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?
Replies
-
To follow-up rheddmobile's point, I also think dosage is relevant. What I find bizarre is that idea that merely being processed (or ultraprocessed, and again I find the definition of that confusingly broad for the reasons that have been talked about) is the problem.
The issue with the so-called SAD, and perhaps the smaller sub-set of people in France who the study focused on, is not that ultraprocessed foods themselves were the problem, but that they indicated something about overall diet. If you look at the typical foods in this category, a diet made up entirely of convenience foods would be more likely to be nutritionally unbalanced than one based on a more typical French whole foods pattern (which does not exclude plenty of processed ingredients, less nutritious foods, refined carbs). If someone is eating mostly convenience foods and NOT making an effort to be picky with respect to the ones they choose (and if the point is not thinking about it or convenience, as I suspect for the average person in that category it would be), then the likelihood is that the diet will be nutritionally imbalanced -- pretty low on fiber, lower on vegetables and fruits, higher in sodium and lower in potassium and calcium, and -- especially if sweets are part of the mix -- higher in fats (and quite likely the less desirable fats vs. others, and a messed up omega 3 to 6 ratio) and added sugar. Those kinds of things are more about what you are not eating than having ready-made meals for lunch (carefully chosen and with some added veg on the side) daily and occasional fast food or a little ice cream regularly.3 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I'm strictly kosher and ovo-lacto vegetarian. Strictly kosher, besides the better-known aspects (most people are aware of "no pork," for example) also means not consuming insects large enough to be seen with the naked eye. When it comes to fruits and veg that have a lot of bumps and crevices, say broccoli or raspberries, I won't buy them unless they've been kosher-certified—meaning that whether by human eyes or machinery, someone's already pre-checked it. (Usually, that means buying frozen or canned, since unless it's in a vacuum-packed plastic bag—look Ma, more processing!—there's a chance of insect infestation happening between the checking facility and the supermarket.) I know how to check green leafies myself; it's a tedious process, but so far, if I want to go further afield than romaine lettuce, baby spinach, and chopped frozen spinach, that's what I need to do.
It also means buying kosher-certified foods in general, because of the possibility of cross-contamination at point of processing. Just as an example, if I buy frozen peas from a company that also produces a frozen "Pasta bowl with shrimp and peas," I have no way of knowing whether the shrimp was processed with the same equipment as the veg.
3 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
Hmm. There might be if there were something I liked that had an ingredient I questioned, but that really doesn't come up much. Part of this is that I am actually really selective about what I personally consume, but it's more about taste and not wanting to waste calories on something that's not all that tasty than thinking particular types of processing are inherently problematic.
I do avoid transfats (but I don't think they are even in much anymore). I try to limit meats from certain kinds of industrial agriculture, but that's an ethical thing for me and I'm not always 100% careful about it, especially with restaurants (although a lot of restaurants try to be all farm to table). I don't eat much processed meat, but will eat it occasionally (I live near a traditional German grocery that makes great sausages). I tend to avoid foods made with industrial seed oils on average (I don't have a rule of never eating them, but I mostly don't consume packaged foods with them. Reason for that is that I do think omega 3 to 6 ratio is worth considering, and I've found that just eating the way I normally do the ratio is good, and those oils add lots of excess omega 6 to the diet. Also I'm just not drawn to the kinds of packaged stuff that contain them, I typically prefer homemade so consider it a waste of calories. I also don't find that products with HFCS are typically the better versions of whatever the sweet is (and again I'm picky about packaged sweets and mostly just buy my favorite ice creams and this chocolate I like). I'll also typically go for lower sodium in a canned food and avoid any other unnecessary additives (like I've been told some canned tomatoes have added sugar, which strikes me as really weird) since I know I can get the same thing without them. I don't buy salad dressings because homemade is easy and tastes better IMO.
There might be other dyes or additives that I would choose to avoid, but I just don't tend to buy foods that have a lot of ingredients I don't recognize or think there is genuine controversy about (since I don't, I haven't researched whether I think there is an issue or not with them). I get lots of processed stuff (cottage cheese, pasta, yogurt, canned beans, so on, but the "ultraprocessed" is more the kinds of foods discussed above -- maybe a sausage or bacon from a local farm (which doesn't seem ultraprocessed to me) or chocolate or ice cream (but the ingredients again are easily recognizable). Oh, and sometimes whey powder, which I also have no issues with, but tend to go with ones that are largely just whey.
I also will drink (ultraprocessed) diet soda, and see no harm from that.
I'd eat cellulose in bread no problem, except I just don't like those kinds of breads and don't use calories on them (I almost never buy bread, I'll eat it occasionally at a restaurant if it's a good bread, and will sometimes bake it).2 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I'm strictly kosher and ovo-lacto vegetarian. Strictly kosher, besides the better-known aspects (most people are aware of "no pork," for example) also means not consuming insects large enough to be seen with the naked eye. When it comes to fruits and veg that have a lot of bumps and crevices, say broccoli or raspberries, I won't buy them unless they've been kosher-certified—meaning that whether by human eyes or machinery, someone's already pre-checked it. (Usually, that means buying frozen or canned, since unless it's in a vacuum-packed plastic bag—look Ma, more processing!—there's a chance of insect infestation happening between the checking facility and the supermarket.) I know how to check green leafies myself; it's a tedious process, but so far, if I want to go further afield than romaine lettuce, baby spinach, and chopped frozen spinach, that's what I need to do.
It also means buying kosher-certified foods in general, because of the possibility of cross-contamination at point of processing. Just as an example, if I buy frozen peas from a company that also produces a frozen "Pasta bowl with shrimp and peas," I have no way of knowing whether the shrimp was processed with the same equipment as the veg.
Thanks estherdragonbat - that actually sounds rather difficult to maintain. Do you ever get discouraged?
I did laugh at the "Look Ma!"
edited for punctuation0 -
Not really. I've always been kosher (a little less strict for a few years when I was in college) and I went vegetarian about 28 years ago, so it's pretty much routine now. And thankfully, I live in Toronto, a place where most kosher products are easy to come by. I still get envious when I visit my sister in the US; she's in Lakewood NJ and there's even more variety. But by-and-large, it's something I've been doing for all or most of my life, so it's no big deal at this point.4
-
rheddmobile wrote: »I think the main problem with the study, which the authors are aware of, is that eating convenience foods is strongly correlated with a variety of unhealthy behaviors, and other factors which are correlated with poor health, like lower income, lower level of education, and youth. It's impossible to separate out the multiple factors to determine how much effect, if any, the food has.
I can't remember the number off the top of my head, but didn't they say more than half of the average American's diet was made up of ultra-processed foods? That says to me that not only are people with unhealthy habits more likely to eat these foods, it's very likely that many of the people who aren't eating them are what you might call "health nuts" who practice other atypical behaviors. Comparing a college educated, wealthy yoga instructor who only eats artisanal food to a college drop out who works in a factory and microwaves dinner every day, the food is the least of the differences between their health risks.
And that’s the problem with all these studies and the spurious correlations or conclusipns that are drawn from them.
People want a scapegoat, something to demonize. So “ultraprocessed foods” are the current demon here, but as discussed - the issues are less with the processing itself or a particular ingredient (which there will rarely be a single processing technique or ingredient in common in such a broad category of foods) and more about the context and dosage and the general lifestyle habits that can become problematic.
I rely heavily on convenience foods as part of my busy life - many of them are processed or ultraprocessed as per these definitions but I also incorporate a mix of nutrient dense foods and an active lifestyle. So the fact that I use frozen bagged vegetables in a stir fry or breakfast sandwiches or Greek yogurt or frozen ready meals or packaged hummus with snap peas, that occasionally we eat (gasp) hamburger helper but I add spinach and diced zucchini to it - is any of this detrimental to my health or my families? We are all at a healthy weight, now, and all fairly active with good health markers at checkups.
Rather than demonizing certain foods because they fit into a broad and unhelpful label category, wouldn’t we be better off helping people understand that the specific type of food isn’t to blame for their obesity and health issues, but rather the over consumption and perhaps their lifestyle? Both of which are relatively simple to implement positive small changes that can have a lasting effect, without having to say “you can never eat potato chips or Girl Scout cookies for the rest of your life because ultraprocessed”.
I see very few of these sensational clickbait articles that talk about the context and dosage angle - everyone jumps to blaming the food itself.6 -
Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh21 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
Pretty much nope. I'll usually choose a food bar and possible peanut butter/yogurt accompaniment after running based on calories and how I am otherwise doing on meeting my selected protein, fat, fiber grams that day. processing 'level' = pretty much don't care.
I will judge some foods where they cheapened out and used corn syrup (doesn't taste quite as good, and still has the sugar calories - so more likely to be not worth all of those calories...if it doesn't taste quite as good as real sugar - then I would prefer saving the calories and having it artificially sweetened (ie going up a further tier of 'processing')). Lately, if I'm in a rush (or in the mood for more variety) and buying pre-flavored yogurt instead of adding my own splenda-sweetened freezer jam to plain, I usually pay a bit more and get the 'more processed' Dannon flavored light greek yogurts because I don't want to spend the 40-ish calories on the sugar used in their jam portion. In (cheap) frozen fish, there is an ingredient they sometimes add to up the water content - I'll generally avoid that because I don't appreciate their attempt to scam the consumer and because I don't want soggy fish (can be enough water to overflow containers/2 part oven tray) while thawing.1 -
estherdragonbat wrote: »Not really. I've always been kosher (a little less strict for a few years when I was in college) and I went vegetarian about 28 years ago, so it's pretty much routine now. And thankfully, I live in Toronto, a place where most kosher products are easy to come by. I still get envious when I visit my sister in the US; she's in Lakewood NJ and there's even more variety. But by-and-large, it's something I've been doing for all or most of my life, so it's no big deal at this point.
Good to know, thanks for the replies
0 -
Thank you for the detailed answer. that's largely in line with how my wife shops and chooses foods as well and what I'm still learning, even at 59. ThanksJust a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
Pretty much nope. I'll usually choose a food bar and possible peanut butter/yogurt accompaniment after running based on calories and how I am otherwise doing on meeting my selected protein, fat, fiber grams that day. processing 'level' = pretty much don't care.
I will judge some foods where they cheapened out and used corn syrup (doesn't taste quite as good, and still has the sugar calories - so more likely to be not worth all of those calories...if it doesn't taste quite as good as real sugar - then I would prefer saving the calories and having it artificially sweetened (ie going up a further tier of 'processing')). Lately, if I'm in a rush (or in the mood for more variety) and buying pre-flavored yogurt instead of adding my own splenda-sweetened freezer jam to plain, I usually pay a bit more and get the 'more processed' Dannon flavored light greek yogurts because I don't want to spend the 40-ish calories on the sugar used in their jam portion. In (cheap) frozen fish, there is an ingredient they sometimes add to up the water content - I'll generally avoid that because I don't appreciate their attempt to scam the consumer and because I don't want soggy fish (can be enough water to overflow containers/2 part oven tray) while thawing.
1 -
While meat does tend to have a big carbon footprint (more so beef than chicken), to say things have a higher carbon footprint just because they're grown far away isn't necessarily true. There's the consideration that foods grown in a climate that are more productive require less inputs, and combined with efficient commodities freight hauling like railroad and boat, could have a lower footprint than locally grown that had to use higher inputs because of the environment and particularly if transported largely via a vehicle like a pick up truck.French_Peasant wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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.
Understand 100% what you are saying, but to be honest, what % of the ice cream in the US is made as you describe, maybe 2% at best? So for the vast majority, ice cream is ultra-processed and as you say probably not a whole lot of room in a nutrient dense, healthy diet.
Well, there is a wide variety of ice creams available. I pulled out a Talenti in my freezer, and it has: milk, sugar, cream, skim milk, dextrose, vanilla extract, glucose, carob gum, vanilla beans, and lemon zest. Still seems pretty decent to me, as opposed to the fake stuff one gets at McD's or Dairy Queen. But oh no: it's in fancy packaging!! And has, like a couple of additives! Thus it is of the devil!!
If my ice cream, hand-harvested by unicorns and stored in my special overpriced Williams Sonoma container is aceeptable, where exactly does Talenti cross the line and become of the devil? Is it in the fancy packaging? or in the several additives, and if the latter, what is the exact mechanism by which they become satanic? What if I walk down the street to the ice cream shop that makes their own with only the purest ingredients?
Also, I just get sick of the kinds of people that say every spoon of sugar is of the devil (and I can assure you my ice cream has many a spoon of sugar) so I am abusing my children even with unicorn harvested ice cream because sugar = ultra-processed.
It's the whole Manichean dichotomy of good vs. evil that is just very annoying.
The real danger, as we know, is eating too much of any kind of ice cream, to the exclusion of other nutrients and to the detriment of ones weight.
Exactly. My favorite peppermint ice cream has fewer ingredients than the chicken that I made this evening.
Cream, Milk, Cane Sugar, Non Fat Milk Solids, Organic Egg Yolks, Peppermint Candy (Cane Sugar, Organic Peppermint Oil, Lecithin), R.R. Lochhead® Vanilla, Organic Peppermint Oil, Vegetable Color
When I make peppermint ice cream at home i has almost all of those things, save for the non-fat milk solids, lecithin and vegetable color. Meanwhile my chicken had chicken thighs, lemon juice, olive oil, sumac, allspice, cinnamon, cumin, salt, pepper, and red onion.
One could argue that the chicken dish was processed more, or at the very least had the bigger carbon footprint, than any ice cream I make at home. The olive oil alone would take care of the processing bit, and I can't imagine any of the spices were grown in the US, let alone in the NW or in Oregon more specifically. The lemon? Also not local, though probably from California.
And then there's the ever maligned sausage. The bratwurst from a Olympia Provisions (which is local to me):
pork, pork fat, water, dry milk powder, less than 2% of: salt, dried vinegar, cultured dextrose, spices, black pepper, nutmeg, pork casing
I mean ok - what are "spices" and why isn't nutmeg included in that designation, but otherwise that's pretty benign. I looked up the ingredients that are in the Johnsonville precooked bratwurst and they're nearly the same. Compare that to the Tofurky beer brat sausages that sit nearby in the chilled cabinet at the grocery store:
Water, vital wheat gluten, expeller pressed canola oil, organic tofu (water, organic soybeans, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride), onions, soy flour, full sail amber ale (water, malted barley, hops, yeast), contains less than 2% of sea salt, cane sugar, spices, dehydrated onion, granulated garlic, garlic puree, carrageenan, dextrose, konjac, potassium chloride.
Also not awful by any means, but a heck of a lot more processed.
None of these things are the devil incarnate and all of these things can fit into one's calorie allowance.
2 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
Honestly, not really. The only thing I try to avoid is trans fat, which is something luckily I'm seeing less and less on labels. I've heard some stories about the environmental impact of palm oil, so I switched peanut butters to avoid that. As far as ingredients or processing methods or anything like that, that's really it.
I tend to always try to pick amongst "processed" food staples, like frozen dinners or bread or something like that, the ones with more protein or fiber as those tend to fill me up. And I'd bet I end up mitigating some of the ultraprocessed-ness of my diet that way to an extent, as protein and fiber often suffer when a food is highly processed. But I choose my chicken nuggets, Oreos, ice cream, and potato chips by tastiness alone
2 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
No, although:
* I'll admit to using an ingredients list as a rough hint to whether I'll find a prepared or frozen food tasty (lots of ingredients that are not regular food is often a bad sign, IME).
* Part of my way of thinking about what foods are likely to be tasty and reasonably good for me is whether humans in large numbers have been eating them for centuries or millennia, and seemingly thriving. They're evolution tested!
(Lots of things that are "processed" qualify. Can't think of many "ultraprocessed" ones off the top of my head, but there probably are some . . . tofu, maybe?)
* I'm somewhat skeptical about food products that have lots taken out of them, as I generally don't seem to personally find them as tasty or satisfying. For example, I mostly prefer whole grain products over refined. Other people prefer differently, and I don't think of that as inherently "worse".
* I take vitamins or similar supplements if a doctor tells me to, and reading up doesn't present severe downsides. There are even a couple I've taken on my own advice, after reading. Vitamins seen like an extreme example of "ultraprocessed" to me, by common sense definitition.
* I am ovo-lacto veg, but that has zero to do with how processed things are.
* I find quasi-religious zeal about avoiding even minute amounts of commonly-eaten ingredients to be really hard to understand (absent allergy or relevant medical condition). Dosage really matters, IMO. In some cases, I think the stress hormones generated would be worse for a person than the ingredient. (No, I don't freak out if I accidentally eat something with a meat ingredient.)3 -
Thanks for the replies folks - this is good reinforcement as I've been known to get ridiculously picky when shopping, or just going all out, no healthy middle ground.
@AnnPT77 - That video I posted earlier talks exactly about what you stated RE: the quasi-religious zeal and minute amounts - they say basically the same thing, which is refreshing to hear.
I hate to admit that my mind can be one of those that gets hung up on what's not really important....but it do
4 -
Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
5 -
I find the people moralizing food really funny. Disgust is a sensory reaction that evolved to avoid eating the wrong foods - things that are rotten or poisonous. Then as social animals, it seems we tended to evolve moral disgust as a way to prevent socially detrimental behavior like murdering people - there's actually interesting research into this from fMRI's of moral reactions happening in the same area of the brain, to psychology experiments where people report less guilty if they are allowed to clean their hands while relaying something wrong they did.Thanks for the replies folks - this is good reinforcement as I've been known to get ridiculously picky when shopping, or just going all out, no healthy middle ground.
@AnnPT77 - That video I posted earlier talks exactly about what you stated RE: the quasi-religious zeal and minute amounts - they say basically the same thing, which is refreshing to hear.
I hate to admit that my mind can be one of those that gets hung up on what's not really important....but it do
Now people are rehijacking the moral disgust reactions back to food. So they're taking something developed for reacting to food, that grew to handle morals, and taking morals back to reacting to food. There's an emotional eating I definitely thing is unhealthy.6 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
I think the bolded is key! It seems like the word "ultraprocessed" was coined as a way to separate "good" processed food from "bad" processed food, but as it's no more clearly defined than processed or clean, it still comes down to an individual or a research group or a study picking and choosing what foods fall under the umbrella based I suspect on what they want to be true. It's hard NOT to assume they didn't include the foods you listed because they knew it would lead to a conclusion that wasn't dramatic enough.
I guess you could say... If someone ate a diet that was 100% ultraprocessed food with no attention paid to the calories or nutrition in any of this food, they would most likely be eating an unhealthy diet and feel like crap. I'm not sure that statement is really useful though 6 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
I think the bolded is key! It seems like the word "ultraprocessed" was coined as a way to separate "good" processed food from "bad" processed food, but as it's no more clearly defined than processed or clean, it still comes down to an individual or a research group or a study picking and choosing what foods fall under the umbrella based I suspect on what they want to be true. It's hard NOT to assume they didn't include the foods you listed because they knew it would lead to a conclusion that wasn't dramatic enough.
I guess you could say... If someone ate a diet that was 100% ultraprocessed food with no attention paid to the calories or nutrition in any of this food, they would most likely be eating an unhealthy diet and feel like crap. I'm not sure that statement is really useful though
Which sounds an awful lot like the old "You must either be eating all Twinkies or all broccoli" strawman we've burned a thousand times here
8 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
I think the bolded is key! It seems like the word "ultraprocessed" was coined as a way to separate "good" processed food from "bad" processed food, but as it's no more clearly defined than processed or clean, it still comes down to an individual or a research group or a study picking and choosing what foods fall under the umbrella based I suspect on what they want to be true. It's hard NOT to assume they didn't include the foods you listed because they knew it would lead to a conclusion that wasn't dramatic enough.
I guess you could say... If someone ate a diet that was 100% ultraprocessed food with no attention paid to the calories or nutrition in any of this food, they would most likely be eating an unhealthy diet and feel like crap. I'm not sure that statement is really useful though
I had to go back and check the NOVA definition again. There is a lot of room for decent nutrition in this space:
"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."
I am definitely going to show those pictures to my 12 year old daughter, however. She really gravitates towards the nasty beige ultra-processed food group. (And she recently got braces, which is not helpful whatsoever, because it knocked out nuts).
0 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
While meat does tend to have a big carbon footprint (more so beef than chicken), to say things have a higher carbon footprint just because they're grown far away isn't necessarily true. There's the consideration that foods grown in a climate that are more productive require less inputs, and combined with efficient commodities freight hauling like railroad and boat, could have a lower footprint than locally grown that had to use higher inputs because of the environment and particularly if transported largely via a vehicle like a pick up truck.French_Peasant wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »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.
Understand 100% what you are saying, but to be honest, what % of the ice cream in the US is made as you describe, maybe 2% at best? So for the vast majority, ice cream is ultra-processed and as you say probably not a whole lot of room in a nutrient dense, healthy diet.
Well, there is a wide variety of ice creams available. I pulled out a Talenti in my freezer, and it has: milk, sugar, cream, skim milk, dextrose, vanilla extract, glucose, carob gum, vanilla beans, and lemon zest. Still seems pretty decent to me, as opposed to the fake stuff one gets at McD's or Dairy Queen. But oh no: it's in fancy packaging!! And has, like a couple of additives! Thus it is of the devil!!
If my ice cream, hand-harvested by unicorns and stored in my special overpriced Williams Sonoma container is aceeptable, where exactly does Talenti cross the line and become of the devil? Is it in the fancy packaging? or in the several additives, and if the latter, what is the exact mechanism by which they become satanic? What if I walk down the street to the ice cream shop that makes their own with only the purest ingredients?
Also, I just get sick of the kinds of people that say every spoon of sugar is of the devil (and I can assure you my ice cream has many a spoon of sugar) so I am abusing my children even with unicorn harvested ice cream because sugar = ultra-processed.
It's the whole Manichean dichotomy of good vs. evil that is just very annoying.
The real danger, as we know, is eating too much of any kind of ice cream, to the exclusion of other nutrients and to the detriment of ones weight.
Exactly. My favorite peppermint ice cream has fewer ingredients than the chicken that I made this evening.
Cream, Milk, Cane Sugar, Non Fat Milk Solids, Organic Egg Yolks, Peppermint Candy (Cane Sugar, Organic Peppermint Oil, Lecithin), R.R. Lochhead® Vanilla, Organic Peppermint Oil, Vegetable Color
When I make peppermint ice cream at home i has almost all of those things, save for the non-fat milk solids, lecithin and vegetable color. Meanwhile my chicken had chicken thighs, lemon juice, olive oil, sumac, allspice, cinnamon, cumin, salt, pepper, and red onion.
One could argue that the chicken dish was processed more, or at the very least had the bigger carbon footprint, than any ice cream I make at home. The olive oil alone would take care of the processing bit, and I can't imagine any of the spices were grown in the US, let alone in the NW or in Oregon more specifically. The lemon? Also not local, though probably from California.
And then there's the ever maligned sausage. The bratwurst from a Olympia Provisions (which is local to me):
pork, pork fat, water, dry milk powder, less than 2% of: salt, dried vinegar, cultured dextrose, spices, black pepper, nutmeg, pork casing
I mean ok - what are "spices" and why isn't nutmeg included in that designation, but otherwise that's pretty benign. I looked up the ingredients that are in the Johnsonville precooked bratwurst and they're nearly the same. Compare that to the Tofurky beer brat sausages that sit nearby in the chilled cabinet at the grocery store:
Water, vital wheat gluten, expeller pressed canola oil, organic tofu (water, organic soybeans, magnesium chloride, calcium chloride), onions, soy flour, full sail amber ale (water, malted barley, hops, yeast), contains less than 2% of sea salt, cane sugar, spices, dehydrated onion, granulated garlic, garlic puree, carrageenan, dextrose, konjac, potassium chloride.
Also not awful by any means, but a heck of a lot more processed.
None of these things are the devil incarnate and all of these things can fit into one's calorie allowance.
What I was referring to was choosing to use spices and produce that, necessarily, had to be grown outside of my region vs ones that didn't have to. That's different than choosing to buy non-existent locally grown cinnamon that would have taken quite a lot of resources to produce.
So say, choosing to make the dish I did vs making a chicken dish with rosemary, garlic, and sage, All of the produce in the second option grow very locally to me (I'm pretty sure the only one I'd have to buy is garlic, and that grows well here), but it would be a totally different dish.0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
I agree with all this, but the point about tipping the balance by the ultraprocessed foods chosen is interesting. It seems like many of these studies are less about "processing" and more about "if you ignore nutritional considerations and satiety, will you eat more poorly for health and weight. It seems obvious that's true, but that doesn't at all say anything about eating a diet made up of a variety of mixed and whole foods and some ultraprocessed that takes satiety and nutrition into consideration.
(Oh, I see kimny made the point already too -- I agree with her post also!)7 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
If the argument is that being "ultraprocessed" (i.e., containing supposedly non-natural ingredients, being farther removed from the whole state) is the problem, which is kind of how a lot of people -- especially those prone to moralizing about it or thinking it should be all or nothing, better to avoid added sugar even if they barely eat veg than to eat a diet rich in nutrients with some added sugar -- think of it, then the test should be similar foods and nutrients differing only in processing. (Personally I still think that might merely measure convenience, however. It's easier to overeat when you don't have to prepare all the things you eat.)
If the argument is -- as I think it's supposed to be, but it's not being portrayed this way by all -- that eating a diet made up of the foods in question tends to cause overeating (which I think we already know from, well, America), then sure, but the issue then isn't necessarily "ultraprocessed" vs. not.
People love, love, love the Brazilian approach with the focus on processing, but I kind of think it's incoherent and prefer the US one focusing on nutrients. I'd say, of course, that on average it's easier to get in adequate nutrients without counting by thinking about the make up of the plate, half veg, etc., and not track them, but saying that unprocessed is better (whatever it is) and processed = bad is confusing. Sometimes the best option might be a ready made meal that happens to include good nutrients and thinking "oh, but ultraprocessed food is inherently bad" would not be helpful.
I know we agree on this, and my beef is more with how these studies get explained, but I don't think what's being studied here is the effect of processing in and of itself, as some purists would have it.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I find the people moralizing food really funny. Disgust is a sensory reaction that evolved to avoid eating the wrong foods - things that are rotten or poisonous. Then as social animals, it seems we tended to evolve moral disgust as a way to prevent socially detrimental behavior like murdering people - there's actually interesting research into this from fMRI's of moral reactions happening in the same area of the brain, to psychology experiments where people report less guilty if they are allowed to clean their hands while relaying something wrong they did.Thanks for the replies folks - this is good reinforcement as I've been known to get ridiculously picky when shopping, or just going all out, no healthy middle ground.
@AnnPT77 - That video I posted earlier talks exactly about what you stated RE: the quasi-religious zeal and minute amounts - they say basically the same thing, which is refreshing to hear.
I hate to admit that my mind can be one of those that gets hung up on what's not really important....but it do
Now people are rehijacking the moral disgust reactions back to food. So they're taking something developed for reacting to food, that grew to handle morals, and taking morals back to reacting to food. There's an emotional eating I definitely thing is unhealthy.
And guys (and gals) like me are the primary target I would guess. For a time there I was one of the "You must either be eating all Twinkies or all broccoli" people that pinuplove mentioned.
These days I eat much more of a little bit of everything, but that's after a lot of reading here and trying it for my self.
That's really a disgusting strategy by the way. I used to not even be able to go shopping without arguing with myself over everything that went into the cart.3 -
magnusthenerd wrote: »
I find the people moralizing food really funny. Disgust is a sensory reaction that evolved to avoid eating the wrong foods - things that are rotten or poisonous. Then as social animals, it seems we tended to evolve moral disgust as a way to prevent socially detrimental behavior like murdering people - there's actually interesting research into this from fMRI's of moral reactions happening in the same area of the brain, to psychology experiments where people report less guilty if they are allowed to clean their hands while relaying something wrong they did.Thanks for the replies folks - this is good reinforcement as I've been known to get ridiculously picky when shopping, or just going all out, no healthy middle ground.
@AnnPT77 - That video I posted earlier talks exactly about what you stated RE: the quasi-religious zeal and minute amounts - they say basically the same thing, which is refreshing to hear.
I hate to admit that my mind can be one of those that gets hung up on what's not really important....but it do
Now people are rehijacking the moral disgust reactions back to food. So they're taking something developed for reacting to food, that grew to handle morals, and taking morals back to reacting to food. There's an emotional eating I definitely thing is unhealthy.
And guys (and gals) like me are the primary target I would guess. For a time there I was one of the "You must either be eating all Twinkies or all broccoli" people that pinuplove mentioned.
These days I eat much more of a little bit of everything, but that's after a lot of reading here and trying it for my self.
That's really a disgusting strategy by the way. I used to not even be able to go shopping without arguing with myself over everything that went into the cart.
Back in the day I did an experiment with primal/paleo eating and got really involved in the 'lifestyle' (began hanging out on a couple of forums/spent a lot of time reading/listening through the (cult) leaders materials etc). It was the only time I ever found myself in a situation where I started placing value on foods and started down the rabbit hole of 'good' food and 'bad' food. It led me to a really bad place with my mental health. I became obsessive about food, began believing that certain foods were poisoning me, began spending money I didn't have to buy the 'good' food etc etc. Thankfully I was able to get out of it after a few months, but it was a pretty scary experience!
5 -
Oh jeez bringing back memories lol. And my poor wife dealing with my obsessions over foodmagnusthenerd wrote: »
I find the people moralizing food really funny. Disgust is a sensory reaction that evolved to avoid eating the wrong foods - things that are rotten or poisonous. Then as social animals, it seems we tended to evolve moral disgust as a way to prevent socially detrimental behavior like murdering people - there's actually interesting research into this from fMRI's of moral reactions happening in the same area of the brain, to psychology experiments where people report less guilty if they are allowed to clean their hands while relaying something wrong they did.Thanks for the replies folks - this is good reinforcement as I've been known to get ridiculously picky when shopping, or just going all out, no healthy middle ground.
@AnnPT77 - That video I posted earlier talks exactly about what you stated RE: the quasi-religious zeal and minute amounts - they say basically the same thing, which is refreshing to hear.
I hate to admit that my mind can be one of those that gets hung up on what's not really important....but it do
Now people are rehijacking the moral disgust reactions back to food. So they're taking something developed for reacting to food, that grew to handle morals, and taking morals back to reacting to food. There's an emotional eating I definitely thing is unhealthy.
And guys (and gals) like me are the primary target I would guess. For a time there I was one of the "You must either be eating all Twinkies or all broccoli" people that pinuplove mentioned.
These days I eat much more of a little bit of everything, but that's after a lot of reading here and trying it for my self.
That's really a disgusting strategy by the way. I used to not even be able to go shopping without arguing with myself over everything that went into the cart.
Back in the day I did an experiment with primal/paleo eating and got really involved in the 'lifestyle' (began hanging out on a couple of forums/spent a lot of time reading/listening through the (cult) leaders materials etc). It was the only time I ever found myself in a situation where I started placing value on foods and started down the rabbit hole of 'good' food and 'bad' food. It led me to a really bad place with my mental health. I became obsessive about food, began believing that certain foods were poisoning me, began spending money I didn't have to buy the 'good' food etc etc. Thankfully I was able to get out of it after a few months, but it was a pretty scary experience!
That runs deep too. I weighed in 2lbs heavy this morning and the very first lousy thought was "what did I eat that was bad for me?" What the heck, ya know?
What's really telling, for me anyway, is that after some time eating a bit of whatever floats my boat, I actually feel stronger, higher sense of well being than when I was stuck in that trap.
2 -
French_Peasant wrote: »Here's Kevin Halls new study with ultra-processed foods, I don't think this has been linked yet?
https://osf.io/preprints/nutrixiv/w3zh2
WOW that study is insane! I would honestly stab myself after a single day on the ultra processed diet--just scrolling through the pictures makes me feel like heaving. (I would be down with the PB&J and the Egg McMuffin type thing, however, and I have the liquid scrambled eggs every morning from our cafeteria at work but they seem fine to me). That diet is nasty!
However, I have to note, they really tipped the scales toward one particular subset of ultra-processed food. They did not include vegetarian or protein-heavy, organic frozen dinners full of veggies, 100% whole grain bread, pizza loaded down with veggies, fruits at every meal canned in LIGHT syrup, frozen veggie burgers on whole grain buns, pasta with sauce very heavy on an assortment of veg, etc. all of which fall under the ultra processed rubric because they have additives to extend shelf life and come in fancy packaging that give the appearance of healthfulness. Also, what was the canned corn doing in there? That's not ultra-processed.
Still, I can believe that the less-processed diet would handily beat out the ultraprocessed diet on weight management.
This did catch my attention from the fasted blood testing:
"Interestingly, the appetite-suppressing hormone PYY increased during the unprocessed diet as compared with both the ultra-processed diet and baseline. In contrast, the hunger hormone ghrelin was decreased during the unprocessed diet compared to baseline."
Guilty admission: I haven't read the study yet, but plan to.
It seems like they'd want to test a relatively extremely "ultraprocessed" diet that's fairly typical of things commonly eaten. The things you list as being included seem to fit that.
I don't understand why they'd test with the closest-to-real-food alternatives that just barely meet the "ultraprocessed" definition - your "tipped scales" list. Around here, there may be people who eat that way, but it's not the standard "ultraprocessed" way of eating in the wild, statistically speaking.
It seems liked you'd want to test the common case, not the "just barely qualifies" uncommon case.
If I've misread this, one I've checked out the study, I'll come back and admit it.
Yes, I am sure they did it in order to be as dramatic as possible. But science is not about drama; it's about a dispassionate look at the facts based on the categories that have been created. Their specific choices should have been analyzed and discussed in the limitations. (and I just skimmed it, so maybe I missed the discussion). They are citing the NOVA parameters but not disclosing that there is a huge chunk of category 4. They are creating an "All Twinkies" straw man.
I would have actually liked to see that subset tested separately under the same conditions.
Do you guys really think the meals presented in the ultra-processed diet are the common case, where people are eating 100% ultra-processed? Not even any fresh pico or guac for their tortilla chips?1 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I won't eat pink slime - beef trimmings, taken from the more likely to be contaminated part of the meat, then sterilized using ammonia, ground into an unrecognizable paste, and mixed with regular beef so the consumer can't tell - because the whole idea is disgusting, and to me, it does still faintly smell of ammonia when cooking. I remember when Wendy's swapped to it and I didn't know, I just knew I really used to enjoy burgers and then suddenly it was like they had no flavor. Looked it up trying to figure out what changed and there it was. I think most places have stopped using it now (I remember reading all but one pink slime factory went out of business) but there was a period when it was nearly impossible to avoid because the lobbyists had gotten it so that it wasn't required to label it in any way differently from normal ground beef. So you can adulterate my food with ammonia, but it doesn't have to go on the ingredients list, because it's not an "ingredient," it's something used in processing?
Anyway since I almost never eat burgers anymore unless it's a special occasion it's become a moot point.3 -
I'll also link an interesting post from @Aaron_K123
https://community.myfitnesspal.com/en/discussion/10652594/the-issue-with-processed-foods-opinion/p1
Question: what's the difference between processed and ultraprocessed?
It's a little like the difference between blue and violet, ask two people and you'll get two different answers.
As a general rule, industrial mass processing of food isn't done to make it healthier. The main reasons for processing are cost control, and to make food more palatable. It's good that our food isn't cripplingly expensive, there are deadly riots over the cost of rice in parts of the world. It's also good that our food is yummy. But there's probably a line. And everybody gets to decide where it's drawn. It's ok if some people think a tomato from the garden is healthier than a can of tomato sauce with lots of added sugar and sodium.3 -
Just a question - with the obvious exception of caloric intake, are there any other lines you folks draw, based on how a food is processed?
I have a few preferences, which I will admit are kind of arbitrary and probably make zero difference, but here they are:- Kosher hot dogs
- Olive oil bottled (and preferably sourced) in the US
- Fish sourced and packaged in the US or Canada
- No chicken 'patties' or 'nuggets' where the meat is processed and then formed back into a shape
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions