Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

There is “standard” unless there are regulations.

I can see from your further lists that you’re bothered this was a from a Brazilian study, but can’t seem to be able to extrapolate into your own life. I look at the actually information on the slides and I don’t see anything that’s culturally biased.


Can you imagine how hard it is to be a female POC anywhere and thinking pharmaceutical dosages apply to you? This is such an odd thing to troll about. For lat least 20 years, people have been told to just shop the outside of the grocery store in order to encounter the least amount of processed foods. It’s not a perfect strategy, but it still seems to apply so many years later.

And the fact that you’re blah blazing about data shows you’re again being obtuse, argumentative and trolling and not a “Normal person” like you’re trying to pretend to be. Normal
People can figure out the difference in processing, but have many life choices to make that may override the processing component with regards to health and diet. This includes having to choose what is locally and readily available to you from a shopping and preparing standpoint.

And dragging in the palatable
Thing is also a straw man. Ultra processed foods are designed to be ultra palatable. That’s easy when you have science on your side.

I’m not sure your actual point in this, but it’s annoying. Normal people can easily tell what’s processed or not, but that doesn’t mean that’s always an accessible product for them. It’s not that people can’t tell, it’s that things are set up to make the one that makes money for corporations cheaper, easier, and more delicious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a progression...

100% oats to Cheerios to Fruit Loops

Strawberries to Jam to Fruit Snacks.

Totally unprocessed is great but some jam is also fine. Fruit Snacks? well my kids only got them on long car trips.

I once read an article that talked about how no one has a recipe for Doritos. They are not a real food that people make. These are the ones to really avoid.

That doesn't make sense. A recipe is a list of ingredients and instructions. The consistent taste and appearance means some recipe is being followed. It's a trade secret though so no one is going to publish it.

You must not actually cook often.when using real ingredients in small scale, there are always variations. Large scale manufacturing science ensures that everything looks and tastes the same, every time.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a progression...

100% oats to Cheerios to Fruit Loops

Strawberries to Jam to Fruit Snacks.

Totally unprocessed is great but some jam is also fine. Fruit Snacks? well my kids only got them on long car trips.

I once read an article that talked about how no one has a recipe for Doritos. They are not a real food that people make. These are the ones to really avoid.

That doesn't make sense. A recipe is a list of ingredients and instructions. The consistent taste and appearance means some recipe is being followed. It's a trade secret though so no one is going to publish it.

Anonymous wrote:

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 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.

Anonymous wrote:I think it is a progression...

100% oats to Cheerios to Fruit Loops

Strawberries to Jam to Fruit Snacks.

Totally unprocessed is great but some jam is also fine. Fruit Snacks? well my kids only got them on long car trips.

I once read an article that talked about how no one has a recipe for Doritos. They are not a real food that people make. These are the ones to really avoid.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really frustrated by the advocacy around “highly processed” foods.

This morning I looked in my kitchen and realized I have three forms of shelf stable oats. Steel cut, rolled, and Cheerios.

Are they nutritionally different? I have no idea! I mean the Cheerios are just ground up into dust and mushed into Os, right? Is that really worse than rolling them flat? How do I tell?

I don’t understand at all why yogurt is not “highly processed.” It seems to me like highly processed milk?

If I make a fake Frappuccino with xanthan gum in my kitchen, is it highly processed now?

I want to give my family healthy foods, but this “highly processed” thing is ridiculously opaque and hard to follow. This feels as helpful as in fifth grade when I learned I should eat 11 bowls of cereal a day, lol.

Most foods we eat are processed.

Bread, pasta, cheese, hummus, etc. all processed foods. Even milk is processed— it isn’t naturally pasteurized or homogenized, you know. Beer and wine are processed foods etc etc etc

All foods are processed unless you go to the field and eat.

This discussion is where is the line between processed, highly processed, and ultra processed.

Those adjectives mean zilch.

Do you mean packaged? Preservatives added? Food dyes?

Be more specific.

Because people do rail against “processed foods” all the time and they sound stupid when they do.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really frustrated by the advocacy around “highly processed” foods.

This morning I looked in my kitchen and realized I have three forms of shelf stable oats. Steel cut, rolled, and Cheerios.

Are they nutritionally different? I have no idea! I mean the Cheerios are just ground up into dust and mushed into Os, right? Is that really worse than rolling them flat? How do I tell?

I don’t understand at all why yogurt is not “highly processed.” It seems to me like highly processed milk?

If I make a fake Frappuccino with xanthan gum in my kitchen, is it highly processed now?

I want to give my family healthy foods, but this “highly processed” thing is ridiculously opaque and hard to follow. This feels as helpful as in fifth grade when I learned I should eat 11 bowls of cereal a day, lol.

Most foods we eat are processed.

Bread, pasta, cheese, hummus, etc. all processed foods. Even milk is processed— it isn’t naturally pasteurized or homogenized, you know. Beer and wine are processed foods etc etc etc

All foods are processed unless you go to the field and eat.

This discussion is where is the line between processed, highly processed, and ultra processed.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am really frustrated by the advocacy around “highly processed” foods.

This morning I looked in my kitchen and realized I have three forms of shelf stable oats. Steel cut, rolled, and Cheerios.

Are they nutritionally different? I have no idea! I mean the Cheerios are just ground up into dust and mushed into Os, right? Is that really worse than rolling them flat? How do I tell?

I don’t understand at all why yogurt is not “highly processed.” It seems to me like highly processed milk?

If I make a fake Frappuccino with xanthan gum in my kitchen, is it highly processed now?

I want to give my family healthy foods, but this “highly processed” thing is ridiculously opaque and hard to follow. This feels as helpful as in fifth grade when I learned I should eat 11 bowls of cereal a day, lol.

Most foods we eat are processed.

Bread, pasta, cheese, hummus, etc. all processed foods. Even milk is processed— it isn’t naturally pasteurized or homogenized, you know. Beer and wine are processed foods etc etc etc

Anonymous wrote:I am really frustrated by the advocacy around “highly processed” foods.

This morning I looked in my kitchen and realized I have three forms of shelf stable oats. Steel cut, rolled, and Cheerios.

Are they nutritionally different? I have no idea! I mean the Cheerios are just ground up into dust and mushed into Os, right? Is that really worse than rolling them flat? How do I tell?

I don’t understand at all why yogurt is not “highly processed.” It seems to me like highly processed milk?

If I make a fake Frappuccino with xanthan gum in my kitchen, is it highly processed now?

I want to give my family healthy foods, but this “highly processed” thing is ridiculously opaque and hard to follow. This feels as helpful as in fifth grade when I learned I should eat 11 bowls of cereal a day, lol.

Anonymous wrote:I am really frustrated by the advocacy around “highly processed” foods.

This morning I looked in my kitchen and realized I have three forms of shelf stable oats. Steel cut, rolled, and Cheerios.

Are they nutritionally different? I have no idea! I mean the Cheerios are just ground up into dust and mushed into Os, right? Is that really worse than rolling them flat? How do I tell?

I don’t understand at all why yogurt is not “highly processed.” It seems to me like highly processed milk?

If I make a fake Frappuccino with xanthan gum in my kitchen, is it highly processed now?

I want to give my family healthy foods, but this “highly processed” thing is ridiculously opaque and hard to follow. This feels as helpful as in fifth grade when I learned I should eat 11 bowls of cereal a day, lol.

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.

So just eat whatever crap you want, dummy. No one is stopping you.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:😱 Americans are really failing at critical thinking

+10000 Yikes