Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

Perhaps this OP is the same person who doesn’t understand why kids enjoy traveling to sports tournaments. Intellectual giant.

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.

😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

"Yogurt" is a hard case because some yogurts are fine but virtually all of the flavored yogurts have lots of added sugar and some have other additives.

Here's a legit link: https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/processed-foods-what-you-should-know

American breakfast cereals are becoming more unhealthy: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/21/health/cereal-nutrients-unhealthy.html?searchResultPosition=3

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. Anything you can't really do by hand is highly processed.

I can't harvest 400 acres of wheat by hand.

Put your children to work during harvest. Or just continue feeding them over processed garbage.

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.

Actually there are food chemists whose literal job is to make food less resistible. So yes, the food labs are “out to get you” to eat more, spend more. They don’t give two shits about your health unless it will benefit their bottom line somehow.

Well if that is the standard, isn’t every chef including the ones in our families “out to get us?” I mean for goodness sake. Making food more palatable is the whole concept. The caveman over the fire is “out to get us” by this standard.

You’re not arguing in good faith so I’m out.

Your argument is hyperbolic and unconsidered.

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.

+1.

The New Yorker had a good article recently on this. There’s no scientific or regulatory definition of “high processed” or “ultra processed.” (Just like there isn’t of “organic” either!) It is kind of a buzz word but there is some truth to trying to avoid foods that are “ultra” processed, as they tend to be worse for us.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are you seriously confused if plain oats and Cheerios are both the same amount of “highly processed”?[/quote]

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

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

[b]Yeah but I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand. [/b]

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. [/quote]

So…don’t?[/quote]

Sugar is highly processed on its own, so all you’re doing is adding highly processed to highly processed. Have you ever seen a sugar cane? I’m so confused about what it is you’re trying to prove or want.

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.

Actually there are food chemists whose literal job is to make food less resistible. So yes, the food labs are “out to get you” to eat more, spend more. They don’t give two shits about your health unless it will benefit their bottom line somehow.

Well if that is the standard, isn’t every chef including the ones in our families “out to get us?” I mean for goodness sake. Making food more palatable is the whole concept. The caveman over the fire is “out to get us” by this standard.

You’re not arguing in good faith so I’m out.

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.

This. Honestly I’ve just gotten to the point where I look for fewer ingredients and ones I know. So the potato chips that are potato, oil, salt or the pistachios that are pistachio and salt win out as snacks over Oreos, cheaper ice creams, or Doritos all of which have ingredients that appear to have science lab names.

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.

Actually there are food chemists whose literal job is to make food less resistible. So yes, the food labs are “out to get you” to eat more, spend more. They don’t give two shits about your health unless it will benefit their bottom line somehow.

Well if that is the standard, isn’t every chef including the ones in our families “out to get us?” I mean for goodness sake. Making food more palatable is the whole concept. The caveman over the fire is “out to get us” by this standard.

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.

Actually there are food chemists whose literal job is to make food less resistible. So yes, the food labs are “out to get you” to eat more, spend more. They don’t give two shits about your health unless it will benefit their bottom line somehow.

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.

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Are you seriously confused if plain oats and Cheerios are both the same amount of “highly processed”?[/quote]

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

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

[b]Yeah but I can add sugar to oatmeal by hand. [/b]

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. [/quote]

So…don’t?