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?

1235

Replies

  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,966 Member
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    zeejane03 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. ;)
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    zeejane03 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.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    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 :o
    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.
    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.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    zeejane03 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    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 :o
    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.
    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!
    Oh jeez bringing back memories lol. And my poor wife dealing with my obsessions over food :(

    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.
  • French_Peasant
    French_Peasant Posts: 1,639 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    zeejane03 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?
  • rheddmobile
    rheddmobile Posts: 6,840 Member
    Phirrgus 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 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.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,970 Member
    try2again wrote: »
    I'll also link an interesting post from @Aaron_K123 :smile:

    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.
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    Phirrgus 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 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
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Phirrgus 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 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.

    I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
    https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html

    jeez :(

  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Phirrgus 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 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.

    I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
    https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html

    jeez :(

    Dude, remember the video!

    Also remember that unnecessary/inappropriate stress, in and of itself, is bad for you.

    You can't un-eat it. ;)
    Ah perspective :D:D Always highly valued :)
  • pinuplove
    pinuplove Posts: 12,874 Member
    kimny72 wrote: »
    pinuplove wrote: »
    Phirrgus 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 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

    But it's hard to carve the dinosaur nugget shapes out of an actual chicken cutlet :cry:

    My poor children were so mistreated.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 31,966 Member
    edited February 2019
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    zeejane03 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?

    No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.

    Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.

    This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.

    I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.

    BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)

    Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.

    Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).

    There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods. ;)

    We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:
  • WinoGelato
    WinoGelato Posts: 13,454 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    French_Peasant wrote: »
    zeejane03 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?

    No, it's not about drama. But I don't think this is about drama, nor a straw man situation, either.

    Yes, they picked an extreme case. If you want to see if there are behavioral or outcome differences, you don't start by minimizing the differences in the cases. At this point in the development of actual tested conclusions or insights, trying to minimize the intake differences would be a bad study design. You start with stark cases. Also, they use the NOVA definitions, because those are the current standard for such studies. As a scientist, you don't just start making up new definitions: That's a different kind of research trajectory than this study means to pursue.

    This is an early study, possibly the first of its particular type. It's an inpatient study, which is remarkable. They measured a bonanza of data points, and studied all of the patients on each of the diets (2 week period for each, so a total of 28 days for 20 people, which is remarkably long for an inpatient study). They matched the nutrients/calories presented in each group.

    I think this is all very useful, and interesting, personally. I see no point in starting by comparing an "unprocessed" diet to a "close as we can get to being unprocessed without actually violating the definition of "ultraprocessed"" diet.

    BTW, the "untraprocessed" diet had salsa with their taco and with their chips (and it looks like about the same amount as would be served in non-ethnic restaurants, with similar foods). (But, yes, not fresh pico: Salsa. Which is what most people I know would actually eat in routine daily life, me included, and probably consider to be about equally healthy.)

    Overall, the ultra-processed diet looks fairly nutritious to me: Much more nutritious and less extreme than I would've guessed from your comments. They have veggies, beans, fruit. It probably includes more veggies/fruits than quite a few people eat (based on my admittedly limited observation of other people in my life, and reading MFP diaries). Yes, I think some people in my life would eat rather like the "unprocessed" case routinely, but of course few people in real life eat 100% "ultra-processed", either. But the overall character of that way of eating doesn't look that crazy.

    Also, the "unprocessed" diet includes what we usually talk about here as nutritionally useful processed foods (like pasta, yogurt, frozen corn, skim milk, commercial fish and meat from sources like Tyson).

    There are some fascinating nuggets in there, amongst the individual in-process and end-point measurements. It's worth reading closely, IMO. I don't see them as presenting this as the be-all and end-all, either. The formal conclusion is pretty moderate, and even delivers a polite science-y reality check on simply saying people should avoid eating ultra-processed foods. ;)

    We'll have to agree to disagree about the "drama" and "straw man" interpretation, I guess. :flowerforyou:

    Nailed it. What a thoughtful assessment of the study and the interpretations that we are drawing here.

    I also wanted to say, because I'm dealing with some frustrating negativity in other social media channels I participate in, that I always appreciate your level headedness and positivity in your communication style. You could teach a masters lever class in polite discourse on the internet.
  • magnusthenerd
    magnusthenerd Posts: 1,207 Member
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Phirrgus 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 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.

    I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
    https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html

    jeez :(

    How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.
  • Phirrgus
    Phirrgus Posts: 1,894 Member
    magnusthenerd wrote: »
    Phirrgus wrote: »
    rheddmobile wrote: »
    Phirrgus 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 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.

    I am sitting in my truck and my jaw is literally hanging open. I've heard of pink slime, who hasn't by now? But ...well, I know some sources are questionable, so I'm hoping livescience.com is reputable, and they say exactly what you said and I just ate hamburger 2 nights ago. I obviously don't know if it had the filler or not, but just the thought of ingesting ammonia, even in minute amounts is revolting.
    https://www.livescience.com/33786-pink-slime.html

    jeez :(

    How small an amount is revolting? Your body is generating ammonia from from various amino acids all the time and then packaging it up in the liver into urea.

    It does?

    I'm....seeing my pattern here, getting an education as well, but maybe it's time I simply read more and spoke less. Don't get me wrong, the info is appreciated, but my cycle of getting grossed out, then finding out it was over not much at all, repeating the pattern..what...4 times today??

    Time for the older, obviously less knowledgeable guy to bow out...you folks are quite patient by the way...I'll wait for topics I might be able to actually speak to :D

Categories