obese, then overweight. Which immediately increases their mortality risk. So people will read the study overview and say "Aha! Processed food will kill you!" rather than "Aha! Eating mostly processed foods means you have to eat too many calories to feel satisfied which makes you obese! I should make sure I moderate those foods with more nutrient dense whole foods so I can maintain a healthy weight and reduce my mortality risk!"cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
The problem is that when many people read this kind of stuff, they aren't thinking in terms of correlation only. So many other factors were left out...were they overweight/obese? That would increase mortality risk. Do the subjects exercise regularly? Lack of regular exercise also correlates with increased mortality risk. What was the subjects' diet like beyond the ultra-processed foods? Were they eating the recommended servings of veg and fruit? Etc, etc, etc.
Something like this could lead to many people thinking the Kraft dinner they were going to have because they were short on time and needed something quick is going to kill them because "ultra-processed."
I would wager that most people who have a diet that is substantially ultra-processed are probably not doing much in the way of protecting their health in general...I would wager that most would be overweight, lacking proper nutrition, probably don't exercise, and perhaps drink a lot and smoke. So would it be the ultra-processed food that is the issue or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle overall?
Thank you folks - this is where my obvious lack of knowledge makes itself apparent. I do appreciate the explainations though, thanks.
I started the thread in the first place in the hopes of comments/discussion that would broaden my knowledge, so your contributions help 3 -
I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
I think that's the point though. Unless you are looking at young adults (and probably even for them), most folks eating a diet high in ultraprocessed food will be eating too many cals for their activity level and will be, if not obese, then overweight. Which immediately increases their mortality risk. So people will read the study overview and say "Aha! Processed food will kill you!" rather than "Aha! Eating mostly processed foods means you have to eat too many calories to feel satisfied which makes you obese! I should make sure I moderate those foods with more nutrient dense whole foods so I can maintain a healthy weight and reduce my mortality risk!"cwolfman13 wrote: »I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
The study doesn't seem to be focusing on obesity though. I'm sure it's a factor (mortality rates) but not the sole focus unless I misunderstood it?
The problem is that when many people read this kind of stuff, they aren't thinking in terms of correlation only. So many other factors were left out...were they overweight/obese? That would increase mortality risk. Do the subjects exercise regularly? Lack of regular exercise also correlates with increased mortality risk. What was the subjects' diet like beyond the ultra-processed foods? Were they eating the recommended servings of veg and fruit? Etc, etc, etc.
Something like this could lead to many people thinking the Kraft dinner they were going to have because they were short on time and needed something quick is going to kill them because "ultra-processed."
I would wager that most people who have a diet that is substantially ultra-processed are probably not doing much in the way of protecting their health in general...I would wager that most would be overweight, lacking proper nutrition, probably don't exercise, and perhaps drink a lot and smoke. So would it be the ultra-processed food that is the issue or an otherwise unhealthy lifestyle overall?
Thank you folks - this is where my obvious lack of knowledge makes itself apparent. I do appreciate the explainations though, thanks.
I started the thread in the first place in the hopes of comments/discussion that would broaden my knowledge, so your contributions help
Thanks
My critical thinking skills could use a bit of sharpening anyway lol.0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »While I agree that there is not a terribly large amount of room for ultra-processed foods in a nutrient-dense, healthy diet, my hackles just rise when I see things like "ice cream" and "burgers" wrapped in there. When I make ice cream, it is cream, milk, sugar, salt and egg yolks, plus whatever fruit is growing in my yard--strawberries, blackberries, peaches, rhubarb. Burgers are just ground beef, eggs, maybe some breadcrumbs, and spices.
One of the problems is the 'ultra-processing" of the research into the media that is actually consumed by most Americans. This pablum is as bad for your mind as blocks of Velveeta are for your body.* So you get people saying that ALL pizza, ice cream, burgers, fries, cookies, etc. are OF THE DEVIL!!!**, when the researchers are just pointing out the hyperpalatable goods that have been pumped full of additives and stripped of many nutrients and fiber, not the fries etc. that you make at home just by, you know, slicing potatoes and crisping them in some olive oil.
Couldn't agree more.
And I really think a big part of the issue of ultraprocessed foods is that when you have to, say, make french fries or ice cream or pie at home, it's more time consuming, limited usually to a particular meal or event, something that is likely to be more appreciated and less likely to be eaten mindlessly without satisfaction. And for many or most people having to cook those kinds of foods would make them more conscious of how much they are eating and they would do it less often.
If you can go to the store and buy (or call and order) food every day, any time of day, it's likely to be overeaten more, or -- for some people -- eaten to the exclusion of the huge variety of other foods that one ought to be eating as part of their diet.2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »
*Pasturized Process Cheese Products DO have their uses, however, including gettin' in my belly on a legit Philly Cheesesteak: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/what-is-processed-cheese
Old Philly native here. Cheeze Whiz on cheesesteaks is a relatively recent "thing" and even though I don't even eat them any more, it can get off my lawn. Legit cheesesteaks should have provolone cheese on them.
4 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
*Pasturized Process Cheese Products DO have their uses, however, including gettin' in my belly on a legit Philly Cheesesteak: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/what-is-processed-cheese
Old Philly native here. Cheeze Whiz on cheesesteaks is a relatively recent "thing" and even though I don't even eat them any more, it can get off my lawn. Legit cheesesteaks should have provolone cheese on them.
Provolone, interesting. Note to self: must try 2 -
The term ultraprocessed always sounds funny, though I don't know that I could come up with better.
8 -
GottaBurnEmAll wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »
*Pasturized Process Cheese Products DO have their uses, however, including gettin' in my belly on a legit Philly Cheesesteak: https://www.bonappetit.com/story/what-is-processed-cheese
Old Philly native here. Cheeze Whiz on cheesesteaks is a relatively recent "thing" and even though I don't even eat them any more, it can get off my lawn. Legit cheesesteaks should have provolone cheese on them.
Cheese steak with provolone can get in my belly too!3 -
Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.3 -
I'm very suspect of such studies utilizing popular nebulous terms.
I'm sure there are multiple correlative factors, but no meaningful causative factor.
Terribly unhelpful as this furthers the body of misinformation distracting the public to the fact that weight gain is solely due to caloric surplus.
I originally found the study mentioned here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/11/health/ultraprocessed-foods-early-death-study/index.html
and this came to mind:
That comic said what I wanted to say, but in a much more amusing way. Now I have another website make my way through.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
Looking through that list, half of it was in my cart yesterday and we're upper-middle class. I have no problem with things like cake mixes, cereal, chicken nuggets etc. eaten in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. My kids had boxed Kraft Mac and Cheese yesterday for lunch, paired with fresh blueberries and carrot sticks. They're still alive to tell the tale
And it seems like they're lumping stuff together. Do they not realize all burgers are not produced the same way? We get all our beef from a local farmer. Our ground beef/patties come from one (grass fed/pastured) cow. Are they considering that the same as a burger patty that came from a feedlot, from several cows?4 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
Looking through that list, half of it was in my cart yesterday and we're upper-middle class. I have no problem with things like cake mixes, cereal, chicken nuggets etc. eaten in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. My kids had boxed Kraft Mac and Cheese yesterday for lunch, paired with fresh blueberries and carrot sticks. They're still alive to tell the tale
And it seems like they're lumping stuff together. Do they not realize all burgers are not produced the same way? We get all our beef from a local farmer. Our ground beef/patties come from one (grass fed/pastured) cow. Are they considering that the same as a burger patty that came from a feedlot, from several cows?
Oh we do it too! LOL, I love mac n cheese and fish sticks
I honestly have little to no education regarding how foods are processed, but I'm still (a little) of the mindset of "What's NOT processed these days?" So given that question, to me it would be a question of what's in the food that's harmful, and does the average consumer make an effort to determine what's acceptable (moving goalposts?) or not.
I do know that folks who use the assistance programs are heavily targeted as my brother manages one of the same chain of markets, different store though, and their thought is sell more of whatever the highest profit margin foods are to people who aren't counting dollars and pennies, but rather just having a card stamped. There's a disconnect in that people who don't handle the cash they earn themselves just aren't as concerned about what they buy with a card filled with money from other's taxes.
Does that make any sense at all?
It's kind of a free for all mindset, the way he explains it. And that extends to quality as well as quantity.
I'm not great at getting my thoughts out sometimes..lol2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.5 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
Looking through that list, half of it was in my cart yesterday and we're upper-middle class. I have no problem with things like cake mixes, cereal, chicken nuggets etc. eaten in moderation and as part of a balanced diet. My kids had boxed Kraft Mac and Cheese yesterday for lunch, paired with fresh blueberries and carrot sticks. They're still alive to tell the tale
And it seems like they're lumping stuff together. Do they not realize all burgers are not produced the same way? We get all our beef from a local farmer. Our ground beef/patties come from one (grass fed/pastured) cow. Are they considering that the same as a burger patty that came from a feedlot, from several cows?
This is similar to what we do... we might have a processed entree, but then make sure to surround it with fresh fruit & veggies.
I was a little perplexed by the definitions as well. Here's a line from the NOVA description I posted earlier:
"The new classification, detailed in a later paper (2), included one group made up of
snacks, drinks, ready meals and many other products created mostly or entirely from
substances extracted from foods or derived from food constituents with little if any
intact food..."
Can it really be said all ready-to-eat meals lack intact food? (or am I misunderstanding this statement?)1 -
And it seems like they're lumping stuff together. Do they not realize all burgers are not produced the same way? We get all our beef from a local farmer. Our ground beef/patties come from one (grass fed/pastured) cow. Are they considering that the same as a burger patty that came from a feedlot, from several cows?
Yeah, this was French Peasant's point, and I find it odd too.
I make pizza at home about once a month, I also get meat from a local farm, but even if you get ground beef at a super market as most do that shouldn't make it "ultraprocessed."
I think part of this is overall percentage of the diet, are you not eating the other foods that should be included and so unbalanced (Aaron's excellent point that was linked upthread). I think it's absurd to say pasta = ultraprocessed and must be unhealthy when my pasta dishes tend to include white beans (or shrimp) and lots and lots of vegetables, some olive oil, maybe some pine nuts. Logging at Cron, they score quite well.
I don't think this study suggests that that's a bad food to consume, as part of one's overall diet, but I think some people take it as "any ultraprocessed food" (or even "processed" food, usually a term used incorrectly) = bad for you.3
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions