Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Ultraprocessed food and increased mortality risk?
Options
Replies
-
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I avoid most pre-cut fruits & veggies over sanitary concerns. From the FDA:
"Processing fresh produce into fresh-cut products increases the risk of bacterial growth and contamination by breaking the natural exterior barrier of the produce (Ref. 6).The release of plant cellular fluids when produce is chopped or shredded provides a nutritive medium in which pathogens, if present, can survive or grow (Ref. 6). Thus, if pathogens are present when the surface integrity of the fruit or vegetable is broken, pathogen growth can occur and contamination may spread. The processing of fresh produce without proper sanitation procedures in the processing environment increases the potential for contamination by pathogens (see Appendix B, "Foodborne Pathogens Associated with Fresh Fruits and Vegetables."). In addition, the degree of handling and product mixing common to many fresh-cut processing operations can provide opportunities for contamination and for spreading contamination through a large volume of product. The potential for pathogens to survive or grow is increased by the high moisture and nutrient content of fresh-cut fruits and vegetables, the absence of a lethal process (e.g., heat) during production to eliminate pathogens, and the potential for temperature abuse during processing, storage, transport, and retail display (Ref. 6). Importantly, however, fresh-cut produce processing has the capability to reduce the risk of contamination by placing the preparation of fresh-cut produce in a controlled, sanitary facility."
https://www.fda.gov/Food/GuidanceRegulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatoryInformation/ProducePlantProducts/ucm064458.htm
Ironically, I do buy pre-packaged salad mixes, which are probably the worst offender when it comes to outbreaks due to contamination. But when I look at, say, a package of mixed fruit or melon, I visualize some young kid in the back who likely is not observing the same standards of cleanliness as I do when handling my fresh foods. I certainly wouldn't pay extra for it.
0 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!2 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
So true - I used to buy nothing but what "Looked" good, which was the fresh, wet veggies, cut fruit, prepared salads and so on. Since then I buy a ton a frozen stuff and only whole fruits when there's a good sale, which is pretty frequent thankfully.
I think you nailed it regarding the pleasures of easy food though. Makes mucho sense.1 -
JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!
You need a Slap Chop! Or whatever version of the slap chop is out there; link to Amazon below. I have the same problem with onions, just in the past few years. My strategy is to quarter them, then let them sit for a half hour or so, the get the peel/roots off, and then slap chop them, keeping the freshly chopped ones in a covered bowl. It's better than just chopping them head on.
https://www.amazon.com/Chopper-Stainless-Multifunctional-Chopping-Vegetables/dp/B07KQVF6Y4/ref=asc_df_B07KQVF6Y4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=272009130200&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=597338254313208681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016345&hvtargid=pla-624358344654&psc=11 -
French_Peasant wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!
You need a Slap Chop! Or whatever version of the slap chop is out there; link to Amazon below. I have the same problem with onions, just in the past few years. My strategy is to quarter them, then let them sit for a half hour or so, the get the peel/roots off, and then slap chop them, keeping the freshly chopped ones in a covered bowl. It's better than just chopping them head on.
https://www.amazon.com/Chopper-Stainless-Multifunctional-Chopping-Vegetables/dp/B07KQVF6Y4/ref=asc_df_B07KQVF6Y4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=272009130200&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=597338254313208681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016345&hvtargid=pla-624358344654&psc=1
I may have to try this, thanks!0 -
French_Peasant wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!
You need a Slap Chop! Or whatever version of the slap chop is out there; link to Amazon below. I have the same problem with onions, just in the past few years. My strategy is to quarter them, then let them sit for a half hour or so, the get the peel/roots off, and then slap chop them, keeping the freshly chopped ones in a covered bowl. It's better than just chopping them head on.
https://www.amazon.com/Chopper-Stainless-Multifunctional-Chopping-Vegetables/dp/B07KQVF6Y4/ref=asc_df_B07KQVF6Y4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=272009130200&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=597338254313208681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016345&hvtargid=pla-624358344654&psc=1
I may have to try this, thanks!
If that doesn't work, you could always try this:
4 -
French_Peasant wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!
You need a Slap Chop! Or whatever version of the slap chop is out there; link to Amazon below. I have the same problem with onions, just in the past few years. My strategy is to quarter them, then let them sit for a half hour or so, the get the peel/roots off, and then slap chop them, keeping the freshly chopped ones in a covered bowl. It's better than just chopping them head on.
https://www.amazon.com/Chopper-Stainless-Multifunctional-Chopping-Vegetables/dp/B07KQVF6Y4/ref=asc_df_B07KQVF6Y4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=272009130200&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=597338254313208681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016345&hvtargid=pla-624358344654&psc=1
I may have to try this, thanks!
If that doesn't work, you could always try this:
Curlers are optional, or they come with the mask?3 -
WinoGelato wrote: »French_Peasant wrote: »JeromeBarry1 wrote: »Another: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/public-health-nutrition/article/un-decade-of-nutrition-the-nova-food-classification-and-the-trouble-with-ultraprocessing/2A9776922A28F8F757BDA32C3266AC2A
My best guess is the packaged convenience food with very long shelf-life is the sort of stuff they are describing as ultra-pasteurized. I'm thinking it's a diet high in Twinkies and Doritos. Death by desire via metabolic syndrome.
The referenced definition for the study has been quoted in the thread. It's that kind of stuff, but broader.
"The fourth NOVA group is of ultra-processed food and drink products. These are industrial
formulations typically with five or more and usually many ingredients. Such ingredients often
include those also used in processed foods, such as sugar, oils, fats, salt, anti-oxidants,
stabilisers, and preservatives. Ingredients only found in ultra-processed products include
substances not commonly used in culinary preparations, and additives whose purpose is to
imitate sensory qualities of group 1 foods or of culinary preparations of these foods, or to
disguise undesirable sensory qualities of the final product. Group 1 foods are a small
proportion of or are even absent from ultra-processed products.
[My note: I find this definition a little contradictory, and this is one reason. If I make a yogurt smoothie dessert at home with frozen strawberries and plain yogurt, that's not ultra-processed, but it seems like any flavored yogurt is defined as processed. Nutritionally those are not different, which makes me wonder, again, if the difference is something else. Also, as with the comments French Peasant made, it's why these definitions irritate me, even though in some cases I know it when I see it, and personally tend eat mostly foods that are not ultra processed. Given how demonized "ultra processed foods" are, in a way it's like saying "people in France who tended to cook from scratch less may have had a worse diet, or "people less likely to be health conscious ate a poorer diet than those more likely to be health conscious."]
Anyway, continuing with the definition:
"Substances only found in ultra-processed products include some directly extracted from
foods, such as casein, lactose, whey, and gluten, and some derived from further processing
of food constituents, such as hydrogenated or interesterified oils, hydrolysed proteins, soy
protein isolate, maltodextrin, invert sugar and high fructose corn syrup. Classes of additive
only found in ultra-processed products include dyes and other colours, colour stabilisers,
flavours, flavour enhancers, non-sugar sweeteners, and processing aids such as
carbonating, firming, bulking and anti-bulking, de-foaming, anti-caking and glazing agents,
emulsifiers, sequestrants and humectants.
Several industrial processes with no domestic equivalents are used in the manufacture of
ultra-processed products, such as extrusion and moulding, and pre-processing for frying.
The main purpose of industrial ultra-processing is to create products that are ready to eat, to
drink or to heat, liable to replace both unprocessed or minimally processed foods that are
naturally ready to consume, such as fruits and nuts, milk and water, and freshly prepared
drinks, dishes, desserts and meals. Common attributes of ultra-processed products are
hyper-palatability, sophisticated and attractive packaging, multi-media and other aggressive
marketing to children and adolescents, health claims, high profitability, and branding and
ownership by transnational corporations.
Examples of typical ultra-processed products are: carbonated drinks; sweet or savoury
packaged snacks; ice-cream, chocolate, candies (confectionery); mass-produced packaged
breads and buns; margarines and spreads; cookies (biscuits), pastries, cakes, and cake
mixes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; ‘energy’ drinks; milk drinks, ‘fruit’
yoghurts and ‘fruit’ drinks; cocoa drinks; meat and chicken extracts and ‘instant’ sauces;
infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products; ‘health’ and ‘slimming’ products such
as powdered or ‘fortified’ meal and dish substitutes; and many ready to heat products
including pre-prepared pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and
‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products, and powdered
and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts.
When products made solely of group 1 or group 3 foods also contain cosmetic or sensory
intensifying additives, such as plain yoghurt with added artificial sweeteners, and breads
with added emulsifiers, they are classified here in group 4. When alcoholic drinks are
identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods followed by distillation
of the resulting alcohol, such as whisky, gin, rum, vodka, are classified in group 4."
Regarding the bolded description, that's the vast majority of what's seen in shoppping carts where I live. My city has quite a large number of people on some type of assistance program or another, so I believe a link could (I'm sure this has been covered before) be made between economic factors and diet in any given area.
The dichotomy though, is that "healthier" food choices in this market really are not any more expensive.
I think people tend to gravitate toward ultraprocessed vs. equally (or more) cheap less processed options is clearly not money, but probably that they are more time consuming to cook, they don't really know how to cook them, they are tired and going for the fast cals that seem easy and appealing, food is one of the cheaper pleasures so lots of people without much else pleasurable going on may see it as an acceptable treat.
But yes, when people say eating healthfully is expensive, I think they are thinking about it wrong, assuming healthy=trendy stuff or packaged healthy options or the most expensive cuts of meat.
My area is actually full of a lot of better off people, and one thing I notice is that the pre-cut fruit and veg is really popular, even though the mark up is crazy and they don't taste as good (IMO) in many cases. People are busy with other areas of their life and like convenience.
I've started buying pre-cut onion (at $5 per pound!!). Over the last few months I've gotten really sensitive to cutting them, to the point where my eyes swell almost completely shut. I can eat them though, no problem and after they've been cut for a while I don't have a reaction (weird!).
So I do fork over the extra money to get my onion fix, though yesterday Meijer had a display set up with a 'new' kind of onion that was guaranteed to be tear free when cutting-it was $1.29 for one onion so I bought one and will try it out today-wish me luck lol!
You need a Slap Chop! Or whatever version of the slap chop is out there; link to Amazon below. I have the same problem with onions, just in the past few years. My strategy is to quarter them, then let them sit for a half hour or so, the get the peel/roots off, and then slap chop them, keeping the freshly chopped ones in a covered bowl. It's better than just chopping them head on.
https://www.amazon.com/Chopper-Stainless-Multifunctional-Chopping-Vegetables/dp/B07KQVF6Y4/ref=asc_df_B07KQVF6Y4/?tag=hyprod-20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=272009130200&hvpos=1o2&hvnetw=g&hvrand=597338254313208681&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9016345&hvtargid=pla-624358344654&psc=1
I may have to try this, thanks!
If that doesn't work, you could always try this:
Curlers are optional, or they come with the mask?
Optional, but honestly, what is the outfit without them?? Then you're just a lady chopping onions in a swim mask. Silly.4 -
@JBanx256 posted this in her feed and it just seems to be really appropriate for this thread, about a 15 minute watch, and talks about the minute additives in every day food and the like.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH8LUFOaiek&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR2-F2nX1fJSjEMbkuGUH2tEAmcuWbW19_LjhHNQR-NrvYag1sxodUw5Keo 3 -
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.2 -
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.7 -
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.
Even the "best" ice cream is going to be terrible for one if it is displacing the other nutrients you need (or if it is causing you to go over your calorie goals).
Even the "worst" ice cream is unlikely to make much of a health impact if it is consumed in the context of a diet that is meeting nutritional needs and containing the right amount of calories.
For many people today, it's excess calories that are the issue so I think focusing on the specific ingredients of ice cream is going to be less helpful than ensuring one knows *how much* ice cream one can eat (and how often) in the context of the right amount of calories for one's activity level.
I just don't see processing as much of an issue when it comes to ice cream. Regardless of whether or not it is "ultra-processed" or just "processed," it's a delicious food that some people struggle to control portions on. That's the issue, not the different levels of ice cream processing and the ingredients.10 -
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.
I love this post so much!
Even my preferred mainstream brand of "highly processed" reduced-calorie (slow churned) ice cream has these ingredients (in the vanilla bean flavor): non-fat milk, cane sugar, cream, buttermilk, tapioca starch, pectin, guar gum, natural flavor, ground vanilla beans.
Terrifying! (Not.)
At 100 calories per half cup, with a few grams of protein and 8%DV of calcium, I think I can fit some into a "nutrient dense, healthy diet" now and then (even though guar gum might be the devil if I ate a quart of it alone <eye roll>).5 -
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!!
Here's Jeni's strawberry buttermilk: Nonfat Milk, Cream, Strawberries, Cane Sugar, Tapioca Syrup, Buttermilk, Citric Acid, Radish Extract (Color), Whole Apple Extract (color), Blackcurrant Extract (color). Contains: Milk. Gluten Free
Like you say, I don't see a huge difference from the homemade stuff.
I think a bigger difference is whether it's too much of your diet or not -- does it crowd out nutrients? Does it take you over your calories?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.
Yes.4 -
janejellyroll wrote: »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.
Even the "best" ice cream is going to be terrible for one if it is displacing the other nutrients you need (or if it is causing you to go over your calorie goals).
Even the "worst" ice cream is unlikely to make much of a health impact if it is consumed in the context of a diet that is meeting nutritional needs and containing the right amount of calories.
For many people today, it's excess calories that are the issue so I think focusing on the specific ingredients of ice cream is going to be less helpful than ensuring one knows *how much* ice cream one can eat (and how often) in the context of the right amount of calories for one's activity level.
I just don't see processing as much of an issue when it comes to ice cream. Regardless of whether or not it is "ultra-processed" or just "processed," it's a delicious food that some people struggle to control portions on. That's the issue, not the different levels of ice cream processing and the ingredients.
Yes, this exactly. Additionally, I really am not going to lose any sleep whatsoever over eating ultra-processed protein bars because I think in the context of my overall diet and lifestyle (or anyone's), the point isn't how much something is processed, it's how much you're eating, and how balanced your overall nutrition is.
There's not much room for nuance in clickbait culture, unfortunately.8 -
IMO- they nitpick the wrong thing. It seems like "ultra-processed" is often used by people as a (false) catch-all for easy-quick-grab-super-calorie-dense things (ie the things one might easily over-indulge in repeatedly). A lot of overlap-yes, but they are not equivalent sets.
They're not a bad thing (IMO) for people who are active - regularly eating a package of X because you are rushing out to go cycling/running/hiking will yield a very different result than regularly eating a package of X in front of the TV (which you have extra time to do now that you aren't even walking around the kitchen cooking a meal before sitting around all evening).
Also- an ice cream cone is totally a must have when out cycling...and I am not the only person who will plan a route to ensure a well-timed stand (or stands, plural). (Also running in the rare instances that a good stand is on the route and within 1/2 a mile from the endpoint).7 -
In other news of the extruded, mechanically separated, and otherwise ultra processed food universe, "pink slime" is now considered to be ground beef. Mmm, mmm, mmm!
https://www.foodandwine.com/news/pink-slime-ground-beef-usda-classification0 -
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.3 -
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.4 -
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?0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 388 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 918 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions