Sugar and processed food good or bad?

jonnythan

I just believe that you'll get to your nutrient intake with less empty calories and unnecessary, potentially harmfully additives opting for "better ingredients" in home cooked meals than with a bunch of highly processed foods -- at least as a general rule.

Now this all came from the MFP Databases...

Delmonte Canned Green Beans
Calories 20
Sodium 10
Potassium 95
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugars 2
Protein 1

Fresh Green Beans
Calories 17
Sodium 4
Potassium 115
Carbs 4
Fiber 2
Sugar 2
Protein 1

Honestly, not much difference.

But, do most processed foods contain just the fruit/vegetable, salt and water? I think it is likely a significant outlier.

nope, not an outlier.

Abstract: The first of a two-part review of the recent and classical literature reveals that loss of nutrients in fresh products during storage and cooking may be more substantial than commonly perceived. Depending on the commodity, freezing and canning processes may preserve nutrient value

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part I. Vitamins C and B and phenolic compounds. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 930-944.

Rickman JC, Barrett DM, and Bruhn CM (2007). Nutritional comparison of fresh, frozen and canned fruits and vegetables. Part II. Vitamin A and carotenoids, vitamin E, minerals and fiber. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 87, 1185-1196.

Agreed. I think people need to do a bit more research about processed foods, particularly fruit and veggies, if they think this is an outlier. I regularly purchase store brand frozen veggies (Wegmans). They have a "rainbow blend" of green beans, red bell peppers, yellow carrots, and orange carrots. The ingredient list per the package: "Green beans, orange carrots, yellow carrots, red bell pepper." That's it. Straight up frozen veggies, no additives or preservatives. Costs $0.99 a package. I couldn't purchase those fresh veggies for that price, nor do they even carry yellow carrots in the store. Takes a few minutes to heat and serve. We rarely eat out, but even cooking at home I don't have time to cut up all those veggies and steam them in the evenings. Removing those extra steps is often the difference between having veggies with dinner or not in our house. So I do agree that canned/frozen foods can be a healthy choice and can also help people enjoy a variety of fruits and veggies they would not otherwise be able to find fresh where they live or even know how to prepare if they did have access to them.

I agree with you on the frozen veggies in particular. Canned I'm not so sure about -- I'd have to look into it more. It was my understanding that a lot of canned veggies and fruits had extra additives and often sugar (especially fruits) -- but I may be very off on this.

But, the original statement went beyond just canned veggies and fruits -- to processed frozen dinners (which I do believe have a lot of additives), processed foods (ditto) and eating at restaurants (additives -- maybe, maybe not depending on where you are -- but often extremely large portions if you find a place that doesn't use the additives) versus just making home-cooked meals with better nutrient values.

Correction: the original statement ONLY, included processed frozen meals, YOU added in the part about eating at restaurants. The frozen meals may or may not have additives, but that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis, but the point still remains that being processed or frozen does not mean that they are inherently worse.

Fair enough -- my mistake on the restaurants -- I thought that came up.

And, yes, they aren't inherently worse all the time. But do you really think frozen processed dinners are, as a general rule, on par with home cooked meals? And if the home cooked meals are worse in nutrient level, would you recommend eating processed frozen dinners rather than making changes in the ingredients for the home cooked meals?

Neither is inherently better than the other.

Your repeated attempts to get people to say home cooked meals are better are tiring and silly.

Fine. If you think frozen processed meals are the same as home cooked meals as a general rule, that's your right to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nice attempt at a cheap rhetorical trick, intentionally misstating your opponent's argument.

I've said all along that there is no general rule.

lindsey1979

Fair enough -- my mistake on the restaurants -- I thought that came up.

And, yes, they aren't inherently worse all the time. But do you really think frozen processed dinners are, as a general rule, on par with home cooked meals? And if the home cooked meals are worse in nutrient level, would you recommend eating processed frozen dinners rather than making changes in the ingredients for the home cooked meals?

Nope, cause I think they taste like crap (except for Marie Calendar's pot pies mmmmm), but that's me. I think a person should do what works best for them and if the easiest way for them to add in veggies to the rest of their home cooked meal is to grab a bag of frozen, that's what they should do. If they can get a more balanced meal for lunch by using a frozen dish than just taking in leftovers, that's what they should do.

I agree. But to have a better idea of what is better or worse for them, they have to have an idea about some of the objective realities of their choices. And, sure, there is no black-or-white thing, but there are general rules and trends. To me, to say that generally processed frozen dinners are equally healthy to home cooked meals is simply not true. And in the cases where it is true, it seems to make the most sense in substituting better ingredients used in the home cooked meals rather than substitute with frozen processed meals.

geebusuk

Fine. If you think frozen processed meals are the same as home cooked meals as a general rule, that's your right to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Meal one; go to the kitchen and make a cottage pie.

Freeze some to eat the next day.

Meal 2: bottom-range ready meal from local supermarket.

I buy two and freeze one, then eat it that one a few days later.

Meal 3: frozen ready meal from the local supermarket.

I eat ready meal.


In this case, the ready meal specifically advertises it's self as "made from kitchen cupboard ingredients".

What is the difference?
Do you think the freezing makes a significant difference?

MelsAuntie

No food is bad, just be sensible. I'd rather be fat than give up sugar ( chocolate) becasue there IS such a thing as quality of life, and it's possible to have both sugar and( in moderation) processed food and lose 22 lbs., I did.

geebusuk

Actually, we injest a lot of stuff that isn't 'food', like dirt and other stuff (was recently reminded of all the bugs I have swallowed during running/cycling in my day). But if you want to leave those things out, I'm not one to judge! :drinker:

And a lot more likely to get said 'dirt' and so on from what people describe as 'real food', what with it coming out of the ground pretty recently, by many of the definitions.

lindsey1979

Fair enough -- my mistake on the restaurants -- I thought that came up.

And, yes, they aren't inherently worse all the time. But do you really think frozen processed dinners are, as a general rule, on par with home cooked meals? And if the home cooked meals are worse in nutrient level, would you recommend eating processed frozen dinners rather than making changes in the ingredients for the home cooked meals?

Neither is inherently better than the other.

Your repeated attempts to get people to say home cooked meals are better are tiring and silly.

Fine. If you think frozen processed meals are the same as home cooked meals as a general rule, that's your right to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nice attempt at a cheap rhetorical trick, intentionally misstating your opponent's argument.

I've said all along that there is no general rule.

That's where we disagree as well then. I think there is a general rule and you don't. On that too, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Fullsterkur_woman

Actually, I still sneak a grain or two of sand in my mouth and crunch on them even to this day (don't tell anyone).

Does your doctor know that you have pica? :laugh:

jonnythan

Fair enough -- my mistake on the restaurants -- I thought that came up.

And, yes, they aren't inherently worse all the time. But do you really think frozen processed dinners are, as a general rule, on par with home cooked meals? And if the home cooked meals are worse in nutrient level, would you recommend eating processed frozen dinners rather than making changes in the ingredients for the home cooked meals?

Neither is inherently better than the other.

Your repeated attempts to get people to say home cooked meals are better are tiring and silly.

Fine. If you think frozen processed meals are the same as home cooked meals as a general rule, that's your right to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Nice attempt at a cheap rhetorical trick, intentionally misstating your opponent's argument.

I've said all along that there is no general rule.

That's where we disagree as well then. I think there is a general rule and you don't. On that too, we'll have to agree to disagree.

What's the general rule? Be specific.

lindsey1979

Fine. If you think frozen processed meals are the same as home cooked meals as a general rule, that's your right to do so. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

Meal one; go to the kitchen and make a cottage pie.

Freeze some to eat the next day.

Meal 2: bottom-range ready meal from local supermarket.

I buy two and freeze one, then eat it that one a few days later.

Meal 3: frozen ready meal from the local supermarket.

I eat ready meal.


In this case, the ready meal specifically advertises it's self as "made from kitchen cupboard ingredients".

What is the difference?
Do you think the freezing makes a significant difference?

I don't think it's the freezing. And I wasn't comparing frozen home-made meals. When DamePiglet used the term "frozen processed meals" -- I was envisioning the type of things you get out of the frozen food aisle as a TV dinner sort of thing. And I believe that many of them have a lot of extra additives -- whether preservatives, other chemicals, added sugar, etc. -- that you wouldn't see in the home cooked equivalent.

Fullsterkur_woman

Neither is better than the other per se.

FTFY. :flowerforyou:

DamePiglet

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

DamePiglet

Neither is better than the other per se.

FTFY. :flowerforyou:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

lindsey1979

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Does that make you the pot or the kettle? I could say the exact same for you, darlin'.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

tennisdude2004

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

DamePiglet

JD and bachelors in integrative biology.

"The Department of Integrative Biology (IB) offers Undergradate and Graduate academic programs as well as Faculty Research that focuses on the integration of structure and function that influences the biology, ecology, and evolution of organisms. It investigates integration at all levels of organization from molecules to the biosphere, and in all branches of the tree of life: plants, animals, fungi, and microbes."

Doesn't sound all that relevant, especially considering it's an undergraduate degree.

Johnny, she didn't understand the peer-review process for journal articles, but tried to explain it (incorrectly) to another.
Also, I tried to explain how she was using the phrase "per se" incorrectly, but she was having no part of that either.

In my n=2 experience with UC Berkeley undergraduates (which obviously means nothing to anyone but me), the curriculum or standards are somewhat lacking.

How much experience do you have with their JDs and IB students? Because that's the only that really matters, and last time I checked, we were ranked in the top 5 for biological sciences and top 10 for law school (5th for law reviews).

Nice post, DamePiglet. Classy.

Lindsey, you told another poster that peer reviewed articles are reviewed AFTER publication, not before. I came behind you to clear that misstatement up. Forgive me, but I find that your claim to have been instrumental in the development of them may not be entirely believable.

As for "per se": using the phrase in the context of "in and of itself", as you often did, is just pretentious sentence fluff. In that context, it can be used after ANY AND EVERY noun and therefore, loses all meaning. It is YOU that doesn't understand "intrinsically." "Per se" should be used to mean "at its basis or core" - as in, "Humans are animals per se, but are much more complex than any other."

And as for "keeping it classy", I did say that my experience is meaningful to only me.

Okay, so now my use of per se is correct, but just "pretentious sentence fluff". Oftentimes it is used that way because people want to differentiate between specifics and general statements. For example, someone can say "he's not a jerk per se, but just is really annoying me right now because of X". It's the exact same usage.

In my example, since you prefer intrinsically: I didn't know what his personal psychological issues are intrinsically (i.e. inferiority complex, paranoid delusions, meglomania, etc.), but they are significant.

Call it pretentious sentence fluff or whatever you want, but it's still correct usage. It's terribly ironic that you complain about me being condescending and whatnot, but go out of your way to correct my grammar. It's only too funny that you were actually incorrect in your correction. Talk about pretentious.

Oh, and bringing up all this stuff from past threads, especially as personal attacks and insults, is against the forum rules.

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

I know why: maternal instinct. I got it bad. I try to save people from themselves.

Fullsterkur_woman

If you don't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations, you probably wouldn't understand the point she is trying to make. Even with additives, preservatives, processing, and restaurants, the foods can still be a better option. You're looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources.

Do you mean that if one doesn't have a lot of experience with food deserts and underserved populations that one is looking at this from the standpoint of someone who has had lots of advantages in life, including educational and financial resources? Or did you mean Lindsey in particular? Because I don't know that you can necessarily make that claim unless you happen to know her background.

I don't disagree with your general point, I just wanted to remind people to be careful of their assumptions. Just because someone has advanced degrees doesn't mean they haven't ever had to stand in line for government cheese or habitually eat food out of a garbage truck at some point in their life.

Fullsterkur_woman

Neither is better than the other per se.

FTFY. :flowerforyou:

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Only 'cause you gave me a Nathan Fillion gif.

DeterminedFee201426

natural sugars from fruits and other natural foods are good for you . processed food is very bad for you and idc what anyone say its True

DamePiglet

Not your strongest pot-stirring post, OP. Better luck next time. :flowerforyou:

I know, my best one was on a primal thread - got two parts out of that one.

Anyway I wasn't actually looking for arguments from this thread but to get a clearer picture of people's view if eating processed or added sugar was okay in their opinion.

It was originally posted as a survey - still fun the way it's turning out.

lindsey1979

Well, darlin', report me or ignore me. Your call. I'd prefer ignore myself -that way you quit jumping in, mis-reading and/or taking my posts out of context, then spewing condescending crap as a reply.

I could correct you YET AGAIN, but I have neither the time nor the patience.

Why do you feel the need to do so? That may be a good question you should ask yourself.

I know why: maternal instinct. I got it bad. I try to save people from themselves.

That's a very interesting theory. But such lack of respect for boundaries and basic empathy would lead me to think that your maternal instinct has a large narcissistic component.