Ultra Processed Foods

[dixonge]

To me, there's a difference between processing and adding numerous unnecessary ingredients.

Does crushing corn and changing the shape remove nutrients? If so, how much and is it even worth worrying about? I have nothing against corn, oil, and salt compared to the dozens of ingredients listed on such things as crackers, bread, pastries, etc.

I would think the main difference would be in how the body digests things. I mean, we are *omnivores* - we can survive in amazingly different climates and ecosystems for long periods of time. But we evolved on purely natural foods for a few hundred thousand years. Have our stomachs, intestines and gut flora/microbiome/bacteria evolved significantly in the last 10,000 years? Because the shift from hunter/gatherer to agrarian only happened then, and I'm not sure if evolution has given us enough protection to keep up with that pace of change.

 

[braumeister]

Reviving this old thread because of a rather startling statistic I just read.
Seems that toddlers in the UK get almost half their calories from ultra-processed foods, and it gets worse as they get older.
The study of 2,500 children by University College London found that toddlers (up to age 21 months) got 47% of their calories from UPFs, mostly flavored yogurts and whole grain breakfast cereals. That rises to 59% by age seven. Nearly 10% are obese by the time they start primary school.

I'm inclined to think that a similar study done in North America would have similar results.

 

[Qs Laptop]

Great, another definition of ultra processed food--"Hyper-palatable" and "high levels of added sugar and salt."

How about this? UPF or not?

Ingredients: Bananas, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Ascorbic Acid

 

[audreyh1]

You can’t just go by ingredients.

 

[Qs Laptop]

You can’t just go by ingredients.

This illustrates my contention that the definition of an UPF is a moving target.

The consensus common denominator (as near as I can tell) is if the product has ingredients you don't use at home and/or it contains chemicals.

One of the experts quoted in the article said foods with high levels of sugar and salt were UPFs. Well, those are ingredients we all use at home and they are not "chemicals."

 

[Music Lover]

One of the experts quoted in the article said foods with high levels of sugar and salt were UPFs. Well, those are ingredients we all use at home and they are not "chemicals."

I've learned over the last few years that many "experts" are not experts.

 

[Koolau]

I've learned over the last few years that many "experts" are not experts.

Not only that but "everybody has an agenda."

By the way. All additives to food and the foods themselves are made up of (wait for it) chemicals. Some are put together by humans and some are put together by nature. But they're all chemicals.

 

[Chuckanut]

I've learned over the last few years that many "experts" are not experts.

there’s a lot of bad science in the field of human health. Remember heart healthy sugar froot bombs?

 

[Patience]

Just trying to do a little better, a little cleaner than the day before.
Eat as close to the original source as possible, cook at home, buy local, food labels with as few ingredients as possible and words that can be pronounced.

Don't aim for perfect. Aim for better.

That's my mantra.

 

[rembrandt]

there’s a lot of bad science in the field of human health. Remember heart healthy sugar froot bombs?

 

[Koolau]

View attachment 52601

Heh, heh, my first impression of the picture was of Roger Sterling (played by John Slattery in MAD MEN.)

Mad Men (TV Series 2007–2015) ⭐ 8.7 | Drama

45m | TV-MA

www.imdb.com

I loved the story line about how to advertise cigarettes. Don Draper came up with "Don't worry about the health effects. Concentrate on brand loyalty - hey our tobacco is 'toasted'."

Returning you now...

 

[Golden Mean]

Great, another definition of ultra processed food--"Hyper-palatable" and "high levels of added sugar and salt."

How about this? UPF or not?

Ingredients: Bananas, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Ascorbic Acid

Bananas (Cavendish) are a man made highly modified fruit. They didn't exist in the human diet (or nature really) until about 200 years ago. They are mostly carbs/sugar, so to the human body they are aren't much different than a can of soda or a candy bar. While not strictly a UPF, to me they seem close in terms of nature and nutritional value.

 

[motley]

There's a good article in today's WSJ on the suspected dangers of ultra processed foods that make up 50% of our diet, more if you are a young person.

Note: If you have read the book Metabolical, this is old news.

https://www.wsj.com/health/wellness...dietary-guidelines-de00ccaa?mod=hp_lead_pos10

For those behind a paywall here are a few quotes:

Most ultra-processed foods have some engineering involved.

This illustrates my contention that the definition of an UPF is a moving target.

The consensus common denominator (as near as I can tell) is if the product has ingredients you don't use at home and/or it contains chemicals.

One of the experts quoted in the article said foods with high levels of sugar and salt were UPFs. Well, those are ingredients we all use at home and they are not "chemicals."

Well, all food "contains chemicals" because all food IS nothing but "chemicals." But yeah I think you lead into my point about definitions of things. I haven't read through the whole thread, but I can't put much stock in articles that casually fling terms around like "chemicals," "ultra processed foods," or "some engineering involved" as they are too vague to be meaningful.

I think it's pretty well established generally what's good or not for you in much more specific ways, not just as far as specific food or ingredients themselves, but amounts. Obvious examples are that too much sugar or salt are bad for you.

When I hear "ultra processed foods," I think mostly of frozen dinners like Marie Callender's etc, and most of those, yeah, are best eaten infrequently if at all, because they typically have very high amounts of salt, sugar, saturated fat, etc. But even these can vary a lot.

 

[GrayHare]

Until I see a scientific definition of UPF the term remains unhelpful to me. I doubt mashing foods together makes them unhealthy since our stomachs do just that. Adding too much salt might make food unhealthy in the same way too much of almost anything is not good. The only "processing" I can see with potential to make food unhealthy is cooking because heat destroys many of food's natural enzymes that assist with digestion and absorption. OTOH cooking also destroys harmful microbes, so on the balance cooking seems like a good thing. This makes me recall a Gary Larson cartoon in which caveman graffiti reads "Zog cooks his meat."

 

[Qs Laptop]

Great, another definition of ultra processed food--"Hyper-palatable" and "high levels of added sugar and salt."

How about this? UPF or not?

Ingredients: Bananas, Lemon Juice Concentrate, Ascorbic Acid

Bananas (Cavendish) are a man made highly modified fruit. They didn't exist in the human diet (or nature really) until about 200 years ago. They are mostly carbs/sugar, so to the human body they are aren't much different than a can of soda or a candy bar. While not strictly a UPF, to me they seem close in terms of nature and nutritional value.

Here's the "ultra processed" food we're talking about:

 

[motley]

Bananas (Cavendish) are a man made highly modified fruit. They didn't exist in the human diet (or nature really) until about 200 years ago.

Which means nothing, frankly. A lot of produce has been bred one way or another.

They are mostly carbs/sugar, so to the human body they are aren't much different than a can of soda or a candy bar. While not strictly a UPF, to me they seem close in terms of nature and nutritional value.

They are relatively high in sugar like most any other fruit. That in itself isn't a big deal unless you're eating a lot of them. They also have modest amounts of potassium, fiber, and Vitamin C, so comparing them to a soda or candy bar just because both are high in sugar (and most sodas and candy bars have way more btw) is dicey to say the least.

 

[motley]

Here's the "ultra processed" food we're talking about:

View attachment 52603

But....it's "natural!"

 

[Koolau]

Good old "mother's milk" is (wait for it) about 7% sugar, 3% to 5% fat and less than 1% protein - with some essential minerals thrown in. HIGHLY processed by dear old mom, God bless her!

 

[Golden Mean]

Here's the "ultra processed" food we're talking about:

View attachment 52603

Yeap, poor food for a baby (or anyone really).

 

[Qs Laptop]

Yeap, poor food for a baby (or anyone really).

Pureed bananas with some vitamin C added is poor food for a baby?

Really?

 

[Golden Mean]

Pureed bananas with some vitamin C added is poor food for a baby?

Really?

Yes. It's nothing but sugar, which humans don't need and is not healthy, fiber which is not essential and humans don't metabolize and trace nutrients that can be had from foods that have: essential (required to be ingested) proteins, essential fats (ie not plant fats), essential fatty acids (not in plants). Artificially added vitamins are a poor replacement for nutrients from real human food.

 

[Koolau]

Yes. It's nothing but sugar, which humans don't need and is not healthy, fiber which is not essential and humans don't metabolize and trace nutrients that can be had from foods that have: essential (required to be ingested) proteins, essential fats (ie not plant fats), essential fatty acids (not in plants). Artificially added vitamins are a poor replacement for nutrients from real human food.

In post #93 above I pointed out that mother's milk is basically sugar water with some fat thrown in. Baby humans aren't yet ready to turn "good" food into what they need to survive on.

Regarding vitamins: If "man made" vitamins are chemically equivalent to those made by nature, I don't see any significant issue, but YMMV.

 

[6miths]

Perhaps you are joking but I'm afraid that if someone truly thinks that breast milk is basically sugar water with 'some fat thrown in' then there isn't much of a conversation to be had. One of the great mistakes that was made many years ago was to think that everything can be equated to it's chemical formula. A calorie is a calorie and all. Clearly, this has not served us well. Breast milk is 'good' food. The absolute best for newborns in fact.

 

[aja8888]

Good old "mother's milk" is (wait for it) about 7% sugar, 3% to 5% fat and less than 1% protein - with some essential minerals thrown in. HIGHLY processed by dear old mom, God bless he

Perhaps you are joking but I'm afraid that if someone truly thinks that breast milk is basically sugar water with 'some fat thrown in' then there isn't much of a conversation to be had. One of the great mistakes that was made many years ago was to think that everything can be equated to it's chemical formula. A calorie is a calorie and all. Clearly, this has not served us well. Breast milk is 'good' food. The absolute best for newborns in fact.

Breast milk was around before commercial baby food too. I may be wrong here, but doesn't breast milk from the Mom help with building the newborn's immune system?

 

[MarieIG]

Breast milk was around before commercial baby food too. I may be wrong here, but doesn't breast milk from the Mom help with building the newborn's immune system?

Yes it does.