Health: physical and mental, individual and public.
Discussions, issues, resources, news, everything.
See the pinned post for a long list of other communities dedicated to health or specific diagnoses. The list is continuously updated.
Nothing here shall be taken as medical or any other kind of professional advice.
Commercial advertising is considered spam and not allowed. If you're not sure, contact mods to ask beforehand.
Linked videos without original description context by OP to initiate healthy, constructive discussions will be removed.
Regular rules of lemmy.world apply. Be civil.
In my country we have a mandatory "Nutri-Score" that goes from "A" (good for you) to "E" (pure junk).
Guess what? Plain white toast has a score of "A", because the companies successfully exploited loopholes in the ruling. So if the companies can basically print bogus scores on junk food, how should a normal layperson know good from bad?
This is nonsense. There are no loopholes for the Nutriscore. The reason toast has an A is just that carbs are not considered bad in the calculation which I also don't agree with but it is not a loophole.
They add broad bean flour just to get an A, otherwise they would get a C or D. There is no real reason for broad bean flour being present in a loaf of bread, except for faking a better NutriScore.
That probably increases the fiber and/or the protein content, which actually does make the bread healthier. I'm not saying that the formula is perfect and they are changing values around to make it better. But the system is so simple that the only way to game it is to actually make your products better.
The problem is that broad bean flour was primarily chosen because it is cheap and overrated. The latter will be corrected in the next set of rules, so there is actually no more reason to add it to plain white toast. So either the companies find another loophole/wrongly rated ingredient, or the plain white will drop from A to C or D where it belongs as a highly processed and not exacly healthy food.
Nutriscore was never meant and never advertised as an absolute measure of healthiness. It was always meant to be used to compare products in the same category. I agree that toast should not have an A but it doesn't mean that it is healthy, only that it is healthier than bread with a worse rating. I agree that the values in the formula should be updated so that toast has a lower rating than whole wheat bread but that doesn't mean the Nutriscore is useless.
If it's in a box... Or any kind of pre-made, it's (highly) processed.
Also the food pyramid is a crock of shit, any doctor who specialized in diabetes in the 1940's would tell you so.
Grains as the base? Enjoy your glucose spikes, followed by raised cholesterol as your arteries try to repair themselves from the high glucose levels.
If it has a packet telling you its healthy, its not because it's in a packet.
Unprocessed:
whole foods... [which] may be minimally altered by removal of inedible parts, drying, crushing, roasting, boiling, freezing, or pasteurization, to make them suitable to store and safe to consume. Unprocessed or minimally processed foods would include carrots, apples, raw chicken, melon, and raw, unsalted nuts.
Processed:
are essentially made by adding salt, oil, sugar, or other substances. Examples include canned fish or canned vegetables, fruits in syrup, and freshly made breads. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients.
Highly processed:
made mostly from substances extracted from foods, such as fats, starches, added sugars and hydrogenated fats.” They may also contain artificial colors, preservatives and stabilizers to change their shelf-life, color or texture
It is a little confusing
Where does pasta go? What about those horrid cotton candy grapes bred up to candy levels of sugar? Is tofu or wheat gluten bad, because it is extracted, but it isn't starch, sugar, or fat?
No one eats raw chicken, but if I roast it with salt it would be processed. Why is that on the unprocessed list of no one eats it that way? If removing the bran of the wheat makes the pasta processed, why doesn't removing the liver of the chicken do the same?
To my knowledge, no one has a consistent definition as to what qualifies as ultra-processed, even yours there is a bit non-standard. We're pretty sure twinkies are ultra processed, but then there's questions on whether something like ground beef even with minimal/zero additives counts as processed or if we do add things to it, is it ultra-processed? Vegetable soup is probably pretty alright, but hey, it might qualify as 'ultra-processed', the qualifiers for it are a mess.
I agree with the sentiment they're going for, i.e., we probably shouldn't be eating twinkies as the cornerstone of our diet, but I wonder how these studies have shown how dangerous ultra-processed foods are when none of them seem to include a definition that you can consistently tie back to discrete items. It feels like we would all likely be better served by identifying the problematic elements (like the hydrogenated fats/etc) within the ultra-processed foods and focusing the conversation on those.
The definitions are from the article.
I agree the focus should be on the things we already analyze, like amounts of sugar, fat, and nutrients
Yeah, I'm aware they're from the article, but even you implied that those were a bit vague which was the point I was trying to strengthen.
If removing the bran of the wheat makes the pasta processed, why doesn't removing the liver of the chicken do the same?
Because everyone removes the liver from a chicken, and only mad scientists remove bran from wheat.
People have been milling the bran off wheat and rice for millennia
Good point. My example is bad, and it should feel bad. (Futurama quote)
Even so, would the people doing this for millennia be considered mad scientists by their peers...?
Nah. Still doesn't work. Life is complex.
Cooking is processing in the sense 'processing' is used for foods. I think the processed food focus isn't on processed foods being inherently bad but that buying food already processed is more likely to be bad for you. Theres probably plenty of processed foodstuffs that end up healthier than what you make with whole ingredients.
It is a little confusing
I wonder if you're overthinking things and/or perhaps mixing up concepts based on your questions.
What they are saying is that diets higher in processed foods, especially when a significant number of calories come from highly / ultra processed foods, tend to translate into people who are less healthy and have higher rates of chronic disease.
This isn't saying that all unprocessed foods are inherently healthier than all processed foods, nor is it an attempt to label every specific food item good or bad. The article even addresses that some of these labels (ex: ultraprocessed) are a bit nebulously defined.
Also, it's important to consider the reasons why certain types of processed foods are problematic, as the reason(s) can be different from product to product or even brand to brand. For instance, processing can destroy, neutralize, or even remove important nutrients (ex: vitamins and minerals). Processing may involve the addition of or concentration of salt, sugar, fats, preservatives, and other chemicals that can all contribute to chronic health issues. Some processed foods avoid or minimize these concerns, others seem to embrace them all like it's a competition.
Pasta is not one monolithic thing where all types and brands are the same. Some will be more or less processed than others. I'm surprised grapes would be confusing, if they're raw grapes they're unprocessed, if they're canned/jarred/preserved, then they're processed. I'm not sure what the tofu question has to do with anything, as this isn't about classifying each and every food item as good or bad. People do eat cooked chicken that doesn't have salt, oil, sugar, preservatives added. But even so, raw chicken is one of the ingredients in a lot of at home recipes. In the context of processing wheat into white flour for pasta, most/much of the vitamins and minerals are removed, and the carbohydrates (starches/sugars) are concentrated. It's not really equivalent to removing an organ from an animal. A closer, but not perfect analogy, would be removing those livers, then extracting only the oils/fats/lipids from them ... and then that liver oil would be more akin to a product like pasta or white flour.
I appreciate your discussion.
This is preliminary to new food pyramid style recommendations, which do have real effects on nutrition programs, including WIC, school lunches, policies concerning health, food security measures, and environmentalism. These are political discussions with interested parties in all sides and it is important to see how new definitions may be intentionally manipulated.
My point is the processed terms need to apply to the final thing you are eating to make any sense at all in comparing products across the grocery store, and also this article is not examining some contentious items, such as tofu, wheat gluten, and even (canned) beans, all of which are processed foods, which I guess I feel should be compared to alternatives in terms of the actual nutritional value of the final dish on your plate.