Americans get 55% of their calories from ultra-processed foods, CDC report says
More than half of Americans' calorie intake is from ultra-processed foods, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
You're viewing part of a thread.
With both mechanically separated meat and the fruit juice concentrate using a vacuum evaporator there should be no difference in nutrition.
The link to metabolic syndromes and novas class 4 is what I was complaining about because they made the classification overly broad the only people who can fully avoid it are people with extra means or people who but a much more concerted effort into their health and neither of which was controlled. We already know that rich people are generally healthier than poor people so showing that foods that are in general more expensive are “healthier” is just repeating our known values and muddying the waters where it says that simple syrup is a level 2-3 (I don’t remember which and am on mobile) yet throw some ginger into that syrup and now it’s a level 4
I think you're kind of missing the point of the classification. It's not supposed to be a perfect identifier of unhealthy foods, its supposed be more useful than stuff like "red meat consumption linked to colon cancer" (when actually the steak is broadly okay, but the stuff that's been ripped apart and reformed together with a bunch of additives and eaten multiple times per week is not).
The UPF classification is an attempt to group together all the different kinds of foods that are formulated by food scientists using ingredients you wouldn't have at home, often waste or byproducts chosen for their low cost, that's been iterated over to produce the most shelf stable product which their testing shows people eat the most of while keeping profit margins high. It is almost always very easy to eat quickly and therefore overeat, while being devoid of fibre and high in sugar/salt/fat.
On the topic of fruit juice, even when the ingredients list sounds fairly innocuous, fruit juice extracts are a great way to cram sugar into a product, so you can e.g. consume an entire apples worth of sugar in one bite with none of the fibre. Thats why they count as UPF.
I am seeing that point and that’s what I am disagreeing with. How is it more useful to have a list of a bunch of things, that some of which are bad rather than just talk about the parts that are bad? A lot of items are flagged as UPF with a negative connotation that are no worse or sometimes even better for you than the level 2-3 items but because of the overly broad classification they are flagged as bad.
Sure fruit juice is a way to cram a bunch of sugar into a product but so is refined white sugar and yet that’s only a level 2 along with lard.
Because it's too complicated. It would be too long of a list for people to remember and its too difficult to prove the harm of individual ingredients and they're probably almost all fine in moderation.
Look at where we are now with saturated fats: Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets, and meanwhile hordes of people who've read a pop science book or watched a YouTube video think they know better and can eat all the fat they want.
We've tried going against fat, we've tried putting the sugar, fat and calories and packaging, people know about calories in, calories out, and yet obesity never stops growing.
UPF is about the manufacturing process. The idea is that it isn't going to include the things that you make in your kitchen from whole and processed ingredients, but it does include the cheap easy to overeat stuff cooked up by food manufacturers.
Also I'm not aware of anyone who says you should eat no UPF whatsoever. It just shouldn't be a huge part of your diet.
Because it’s too complicated we should put out bad information instead?
We should flag known problems, a common thing you see in other countries is foods labeled with excess calories, excess sodium, and/or excess added sugar. Those would be a much better use of our time then an arbitrary overly broad system that falsely flags some food as unhealthy and unhealthy food as healthy
So the UK has exactly the kind of labelling you're talking about and they're one of the fattest countries in Europe. Guess what, they also eat one of the highest proportions of UPF.
What food are you actually talking about that gets falsely flagged as unhealthy?
I have been listing things for a while but anything with whey protein or any form of flavor extract. But as a whole there is no knowledge on which upfs are bad as they lump everything together
400 calories of cup noodles is counted as equal as a 400 calories of a protein shake
Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets
The reasons for this make for interesting reading, when you have the time.
Also I'm not aware of anyone who says you should eat no UPF whatsoever. It just shouldn't be a huge part of your diet.
Hello.
Look at where we are now with saturated fats: Every major health organisation in the world says they're linked to cardiovascular disease and should be limited in diets, and meanwhile hordes of people who've read a pop science book or watched a YouTube video think they know better and can eat all the fat they want.
This is actually incorrect, and I'm happy to make a new post about it if you want to have a discussion. Saturated fat, or animal fats, are very healthy and not causal with cardiovascular risk. What fats exist that aren't saturated? Industrial oils! The highly processed foods we have been discussing are exactly what's being pushed by the crusade against saturated fat
I'll add my voice to this too. You should eat no UPF whatsoever.
You do you, but I'm happy to enjoy an ice cream once in a while.
