Hacker News Reader

Comment by nsxwolf | Hacker News Reader

Does this paywalled article even contain a definition of "processed" in this context?

I've never understood what that word means in the context of food. I have something in my kitchen called a "food processor". It spins around and chops things with a blade. Is the product of a "food processor" not "processed food"?

The closest I can figure to the media definition is that it is food that contains a lot of salt. Perhaps also preservatives. So are we really talking about the health effects of salt and preservatives?

View on HN

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/other/high-levels-of-ultra-...

> Ultra-processed foods encompass a broad category ranging from cookies, doughnuts and potato chips to hot dogs, white bread and frozen meals.

I take umbrage with "frozen meals." Very often a frozen meal has straight up whole vegetables or pieces of meat. Freezing is one of the best ways to retain nutrition of vegetables etc as well.

Totally different than white bread or hot dogs.

Your umbrage is misguided. Processing does not mean it lowers nutrition. In fact, processing can increase nutrition.

Here's a gift link (and yes, it describes them in depth!): https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/06/well/eat/ultraprocessed-f...

It refers to the NOVA classification of foods, developed from research at the University of São Paulo

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nova_classification

The tl;dr of ultraprocessed is that it's those exclusively industrial foods prepared with ingredients you wouldn't stock in your pantry (high fructose corn syrup, artificial flavors, protein isolate, etc)

In part, these foods are bad because they are high in sygar and salt. But that's not the point of the classification, which intentionally takes a step back from the old approach based of mesuring the individul ingredients and macronutrients. The central thesis is that, for public health policy it's easier to frame it as a discussion of traditional food vs industrial junk, and how ultraprocessed foods are replacing traditional foods. The classification doesn't want to get lost in the details of ingredients, which the industry has always been adept at gaming anyway (fat is the boogeyman -> replace it with sugar, add vitamins to make it sound healthier, etc)

> for public health policy it's easier

Your entire explanation seems to rest critically on this point.

After COVID, I cannot support what's "easier" for public health policy. Do the work.

"Easier" got us "N95s don't protect against COVID" and then it was "oh wait, actually cloth masks do!"

A lot of this stuff relies on trust.

I won't sit here and try to pretend that you will find health eating Doritos or McDonald's Big Macs. But is something like a low-sugar protein bar a decent option? How about Soylent?

These are the nuanced questions that are actually useful to answer. Nobody actually thinks "ultra processed foods" are good for you to begin with.

Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements?

The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits. The Brazilian dietary guidelines that were inspired by NOVA places a lot of importance in the social aspects of procuring food, preparing it, and eating it. In a sense, it's the antithesis of products such as Soylent.

> Why shouldn't the burden of proof be on the people making these meal replacements?

So we can have what, one source on the issue with a very obvious conflict of interest? What kind of sense does that make?

> The NOVA system is more interested in the wider effect of ultraprocessed foods replacing existing eating and cooking habits.

I wasn't make a comment on what they do. I was making a comment on what I would find useful.

I don't find saying "ultraprocessed bad mmmm'kay" particularly interesting or insightful. All processes and preservatives are not equal. Pretending they are (or even just glossing over the details) is unscientific and a waste of time and money.

> "for public policy it's easier to frame it as traditional food vs industrial junk"

This isn't research, this is simplistic populist fear-mongering.

It's a bit like saying "the economic research does not want to go into the details of the different economic benefits and drawbacks of immigration, instead it's easier to frame it as the smart educated whites versus the hordes of dirty foreigners coming into the country" and expecting this argument to be taken seriously.

One definition of ultraprocessed that I heard was the sort of food that needs specialised industrial processes and / or ingredients to create - something you couldn't really prepare in your kitchen.

So, any cheese or wine would be ultraprocessed according to that definition?

No snark, just a great life tip:

- put unpasteurized milk in a saucepan

- bring it to slow simmer (~180F)

- add a splash of an acid (lemon, white vinegar, etc) and remove from heat

- skim and collect the curd that forms on top.

This is fresh ricotta and it will make you very happy.

Cheese & wine count as processed, but not as ultraprocessed. Kraft singles and other highly processed "cheese" are ultraprocessed. The main rule of thumb is to look at how long the ingredient list is.

Very fine white flour is pretty easy to make in your kitchen with the right tools and is an ultra-processed food.

Coarse ground brown flour is processed, but not ultra-processed.

White flour is a processed ingredient, not ultra-processed.

That depends on which definition of ultra-processed you use. It's a product highly engineered for palatability.

It's also surprisingly modern -- traditional flours are far more coarsely ground.

It does, and further provides an easy way to remember it: Food that you can't easily make in your kitchen with standard equipment and ingredients.

I guess it depends https://m.youtube.com/@ZDFbesseresser

Best cocking show ever. German but still watchable. You will realize that you must be nuts to eat processed food

Define "standard equipment and ingredients". Many "standard ingredients" are already (ultra-)processed.

I determine the difference with this simple model:

1. It's processed if the list of ingredients spans a sizable portion of the package or label. 2. It's less (or not) processed if the list of ingredients is quite small.

The line between 1 and 2 is totally subjective, of course.

One example comes to mind: peanut butter, something my kids devour.

Lots of peanut butter jars have extra things: salt, random oils (for spreading), etc. But, can peanut butter just be just peanuts? Yep, if you spend some extra time looking.

Another example is an RxBar (less processed, few ingredients) vs. any standard granola (very processed, lots of ingredients) bar.

And of course, so much stuff for kids is processed and worse.

There's the NOVA classifications. I'd say the major concerns are refinement, like white bread, white sugar, white rice, most oils are highly chemically processed besides "cold-pressed".

On the flip side, foods should ideally be identifiable(look natural), and ideally, according to numerous studies, like on blue zones, where people tend to prioritize fresh fruits and vegetables, prepared 'simply'. The ideal amount of fruits and veggies tends to be around 9-12 servings, daily.

>Does this paywalled article even contain a definition of "processed" in this context?

Or worse the ultraprocessed level. I dont think the article adequately defines either, but one can see what they are attempting to explain.

>I've never understood what that word means in the context of food. I have something in my kitchen called a "food processor". It spins around and chops things with a blade. Is the product of a "food processor" not "processed food"?

I think the author is not talking about food processors or doing procedures on food exactly. But rather suggesting the problem is industrialized food. "Soy protein isolate" is not something you're making in your kitchen. Or various other chemistry lab foods are allegedly a problem.

>The closest I can figure to the media definition is that it is food that contains a lot of salt. Perhaps also preservatives. So are we really talking about the health effects of salt and preservatives?

Preservatives do come into it. But it seems to me the diet folks are really struggling to figure out the correct diet.

> "Soy protein isolate" is not something you're making in your kitchen

Is the idea that there is cemical resedue from the processing? Or is it that it's usually used in food that also include unhealty ingrediants?

The main issues are dilution or outright removal of actual other nutritional components and usually yes, also the coexistence of other "adulterating" components, added for other reasons, usually colorants, preservatives and stabilizers.

Ultraprocessed foods tend to either fall into junk food or preserves as categories.

And no, adding a few vitamins doesn't restore the most of nutritional value. Especially when the removed things are fiber (for density) and essential oils (to prevent rancidity and extend shelf life).

Sometimes even the absorption rate can change things - easier to overload on protein for example with micronized isolates than with slices of tofu, as they absorb so much better.

Is also why it's easier to mess yourself up with sucrose (sugar) than with whole fruit, or with the purified juices.

> And no, adding a few vitamins doesn't restore the most of nutritional value. Especially when the removed things are fiber (for density) and essential oils (to prevent rancidity and extend shelf life).

I was mostly thinking about using protein isolate in cooking (TVP soy curls, ...), where you use it for the texture and maybe protein content. You pair it with a lot of other stuff, let's say some stir-fried vegetables, a light sauce and rice.

Does soy protein isolate on the above have negative effects, or is it just that using less processed stuff, like tofu instead, would be healthier?

> it seems to me the diet folks are really struggling to figure out the correct diet.

There is no "nutrition science", just waves of fad after fad. Look up Dr. Ancel Keys, father of "low fat" and how he would simply throw out results of experiments if they did not match his per-conceptions.

>There is no "nutrition science", just waves of fad after fad. Look up Dr. Ancel Keys, father of "low fat" and how he would simply throw out results of experiments if they did not match his per-conceptions.

Quite familiar with this and totally agree.

I have been kind of working on figuring out the correct diet and why so many others seem to work.

1. Nothing industrial/chemsitry.

2. Nothing with high histamines.

3. Evaluate/eliminate food alergies; most people have this problem but it's quite mild.

4. Keto levels of carbs.

Soy protein isolate is most definitely something that can be home made. Assuming you have a high rev centrifuge.

Otherwise you end up with soy protein that is not an isolate. Similar to purified soy flour which is already a highly processed food, and soymilk. It will still be vastly purer nutritionally than either tofu or soy.

It's the same as the difference between whey protein (from milk) and whey protein isolate of various grades. Not that huge in the grand scheme of things, except for taste and amount of sugars left in it.

>Soy protein isolate is most definitely something that can be home made. Assuming you have a high rev centrifuge.

My wife is still angry that I wrecked our kitchen high rev centrifuge with Uranium dust.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com