“Highly processed” is so unclear

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

I’m not, though! I’m often wrong and no great thinker. But I’m not stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

I’m not, though! I’m often wrong and no great thinker. But I’m not stupid.

I think you need to read a lot more on this topic if you’re actually sincere about learning about it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

Well, that’s not completely true. I mean, there’s a whole internet you can use instead of DCUM but it seems you want to argue more than to actually find information

https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

[Anonymous]

OP is perhaps being somewhat intentionally obtuse BUT I think her questions and arguments are useful because the whole highly-processed issue is yet another thing that people obsess over instead of just taking a couple useful rules of thumb and moving on.

I think we all know that ideally we should eat more foods in the form in which they were grown, right? Eat more vegetables and fruit, more while grains, and some lean meat. Shop from the perimeter of the store mostly. Try not to add too much sugar, salt, and oil to your food but some to make it taste better is fine. Shelf stable foods are convenient and okay in smaller amounts, but try to eat fresh foods that don't have preservatives when you can.

What we teach our kids is that it's okay to eat thing just because they are tasty or convenient sometimes, but we should try every day to get the highly nutritious foods into our diet. So I'll stick some chips or pretzels in their lunches by I will talk about why it's important to eat their yogurt and carrots and granola first, and they mostly do, rendering the chips an okay indulgence. But if all they are were chips and pretzels and crackers, that wouldn't be a healthy diet.

So just being aware which foods are heavily processed and thus lacking in nutrients (and/or high in additives) can just help make good food choices more often than not.

When people get obsessive about any of this or judge others for what they eat, it gets tedious and annoying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes

Highly processed is about as meaningful as free range. Is a chicken with access to 1 sq. ft. of outdoor space free range? Yes, it is, by USDA definitions. Is milk highly processed? It's taken from the cow, mixed with other cows' milk, milk fat adjusted, pasteurized, fortified with vitaman D, bottled, and shipped. That doesn't seem like minimal processing. But people accept that processing because it is what they are used to.

Now, we have ultra processed as well. What's the difference between highly and ultra processed? There's no definitions for any of this and the labels are applied whenever someone needs to win an argument.

I am sorry to be such a shallow thinker. Please enlighten me with your critical thoughts.

Well, that’s not completely true. I mean, there’s a whole internet you can use instead of DCUM but it seems you want to argue more than to actually find information

https://ecuphysicians.ecu.edu/wp-content/pv-uploads/sites/78/2021/07/NOVA-Classification-Reference-Sheet.pdf

So that's an international or US standard?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you seriously confused if plain oats and Cheerios are both the same amount of “highly processed”?

So what is the difference, health wise? This is an honest question. Cheerios are bad for me because the oats were ground up? Why?

Cheerios have added sugar and vitamins and less fiber. It’s right there, on the label.

Yeah but I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand.

I guess maybe there’s less fiber. I haven’t looked. It says “whole grain” which I thought meant the same product as my steel cut oats are just ground up.

Ok we get it. You’re being deliberately obtuse, as evidenced by the “I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand.”

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Not all processed foods are equal(ly bad).

Soda and sparkling water are both highly processed.

Cottage cheese and velveeta are both processed.

Peanut butter is processed, but natural peanut butter and regular JIF and the swirl pb with nutella or reeses cups are different.

Wheat bread and powdered sugar donuts are both processed.

You run into trouble when you are regularly eating foods that have added chemicals and salts and sugars in them that are designed in a lab to make people eat more of them, and to pack more calories and fats into each bite. You don't really run into trouble eating yogurts or pasta sauces or breads that contain a few preservatives and stabilizers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not all processed foods are equal(ly bad).

Soda and sparkling water are both highly processed.

Cottage cheese and velveeta are both processed.

Peanut butter is processed, but natural peanut butter and regular JIF and the swirl pb with nutella or reeses cups are different.

Wheat bread and powdered sugar donuts are both processed.

You run into trouble when you are regularly eating foods that have added chemicals and salts and sugars in them that are designed in a lab to make people eat more of them, and to pack more calories and fats into each bite. You don't really run into trouble eating yogurts or pasta sauces or breads that contain a few preservatives and stabilizers.

Velveeta is highly processed by your definition.

ingredients: milk, canola oil, whey, milk protein concentrate, milkfat, whey protein concentrate, sodium phosphate, and 2% or less of salt, calcium phosphate, lactic acid, sorbic acid, sodium citrate, sodium alginate, enzymes, apocarotenal, annatto

Sparkling water has far less processing and ingredients.

I assume you don't like sparkling water and like Velveeta?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all processed foods are equal(ly bad).

Soda and sparkling water are both highly processed.

Cottage cheese and velveeta are both processed.

Peanut butter is processed, but natural peanut butter and regular JIF and the swirl pb with nutella or reeses cups are different.

Wheat bread and powdered sugar donuts are both processed.

You run into trouble when you are regularly eating foods that have added chemicals and salts and sugars in them that are designed in a lab to make people eat more of them, and to pack more calories and fats into each bite. You don't really run into trouble eating yogurts or pasta sauces or breads that contain a few preservatives and stabilizers.

Velveeta is highly processed by your definition.

ingredients: milk, canola oil, whey, milk protein concentrate, milkfat, whey protein concentrate, sodium phosphate, and 2% or less of salt, calcium phosphate, lactic acid, sorbic acid, sodium citrate, sodium alginate, enzymes, apocarotenal, annatto

Sparkling water has far less processing and ingredients.

I assume you don't like sparkling water and like Velveeta?

Spread Velveeta all over your Doritos and marshmallows, OP. When you die early no one will miss you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not all processed foods are equal(ly bad).

Soda and sparkling water are both highly processed.

Cottage cheese and velveeta are both processed.

Peanut butter is processed, but natural peanut butter and regular JIF and the swirl pb with nutella or reeses cups are different.

Wheat bread and powdered sugar donuts are both processed.

You run into trouble when you are regularly eating foods that have added chemicals and salts and sugars in them that are designed in a lab to make people eat more of them, and to pack more calories and fats into each bite. You don't really run into trouble eating yogurts or pasta sauces or breads that contain a few preservatives and stabilizers.

Velveeta is highly processed by your definition.

ingredients: milk, canola oil, whey, milk protein concentrate, milkfat, whey protein concentrate, sodium phosphate, and 2% or less of salt, calcium phosphate, lactic acid, sorbic acid, sodium citrate, sodium alginate, enzymes, apocarotenal, annatto

Sparkling water has far less processing and ingredients.

I assume you don't like sparkling water and like Velveeta?

Spread Velveeta all over your Doritos and marshmallows, OP. When you die early no one will miss you.

Testy aren't we? I eat Fritos; three ingredients. Humans can't digest raw corn. It needs processing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I wouldn't overthink it. A good rule of thumb for when people are talking about, or rather complaining about, highly processed is the more ingredients it has that sound like science lab chemical compounds instead of food, the more processed it is. A good example would be reading the ingredient labels on ice creams. The more premium the ice cream, the fewer ingredients it has and few of those, if any, will sound like a science lab chemical. Even Haagen Dazs vanilla ice cream only has five ingredients, all easily recognizable: cream, skim milk, cane sugar, egg yolks, and vanilla extract. The cheaper ice creams will have more ingredients with weird names that are used as stabilizers and fillers and flavor substitutes. That's highly processed.

I also wouldn't call cheerios highly processed in this vein of thinking either. Fruit Loops, on the other hand... and you can probably understand why.

I guess I just can’t believe that all stabilizers and emulsifiers are bad because the names are long and they’re industrial products. But all the “whole” foods are good because they’re closer to the plant or the animal? I don’t think the plants and animals are looking out for us, and I don’t think the food labs are out to get us. That doesn’t make sense to me. It feels like you’d need to go one by one.

Plants and animals aren't intentionally making food for humans. No one is saying that the plants and animals are making any intentional decisions that count as "looking out for people".

But humans evolved in an environment where they were eating plants and animals. They have adapted to thrive on them. Is it possible that food labs have or will develop methods and ingredients that humans can thrive on too? Yes, of course, but the evidence shows that some of the methods and ingredients are less than ideal for human bodies, and that we don't know exactly which ones. So, choosing the food that is closer to it's whole form, or where changes have been made using methods that have a long established history like cooking, or grinding grain, or fermenting, or culturing yogurt or cheese, or freezing, rather than newer methods, is generally the safer choice. Are there times when exceptions make sense? Sure. For example, sometimes time needs to be prioritized and processed versions are more convenient. Sometimes, a processed food might have nutritional benefits as well as risks, and the benefits might outweigh the risks. It doesn't have to be an absolute rule. But if you're on the fence between two foods, and other things are equal then choosing the one that's less processed makes sense.

Actually if anything, plants and animals would make themselves harder to eat right? Except for the ones we created. It probably doesn't get more genetically modified/changed to be more palatable than a chicken.

I'm also not sold on a method with a long established history being better. I can raise a cow in my organic backyard, but it's still bad for my health to make a wood fire and char the meat, right?

I know that most people here think I'm just being cantankerous. But I really think this is a crap concept. I think it's lazy. I think people made up a big category with a lot of facets (sugar, chemicals, "processing," bad guys with factories) because it felt morally righteous and then did studies that can't possibly tease apart all the moving pieces. To me this feels on the level with like, was banning pork for religious reasons actually good for public health. Maybe, but that doesn't mean it was fact-based.

Not cantankerous, just stupid.

I’m not, though! I’m often wrong and no great thinker. But I’m not stupid.

I think you need to read a lot more on this topic if you’re actually sincere about learning about it.

I actually did go learn about it and it was helpful.

The NOVA classification for highly processed foods comes from a researcher in Brazil 10-15 years ago who was observing rising rates of obesity among lower income Brazilians coinciding with a shift in diet away from rice and beans and to include a lot more processed food. I have no doubt it was a good faith effort that has advanced our understanding. But it’s clearly tied up in a lot of cultural context and it was the starting point of research, not the conclusion.

There are also classifications like “highly palatable” food that have quantitative definitions regarding the proportion of calories and salt content.

I stand by my assertion that highly processed isn’t helpful for me as a regular person because it’s not clear, and because it doesn’t differentiate between processes and additives that are likely very different in terms of their health impact. And I think when people start talking about evolution, we’ve really devolved from fact-based inquiry.