U.S. Kids Are Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories from 'Ultra-Processed' Foods(gizmodo.com)
gizmodo.com
U.S. Kids Are Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories from 'Ultra-Processed' Foods
https://gizmodo.com/u-s-kids-are-now-getting-nearly-70-of-their-calories-1847457103
179 comments
Another angle is that junk tends to be more caloric, so even if kids actually did eat their fruits and veggies, even say with 21 of those meals, they'd still only make up a comparatively small portion of all the calories in their diets. But given that they're full of other nutrients (and esp. fiber) I don't think that's so bad.
yeah a bag of cheezits is ~200 calories. An orange is ~50 calories.
So if you ate one of each youd have 80% of calories from ultraprocessed food.
So if you ate one of each youd have 80% of calories from ultraprocessed food.
My wife likes to joke no one ever got fat eating carrots and celery. The calorie dense foods kids enjoy tend to have a lot of refined sugar. Heck, that goes for most adults too. I can eat a bag of carrots and a bag of potato chips and I'll have gotten more than 70% of my calories from the chips.
Breakfast is definitely a good place to start. We eat eggs for breakfast nearly every day in my home. It’s not as simple as cereal but scrambling a batch of eggs is not too bad.
Not surprisingly the taste of eggs depends on the chickens' meal. For example, the protein demand is often fulfilled by fish powder or soy flour.
Pack him a lunch instead of letting him eat cafeteria food. A ham sandwich is a lot healthier than a slice of school pizza.
I'd be surprised if commercially made ham didn't fall into the ultraprocessed category!
Saying this as someone who's curing his first ham in the fridge rn :-)
Saying this as someone who's curing his first ham in the fridge rn :-)
I run a chicken farm so I'm biased but for my family I grow out a bunch of birds to be bigger than typical (9-10lbs). Roast one of these and it sits in the fridge providing sandwich meat for a week, plus the occasional plate of hot sauce and cold meat. Super delicious and healthful.
My parents did this for most of my childhood. They weren't farmers, so the meat came from the supermarket – but larger cuts of meat (or whole chickens) are much cheaper than buying jointed, pre-cut or cooked meat anyway.
The bread (made from processed wheat, probably bleached flour, and containing bread conditioners, preservatives) would almost surely fall into the ultra processed category, unless homemade from minimally processed whole wheat flour. The ham and cheese could as well, unless they were made with fairly traditional processes (and probably more expensive than what the typical person is buying at walmart, target, etc). They'd all probably be considered processed foods, at minimum.
This is perhaps a good indicator that “processed versus unprocessed” isn’t a great signal for whether a particular fooditem should be part of one’s diet.
Using your cereal example: I grew up eating grape nuts[1], which are probably in the ultraprocessed category. But it’s just barley flour and I ate it like most people eat muesli (with fresh fruit) — what should that count as?
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape-Nuts
Using your cereal example: I grew up eating grape nuts[1], which are probably in the ultraprocessed category. But it’s just barley flour and I ate it like most people eat muesli (with fresh fruit) — what should that count as?
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grape-Nuts
Grape nuts count as "processed" because of the added salt and vitamins
Right, which begs the question: if processing includes ostensibly beneficial (or at least neutral) processing as well, how important is the 70% in TFA? My intuition is that it’s still pretty important (since most people are probably eating Frosted Flakes, not grape nuts, for breakfast), but that we need a better way to talk about healthy eating habits and proportions than “most of our foodstuffs are processed.”
"Processed" and "ultra-processed" are two different things: the latter goes beyond the former.
Grape Nuts might could as processed, and Frosted Flakes as ultra-processed.
Grape Nuts might could as processed, and Frosted Flakes as ultra-processed.
Good healthy food costs more money. We've done a great job about putting the most amount of calories and flavor into cheaper than dirt forms. I think a breakfast of oats and lunch of a tuna sandwich would work. Most lunch meats are probably considered Ultra-Processed.
I think the only ways out of this are as you said fixing everything yourself. Most things you can eat raw that isn't packaged would probably be safe. Then cooking your own meats.
But pasta is considered Ultra-Processed, packaged bread is ultra-processed. I thought those were some of the most basic foods with the smallest number of ingredients. Maybe home made versions as you suggested are not considered Ultra-Processed.
I think the only ways out of this are as you said fixing everything yourself. Most things you can eat raw that isn't packaged would probably be safe. Then cooking your own meats.
But pasta is considered Ultra-Processed, packaged bread is ultra-processed. I thought those were some of the most basic foods with the smallest number of ingredients. Maybe home made versions as you suggested are not considered Ultra-Processed.
They're made with ingredients that are processed. The flour that goes into the bread and pasta has been stripped of all fibre and micro nutrients, then some vitamins might be added back if you're lucky.
The bread is full of refined sugar.
You need to look at the ingredients recursively. If you eat wholegrain everything you're half way there.
Same applies to rice etc.
The reason they remove the good stuff is so it doesn't spoil, if you remove the nutrients it's less appetising to microbes and pests.
The bread is full of refined sugar.
You need to look at the ingredients recursively. If you eat wholegrain everything you're half way there.
Same applies to rice etc.
The reason they remove the good stuff is so it doesn't spoil, if you remove the nutrients it's less appetising to microbes and pests.
Answering my own question:
Industrial breads made only from wheat flour, water, salt and yeast are processed foods, while those whose lists of ingredients also include emulsifiers or colours are ultra-processed. Plain steel-cut oats, plain corn flakes and shredded wheat are minimally processed foods, while the same foods are processed when they also contain sugar, and ultra-processed if they also contain flavours or colours.
They are small (flour, yeast, salt, etc) number of ingredients if you shop for bread at specialty, expensive, organic shops or make it yourself.
At the supermarkets 99% of the US uses, even the high end bread is 15-25 ingredients at eyeball. The ingredient list for one of the most expensive packaged whole wheat bread that would show up at a regular non-Whole Foods-style place: Whole Wheat Flour , Water , Sugar , Wheat Gluten , Yeast , Wheat Bran , Salt , Soybean Oil , Raisin Juice Concentrate , Enrichment ( Calcium Sulfate , Vitamin E Acetate , Vitamin A Palmitate , Vitamin D3 ) , Calcium Propionate ( Preservative ) , Datem , Grain Vinegar , Monoglycerides , Soy Lecithin , Citric Acid , Potassium Iodate .
At the supermarkets 99% of the US uses, even the high end bread is 15-25 ingredients at eyeball. The ingredient list for one of the most expensive packaged whole wheat bread that would show up at a regular non-Whole Foods-style place: Whole Wheat Flour , Water , Sugar , Wheat Gluten , Yeast , Wheat Bran , Salt , Soybean Oil , Raisin Juice Concentrate , Enrichment ( Calcium Sulfate , Vitamin E Acetate , Vitamin A Palmitate , Vitamin D3 ) , Calcium Propionate ( Preservative ) , Datem , Grain Vinegar , Monoglycerides , Soy Lecithin , Citric Acid , Potassium Iodate .
This is one of the more expensive brands: https://www.kroger.com/p/nature-s-own-100-whole-wheat-sliced...
Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Yeast, Brown Sugar, Wheat Gluten, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Salt, Monoglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid, Soybean Oil, Vinegar, Cultured Wheat Flour, Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin
But Kroger's own bargain brand does indeed contain more ingredients: https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-wheat-bread/0001111008450
Whole Wheat Flour, Water, Yeast, Brown Sugar, Wheat Gluten, Contains 2% or Less of Each of the Following: Salt, Monoglycerides, Enzymes, Ascorbic Acid, Soybean Oil, Vinegar, Cultured Wheat Flour, Monocalcium Phosphate, Soy Lecithin
But Kroger's own bargain brand does indeed contain more ingredients: https://www.kroger.com/p/kroger-wheat-bread/0001111008450
Dont feed him processed food for breakfast and pack him lunch.
This is one of those things that’s easy to say but way harder for parents to actually do. You’re suggesting someone make time to prepare not one, but two homemade meals as they’re trying to get their kid (and probably themselves) out the door in the morning.
Kids learn quickly which foods have the most sugar and get stuck on them. I tried to prevent ours from ever tasting junk until they had broader palettes, but the moment grandparents have the kids alone or SO has a bad day... it's over.
Overnight oats take seconds to prepare.
??? How? I'm looking at a good 15 minutes, almost all hands-on time, from the moment I decide to go make overnight oats, using either of what I'm pretty sure are normal methods (crock pot, boil-briefly-and-leave-covered stovetop). That's assuming I don't discover that something I need is dirty.
I'm not saying that's a ton of time, but seconds?
Quick oat packets (awful stuff, full of sugar unless you get really expensive ones, cutting it 50/50 with rolled or plain quick oats helps a little and also makes up for the fact that one packet isn't, realistically, an entire serving) aren't even seconds. Talking maybe 2-3 minutes hands-on to lay out a bowl for each kid, rip and pour the packets, set the electric kettle going, then pour some on each when it boils (microwaving it with cool water is even slower once you're past a single serving—kettle saves time)
I'm not saying that's a ton of time, but seconds?
Quick oat packets (awful stuff, full of sugar unless you get really expensive ones, cutting it 50/50 with rolled or plain quick oats helps a little and also makes up for the fact that one packet isn't, realistically, an entire serving) aren't even seconds. Talking maybe 2-3 minutes hands-on to lay out a bowl for each kid, rip and pour the packets, set the electric kettle going, then pour some on each when it boils (microwaving it with cool water is even slower once you're past a single serving—kettle saves time)
> from the moment I decide to go make overnight oats, using either of what I'm pretty sure are normal methods (crock pot, boil-briefly-and-leave-covered stovetop).
This sounds like it's conflating porridge with overnight oats. All you have to do to prep overnight oats is soak them in liquid (and maybe rinse off excess starch). I throw the lot in the fridge at night with chia seeds, consume it in the morning with berries and yogurt.
This sounds like it's conflating porridge with overnight oats. All you have to do to prep overnight oats is soak them in liquid (and maybe rinse off excess starch). I throw the lot in the fridge at night with chia seeds, consume it in the morning with berries and yogurt.
With the finely rolled oats which seem to be the most common ones available in Denmark, I'm even lazier:
1. Put about 1-2dL of finely rolled oats into a fairly wide bowl
2. Dribble over "enough" cold water
3. Add yoghurt, berries, chopped fruit, coconut flakes or whatever
1. Put about 1-2dL of finely rolled oats into a fairly wide bowl
2. Dribble over "enough" cold water
3. Add yoghurt, berries, chopped fruit, coconut flakes or whatever
I guess my mistake is that I use steel-cut oats when I do overnight oats. AFAIK without boiling they'll still be pretty tough in the morning (else why do so many recipes call for boiling or long-term heating in the crock pot?)
It seems I didn't know what steel-cut oats were. I've looked it up, we apparently call that coarse oatmeal in Britain, and it's not stocked by the largest supermarkets — only health food shops.
Coarse/thick-rolled oats should be fine soaked overnight, or fine/thin-rolled oats for the soak-in-one-minute-in-the-morning way. Both grades are easily available in the UK. I would tend to use the thin ones for breakfast, and the coarse ones for making things like flapjack (similar to a granola bar).
Coarse/thick-rolled oats should be fine soaked overnight, or fine/thin-rolled oats for the soak-in-one-minute-in-the-morning way. Both grades are easily available in the UK. I would tend to use the thin ones for breakfast, and the coarse ones for making things like flapjack (similar to a granola bar).
Ah, yes. They have to be rolled oats for a soak to be sufficient. Soaking steel cut might reduce the necessary boiling time but they still have to simmer quite awhile.
My approach to cooking steel-cut oats overnight which takes about one minute in the evening and one minute in the morning:
1. Put oats and water in rice cooker shortly before going to bed. Turn on rice cooker. 2. Remove perfectly cooked oats in the morning and add desired seasonings.
Since I don't have a dishwasher, washing the bowl I ate out of is the most time-consuming step other than actually eating, and when I need to eat breakfast immediately in the morning to leave ASAP I can be sitting down eating under 5 minutes after my alarm goes off.
1. Put oats and water in rice cooker shortly before going to bed. Turn on rice cooker. 2. Remove perfectly cooked oats in the morning and add desired seasonings.
Since I don't have a dishwasher, washing the bowl I ate out of is the most time-consuming step other than actually eating, and when I need to eat breakfast immediately in the morning to leave ASAP I can be sitting down eating under 5 minutes after my alarm goes off.
For stuff like breakfast it just takes some practice getting the timing right for multitasking. Making eggs and toast is like a full sixty seconds of actual hands on time. You just space it out between heating the pan, cracking the egg and later flipping it onto a plate, and waiting for the toast, and you can totally get other things done in those gaps. Stuff like lunches you can prep in advance, there are tons of recipes these days for quick easy bulk cheap good food.
Does cereal count as "ultra-processed"? Things like Cheerios don't seem much more processed than bread from what I can tell. Also honey-roasted peanuts?
My understanding of ultra-processed would be things more like candy, cheetos, pringles, oreos, soda, etc.
My understanding of ultra-processed would be things more like candy, cheetos, pringles, oreos, soda, etc.
Check the nutrition facts on honey roasted peanuts. I was shocked at how many carbs a serving includes. Now I just eat dry roasted peanuts, and not too many since they too have plenty of carbs.
It's hard to find a simple rule that isn't subverted. Though simpler more primitive diets (mostly low carb vegetables and high protein foods) seem best all around.
It's sad to see folks think they've leveled up enough to 'cheat' after loading up on yams ("veg!"), carrots ("veg"), and beans ("protein!").
It's hard to find a simple rule that isn't subverted. Though simpler more primitive diets (mostly low carb vegetables and high protein foods) seem best all around.
It's sad to see folks think they've leveled up enough to 'cheat' after loading up on yams ("veg!"), carrots ("veg"), and beans ("protein!").
What is wrong with carbs? If I don't have carbs while working all day I get tired. That stuff is brain fuel.
Carbs themselves are fine. It's the quantities, especially those in the form of sugars, that are excessive.
All that said you can live without carbs and just digest fats instead. Hence the whole ketosis and low-sugar diets.
All that said you can live without carbs and just digest fats instead. Hence the whole ketosis and low-sugar diets.
Check out the ingredients of Cheerios, which says a bit about the process of making them and the attempt to restore some nutrition: https://www.wdbqschools.org/Downloads/Cereal-Cheerios.pdf
Probably Wonder Bread would look similar, but homemade bread quite different. All are processed foods of some level due to flour.
Probably Wonder Bread would look similar, but homemade bread quite different. All are processed foods of some level due to flour.
We've been deliberately fortifying foods since the 1930s to try to reduce incidence of diseases caused by lack of some vitamin or other micronutrient, which has seemed to be effective. You're required to add it for some products, although I believe quite a bit is still voluntary.
Depends on what you mean by "cereal". Oats that you mix with nuts and fresh berries? No, unlike all those sugar-infested abominations of a breakfast food packaged in colourful boxes.
Nuts and cereals like shredded wheat aren’t ultra-processed. But check the labels, a lot of nuts and cereal have added sugar and even oil.
Cheerios seem surprisingly healthy (the first ingredient is whole grain oats and only 1g of added sugar). Even special K has 4g of added sugar per serving. I would consider sugar-coated cereal like raisin bran or special K with yogurt chunks ultra-processed.
Cheerios seem surprisingly healthy (the first ingredient is whole grain oats and only 1g of added sugar). Even special K has 4g of added sugar per serving. I would consider sugar-coated cereal like raisin bran or special K with yogurt chunks ultra-processed.
A bread machine can make the "make our own bread...toast" less laborious. (Recipes printed in bread machines' instruction booklets tend toward the less-healthy, but with some experimenting...)
Commercial breakfast cereals vary, though the least-healthy are probably the most tuned to appeal to kids. Home-cooked cereal can be far better. And easy to mix nuts, frozen berries, etc. into.
If a bit of dressing up (squirt of mustard, bit of mayo, etc.) makes hard-boiled eggs acceptable to him, those can be made once a week and kept in the fridge.
An old friend perfected a fairly-healthy, filling stew recipe (some meat, mostly veggies, etc.) that he could make up in large batches and keep in the fridge. As a teenager, his son consumed an enormous quantity of that over time.
Commercial breakfast cereals vary, though the least-healthy are probably the most tuned to appeal to kids. Home-cooked cereal can be far better. And easy to mix nuts, frozen berries, etc. into.
If a bit of dressing up (squirt of mustard, bit of mayo, etc.) makes hard-boiled eggs acceptable to him, those can be made once a week and kept in the fridge.
An old friend perfected a fairly-healthy, filling stew recipe (some meat, mostly veggies, etc.) that he could make up in large batches and keep in the fridge. As a teenager, his son consumed an enormous quantity of that over time.
Try to minimize the amount of refined sugar and white flour in your diet. That'll get you below the 70%. As you're probably suspecting, it isn't easy! Refined sugar is in almost everything you buy at the grocery store, save for fresh produce and meat. White flour is present in many breads - even whole wheat bread! Yes - whole wheat bread oftentimes means there's whole wheat flour used in making the bread, it doesn't mean only whole wheat flour was used. And breakfast cereal? Yeah, that's going to be hard to replace, especially for a five year old! Oatmeal is a good alternative but unless you're buying a box of old-fashioned oats and making it yourself you're likely to be buying a lot of refined sugar. Those healthy granola bars? Lots of refined sugar. Trail mix, especially the ones with the M&M's? Ungodly amounts of refined sugar.
To be honest I'm kinda surprised that it's only 70% of calories coming from refined foods.
To be honest I'm kinda surprised that it's only 70% of calories coming from refined foods.
> Yes - whole wheat bread oftentimes means there's whole wheat flour used in making the bread, it doesn't mean only whole wheat flour was used.
Part of the reason is that it's really hard—way more work, way more time—to get a fluffy sandwich loaf out of just whole wheat flour. Or anything that's not kinda dense and focaccia-looking, really.
Part of the reason is that it's really hard—way more work, way more time—to get a fluffy sandwich loaf out of just whole wheat flour. Or anything that's not kinda dense and focaccia-looking, really.
You're not wrong! When I make home made bread I don't use only whole wheat flour - it's really difficult to work with and hard to get a good loaf, and I've been making bread on a regular basis for over 30 years! The 'whole wheat white' flours (fine ground 100% whole wheat flour) coming out are really good and allows for an excellent loaf.
Sometimes I eat shredded wheat and bananas, yogurt and fruit, or shredded wheat + yogurt + fruit. That takes 0 effort and can be packed for breakfast or lunch.
Also carrots and hummus, dry roasted nuts, cheese and wheat thins, PB and apple slices, are all good snacks for a kid.
Also carrots and hummus, dry roasted nuts, cheese and wheat thins, PB and apple slices, are all good snacks for a kid.
Pizza alone accounts for a large fraction of junk food consumption. I was shocked to learn that more than one in five kids and teens eats pizza on any given day.
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/11...
Overall, 13% of the U.S. population aged 2 years and over, consumed pizza on any given day. The percentage consuming pizza ranged from approximately 22% among older children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-19 years) to less than 6% among older adults, 60 years and over
https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/80400530/pdf/DBrief/11...
Overall, 13% of the U.S. population aged 2 years and over, consumed pizza on any given day. The percentage consuming pizza ranged from approximately 22% among older children (6-11 years) and adolescents (12-19 years) to less than 6% among older adults, 60 years and over
Curious - what makes pizza a junk food?
> what makes pizza a junk food?
Most pizza in America has sugar in the sauce and dough. The sauce, moreover, tends to be fatty. And the toppings are processed meats, et cetera. If the pizza is prepared in anything but a pizza oven, it's likely also pan fried.
Most pizza in America has sugar in the sauce and dough. The sauce, moreover, tends to be fatty. And the toppings are processed meats, et cetera. If the pizza is prepared in anything but a pizza oven, it's likely also pan fried.
Fruit has a lot of sugar too.
> Fruit has a lot of sugar too
It does. We are not fruit bats. Eating a diet of just fruit is not healthy. But the fructose in fruits is digested and absorbed differently from the free sugar in processed foods.
It does. We are not fruit bats. Eating a diet of just fruit is not healthy. But the fructose in fruits is digested and absorbed differently from the free sugar in processed foods.
I once looked up what big apes are eating and found out that they eat very little meat and lots of fruit. Like half of the diet could be figs.
Eating fruit vs drinking fruit juice is completely different in terms of amount of sugar ingested.
Intact fruit tends to be high in soluble dietary fiber, which binds up a bunch of the sugar in a goop that passes through the small intestine to be consumed by micros in the large intestine. i.e. it makes you fart when you eat enough of it.
Yes but it also tends to have lots of fiber, unless again it has been engineered to have as little as possible with maximum sugar content.
And the usual advice of "everything in moderation" applies to fruit as well. You can certainly eat unhealthy amount of sugar via fruit, but it is much more difficult than via junk food.
100 grams of donuts contains 50 grams of refined sugar. That's close to half a kg of apples (nearly a pound in freedom units). You could certainly eat that many apples, but then you are also eating a lot of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and fiber. And once you ate half a kg of apples, you are literally stuffed.
And the usual advice of "everything in moderation" applies to fruit as well. You can certainly eat unhealthy amount of sugar via fruit, but it is much more difficult than via junk food.
100 grams of donuts contains 50 grams of refined sugar. That's close to half a kg of apples (nearly a pound in freedom units). You could certainly eat that many apples, but then you are also eating a lot of vitamins, minerals, antioxidants and fiber. And once you ate half a kg of apples, you are literally stuffed.
The phrases junk food and ultra-processed are somewhat vague, but are generally applied to foods consisting of highly refined carbs, sugars, fat. Very high sodium is ubiquitous as well.
Add in some processed meat, and that's literally the entire ingredient list of a pepperoni pizza.
Add in some processed meat, and that's literally the entire ingredient list of a pepperoni pizza.
Is there a way to make pizza that wouldn't be considered junk food? Bread, cheese, tomato sauce. I am hoping that the "junk food" of pizza is because of the stuff added for longer shelf lives or added ... something. Frozen pizza should be the same as bread, cheese and tomato sauce. But I'm guessing it isn't the same.
You can make pizza from scratch. It's an oily dough (I think it can be done with yeast), with sauce and toppings. Sauce can be mostly canned tomatoes, which doesn't have sugar.
The dough isn’t necessarily oily, that depends on the texture you’re going for. It’s almost always yeasted though.
Absolutely. My go-to thin crust pizza dough is just a high hydration, lean baguette dough that's proofed overnight in the fridge. Just unbleached flour, salt, yeast, and water.
How do you roll your dough out?
I hand stretch it and bake it at 550F on parchment (which stays under the pizza long enough to set the bottom but not so long it lights on fire...). The pros use a peel and corn meal but I'm too lazy for all that... ;)
Because the dough is high hydration and proofs gently overnight, it comes out super relaxed and stretchy, so no roller is needed.
Because the dough is high hydration and proofs gently overnight, it comes out super relaxed and stretchy, so no roller is needed.
Do you stretch it on a countertop, or do you spin it?
On the countertop with a liberal dusting of flour.
My process is basically as follows: The night before, prepare dough, divide into portions, place in individual ziploc bags with a bit of oil, and place in the fridge to proof overnight.
Next day, a couple of hours prior to baking, remove the dough from the fridge and allow to warm to room temperature.
Place a pizza stone in the oven and crank the thing to 550F to start heating.
When making a pizza, remove the ball of dough from the bag, dust liberally with flour, then place on parchment, stretch to desired size, and top the pizza however you like.
To load the oven, grab the parchment and slide the pizza onto the back of a sheet pan and deliver onto the stone. Bake for 5-7 minutes. At the 2-3 minute mark, open the oven and slide the parchment out from underneath the pizza.
When it's done, I pull the pizza out onto the sheet pan and place on a cooling rack before serving (thereby preventing the bottom from getting soggy).
Done right I get beautiful thin crust pizza with a nice, crisp, spotty brown bottom.
My process is basically as follows: The night before, prepare dough, divide into portions, place in individual ziploc bags with a bit of oil, and place in the fridge to proof overnight.
Next day, a couple of hours prior to baking, remove the dough from the fridge and allow to warm to room temperature.
Place a pizza stone in the oven and crank the thing to 550F to start heating.
When making a pizza, remove the ball of dough from the bag, dust liberally with flour, then place on parchment, stretch to desired size, and top the pizza however you like.
To load the oven, grab the parchment and slide the pizza onto the back of a sheet pan and deliver onto the stone. Bake for 5-7 minutes. At the 2-3 minute mark, open the oven and slide the parchment out from underneath the pizza.
When it's done, I pull the pizza out onto the sheet pan and place on a cooling rack before serving (thereby preventing the bottom from getting soggy).
Done right I get beautiful thin crust pizza with a nice, crisp, spotty brown bottom.
Thank you!
Absolutely, pizza can be healthy. Frozen or delivery pizzas often have added sugar. I make pizza at home and it’s just bread, tomatoes, vegetables, and cheese, which I think would be considered a pretty balanced meal by most people if it was served deconstructed.
Look into Vito Iacopelli's recipes on Youtube. The dough consists of flour, water, salt, and some yeast and honey. The sauce consists of canned tomatoes, salt, oil, and basil. That's about four ingredients. The only real hurdle is having an oven that can go hot enough (900+ deg F). My family got an Ooni pizza oven and started making pizzas every other weekend during lockdown. It's pretty great! Works well for tandoori parathas too.
I see two nutritional concerns with "clean pizza". How healthy is finely-milled flour? More importantly, how many vegetables/protein sources can I put on pizza or have alongside pizza? There's no way to get around the opportunity cost of not having more proteins and fibrous vegetables in your diet.
I see two nutritional concerns with "clean pizza". How healthy is finely-milled flour? More importantly, how many vegetables/protein sources can I put on pizza or have alongside pizza? There's no way to get around the opportunity cost of not having more proteins and fibrous vegetables in your diet.
> The only real hurdle is having an oven that can go hot enough (900+ deg F)
While that's necessary for some pizzas, there's plenty you can make with an oven at 500-550F + a pizza stone/steel. And then there's deep dish/sicilian/etc. at 425-450F.
While that's necessary for some pizzas, there's plenty you can make with an oven at 500-550F + a pizza stone/steel. And then there's deep dish/sicilian/etc. at 425-450F.
I've recently been cutting back on salt, and it's crazy how difficult that is. Even something seemingly benign like a bag of mixed frozen vegetables has so much salt added, a few hundred grams (a reasonable portion) would be almost my entire daily sodium intake. And for all that, it doesn't even taste well seasoned.
Gotta be careful and stick with the frozen vegetables which have nothing added.
Gotta be careful and stick with the frozen vegetables which have nothing added.
I gave up sugar in my coffee ~4 teasoons a day without any problems, but salt I am finding is more difficult to avoid.
How much salt do you put in your coffee?
Probably a bit to counteract the bitterness they were trying to avoid with the sugar
I've definitely noticed this.
As a kid we ate mostly natural food, as my parents had a decent sized farm. We always had salt on the table, and went through a lot of it.
As an adult without a farm, I cannot remember the last time I even touched the salt shaker. I've actually made spaghetti once that was near inedible because the sodium in the sauce, cheeses, and meat made it incredibly salty tasting.
As a kid we ate mostly natural food, as my parents had a decent sized farm. We always had salt on the table, and went through a lot of it.
As an adult without a farm, I cannot remember the last time I even touched the salt shaker. I've actually made spaghetti once that was near inedible because the sodium in the sauce, cheeses, and meat made it incredibly salty tasting.
"Even something seemingly benign like a bag of mixed frozen vegetables has so much salt added"
Have literally never experienced this except if it's something that's meant to be ready to eat or is a base mix with its own seasoning. Is it a US thing?
Have literally never experienced this except if it's something that's meant to be ready to eat or is a base mix with its own seasoning. Is it a US thing?
It is a US thing. Sugar and salt in things most of the rest of the world couldn't imagine having sugar and salt added
This is bullshit. Rows and rows of frozen vegetables in every grocery store have nothing added. No salt, no sugar.
You need to get pre-seasoned/ready-to-eat "20 minute dinner" trash to find added salt and sugar.
You need to get pre-seasoned/ready-to-eat "20 minute dinner" trash to find added salt and sugar.
Indeed, the basic frozen vegetables I checked at Walmart [1] look fine.
Previously, people have said canned tomatoes have added salt in the US [2], which they don't tend to have in Europe [3] (choosing the basic, cheap brand in both cases).
[1] https://www.walmart.com/browse/food/frozen-vegetables/976759...
[2] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Petite-Diced-Tomatoes...
[3] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/299768716
Previously, people have said canned tomatoes have added salt in the US [2], which they don't tend to have in Europe [3] (choosing the basic, cheap brand in both cases).
[1] https://www.walmart.com/browse/food/frozen-vegetables/976759...
[2] https://www.walmart.com/ip/Great-Value-Petite-Diced-Tomatoes...
[3] https://www.tesco.com/groceries/en-GB/products/299768716
I think the above is only possible if they're getting vegetables with sauce in the bag. There is some salt in the vegetables themselves, of course, but it hasn't been added.
it depends what you buy. most canned food and frozen food comes in pretty close to raw versions and seasoned versions without much change to the packaging or labeling unless you read the details
You're in the US I assume? That wouldn't fly in the UK. It's also terrifying that it's considered normal over there!
> Gotta be careful and stick with the frozen vegetables which have nothing added.
How about fresh vegetables?
How about fresh vegetables?
Frozen veggies keep better (provided your freezer keeps working) so there's less risk of waste, and, depending on what they are, may taste better than commonly-available fresh varieties.
The complete lack of rigor and the use of shock-headlines around "ultra-processed" foods drives me nuts. It conveys very little useful information.
Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that constantly horking down Mountain Dew, Little Debbie snack cakes, and Doritos isn't good for you. We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.
Give me some useful information. What are reasonable thresholds for these junk foods? How about for specific ingredients?
Ranting and raving out of the way, do yourself a favor and skip to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization classification document [1] linked in the article. It actually answers some of the questions I posed.
[1]: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
It shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody that constantly horking down Mountain Dew, Little Debbie snack cakes, and Doritos isn't good for you. We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.
Give me some useful information. What are reasonable thresholds for these junk foods? How about for specific ingredients?
Ranting and raving out of the way, do yourself a favor and skip to the UN Food and Agricultural Organization classification document [1] linked in the article. It actually answers some of the questions I posed.
[1]: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
Food containing lots of sugar and no fibre is a good example of what people call “ultra-processed” food. Eating fructose without fibre is pretty bad.
> Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
I have to admit though, I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people.
I have to admit though, I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people.
> I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people
What does "ultra processed" mean? Cheese, bread, olive oil and most vegetables require processing to be made or nutritionally useful. Freeze-dried vegetables are quite processed and quite good for you.
What does "ultra processed" mean? Cheese, bread, olive oil and most vegetables require processing to be made or nutritionally useful. Freeze-dried vegetables are quite processed and quite good for you.
> What does "ultra processed" mean? Cheese, bread, olive oil and most vegetables require processing to be made or nutritionally useful.
I don't have a scientific definition for you. Just use your common sense to figure out what average people would intuitively call ultra-processed, whatever it means to them. I'm pretty darn sure you would not arrive at the conclusion that ordinary people consider bread and most vegetables "ultra-processed foods".
I don't have a scientific definition for you. Just use your common sense to figure out what average people would intuitively call ultra-processed, whatever it means to them. I'm pretty darn sure you would not arrive at the conclusion that ordinary people consider bread and most vegetables "ultra-processed foods".
Why is bread not considered ultra-processed?
I am trying to use my common sense here. To create it, you must apply mechanical processing to grind wheat. Chemical processing for the yeast to reacting to the sugars. thermal processing to cook the bread. There is evaporation of the liquid in the bread.
This seems like a lot of processes required to create this.
I am trying to use my common sense here. To create it, you must apply mechanical processing to grind wheat. Chemical processing for the yeast to reacting to the sugars. thermal processing to cook the bread. There is evaporation of the liquid in the bread.
This seems like a lot of processes required to create this.
Bread could be classified as either processed or ultra-processed depending on ingredients and manufacturing techniques.
Ultra-processed bread would probably be made to have a longer shelf life and likely have more additives and preservatives.
Ultra-processed bread would probably be made to have a longer shelf life and likely have more additives and preservatives.
if you buy (from a bakery, probably not from the grocery store) or make bread made from minimally processed to processed flour, water, salt and yeast it would probably be considered minimally processed or processed. When I make homemade bread, those are literally all the ingredients. It has a very different texture, chewiness, and taste from something storebought. They're basically different things. And it doesn't last more than a day or two after cutting it open.
If you buy bread made from bleached white flour, sugar (in pretty much any white bread you buy from the supermarket), bread conditioners, preservatives, etc, it's probably considered ultraprocessed. It can also sit in your pantry for weeks.
If you buy bread made from bleached white flour, sugar (in pretty much any white bread you buy from the supermarket), bread conditioners, preservatives, etc, it's probably considered ultraprocessed. It can also sit in your pantry for weeks.
Bread can be ultra-processed. It can also be made with ground wheat grains that don't remove the germ or get bleached.
> Why is bread not considered ulta-processed?
Even traditional bread is certainly highly processed, undergoing mechanical (milling), biochemical (fermentation), and thermal (baking) processing. It doesn't quite meet the definition of ultra-processed though as all these technologies are readily available to unsophisticated producers.
I think ultra-processed is some sort of proxy for hyperpalatable here.
Even traditional bread is certainly highly processed, undergoing mechanical (milling), biochemical (fermentation), and thermal (baking) processing. It doesn't quite meet the definition of ultra-processed though as all these technologies are readily available to unsophisticated producers.
I think ultra-processed is some sort of proxy for hyperpalatable here.
Indeed, there's a definition but this just adds the the starting comment's point that "ultra-processed" barely means anything in relation to how healthy something is to eat (and at what quantities).
Wouldn't most supermarket bread flour by itself meet the definition of ultra-processed, because it is bleached and enriched with micronutrients in a way that almost no consumer can do in the kitchen?
> because it is bleached and enriched with micronutrients in a way that almost no consumer can do in the kitchen?
What gave you that idea?
Bleached flour and various additives (such as ascorbic acid) are routinely used in home kitchens:
https://thebreadguide.com/using-ascorbic-acid-when-baking/
What, exactly, do you think goes into making a loaf of mass-produced bread?
What gave you that idea?
Bleached flour and various additives (such as ascorbic acid) are routinely used in home kitchens:
https://thebreadguide.com/using-ascorbic-acid-when-baking/
What, exactly, do you think goes into making a loaf of mass-produced bread?
The bleaching is what makes the flour, and by extension the bread made from it, ultra-processed, even if the bread is baked in a home setting. You misread.
Yes, I 100% did misread! My bad!
They're processed foods, but not ultra-processed. Generally that means advanced factory processes and chemicals that are only used in industrial settings. Factory made bread is likely to be ultra-processed, however.
Can you provide an example of a factory process that is only performed in a factory (and not in the kitchen + grocery store, e.g. flour is preprocessed wheat)? bonus points if this process applies to bread making.
Not bread but... instant coffee, refined sugar.
Instant coffee is simply coffee that is freeze-dried. That is the only step added above and beyond normal coffee-brewing. It is likely one of the least processed foods one can buy.
Ok instant granulated coffee.
Compare the Chorleywood process to the way you would make bread at home https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chorleywood_bread_process
If I'm reading this right, literally the only difference between this process and the one used in a home kitchen is "intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers, not feasible in a small-scale kitchen".
Otherwise the raw materials are the same:
> Flour, water, yeast, salt, fat, and, where used, minor ingredients common to many bread-making techniques such as Vitamin C, emulsifiers and enzymes are mechanically mixed for about three minutes.
In what way does this represent "processed" food in any material sense?
If anything, this sounds like a perfect example of the kind of fear mongering associated with the "processed food" label...
Otherwise the raw materials are the same:
> Flour, water, yeast, salt, fat, and, where used, minor ingredients common to many bread-making techniques such as Vitamin C, emulsifiers and enzymes are mechanically mixed for about three minutes.
In what way does this represent "processed" food in any material sense?
If anything, this sounds like a perfect example of the kind of fear mongering associated with the "processed food" label...
> Otherwise the raw materials are the same
Edit: I misread, sorry
Edit: I misread, sorry
> one uses dissolved co2 and low protein wheat and the other high protein wheat. One also goes through a fermentation process while the other does not. Salt content also varies
You've misread the Wikipedia page.
What you're describing is Dauglish's process that preceded CBP. Here's the key bit from the introduction:
> In 1862 a radically new and much cheaper industrial-scale process was developed by John Dauglish, using water with dissolved carbon dioxide instead of yeast, with no need for an eight-hour fermentation. Dauglish's method, used by the Aerated Bread Company that he set up, dominated commercial bread baking for a century until the Chorleywood process was developed.
Notice that last part of the sentence.
CBP, as described in the Wikipedia article, "is achieved through the addition of Vitamin C, fat, yeast, and intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers".
In particular, no CO2 is used with CBP. Bread is proofed by "[placing the dough] in a baking tin and [moving it] to the humidity- and temperature-controlled proofing chamber, where it sits for about 45–50 minutes", with the process aided through the use of dough conditioners like ascorbic acid.
You've misread the Wikipedia page.
What you're describing is Dauglish's process that preceded CBP. Here's the key bit from the introduction:
> In 1862 a radically new and much cheaper industrial-scale process was developed by John Dauglish, using water with dissolved carbon dioxide instead of yeast, with no need for an eight-hour fermentation. Dauglish's method, used by the Aerated Bread Company that he set up, dominated commercial bread baking for a century until the Chorleywood process was developed.
Notice that last part of the sentence.
CBP, as described in the Wikipedia article, "is achieved through the addition of Vitamin C, fat, yeast, and intense mechanical working by high-speed mixers".
In particular, no CO2 is used with CBP. Bread is proofed by "[placing the dough] in a baking tin and [moving it] to the humidity- and temperature-controlled proofing chamber, where it sits for about 45–50 minutes", with the process aided through the use of dough conditioners like ascorbic acid.
My bad, thanks for the info
> Just use your common sense to figure out what average people would intuitively call ultra-processed
How do I do that? Are we averaging the opinions of other people, or taking the opinion of the average person? By what metric?
How do I do that? Are we averaging the opinions of other people, or taking the opinion of the average person? By what metric?
Well according to the UN document linked in the article a loaf of bread is ultra-processed
"Another example of how broadening the initial definition of a highly or ultra-processed food may create confusion is the use of terms that, in themselves, are not precisely defined. For bread, initially defined as such in the NOVA food classification, examples might be the use of terms such as sliced, mass-produced, or sweetened. Their exact interpretation is not self-evident. [...]" [1]
Again, there's no unambiguous definition here. The UN has drawn one line out of many potentially valid ones. My point here isn't to argue word semantics. I'm just saying look at what the average person would consider "ultra-processed", whatever their definition (or lack thereof) might be.
P.S. I'm not even sure what you consider "ultra-processed bread" is good for people in any case.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6389637/
Again, there's no unambiguous definition here. The UN has drawn one line out of many potentially valid ones. My point here isn't to argue word semantics. I'm just saying look at what the average person would consider "ultra-processed", whatever their definition (or lack thereof) might be.
P.S. I'm not even sure what you consider "ultra-processed bread" is good for people in any case.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6389637/
I mean the whole wheat bread I eat everyday is sliced, mass produced, and sweetened a little bit (as are almost all whole wheat breads, regardless of whether they’re mass produced) - I’m pretty sure it’s as good for me as any other whole grain.
> I'm pretty darn sure you would not arrive at the conclusion that ordinary people consider bread and most vegetables "ultra-processed foods".
That depends on what you mean by bread. The sourdough loaf that I make out of flour straight from the grinder is a far cry from cheap white bread.
That depends on what you mean by bread. The sourdough loaf that I make out of flour straight from the grinder is a far cry from cheap white bread.
[deleted]
For me it is the grinding and removal of fiber.
This is a very important distinction as it changes the glycemic index and will cause blood sugars to rise much faster on consumption than an unground food with its entire fiber content.
The fiber commonly becomes animal feed.
This is a very important distinction as it changes the glycemic index and will cause blood sugars to rise much faster on consumption than an unground food with its entire fiber content.
The fiber commonly becomes animal feed.
In my opinion, ultra-processing requiring equipment, procedures or chemicals found only in a laboratory or factory, not a typical home kitchen from the past century or so.
That's overly simple though, the definition is here: https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova (this seems to be a summary of the definition in FAO document linked above).
That's overly simple though, the definition is here: https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova (this seems to be a summary of the definition in FAO document linked above).
The guy who invented Fritos made them at home- does that mean they're not ultra-processed?
Potato chips are another example. They can be made at home from ingredients that could otherwise be considered healthy. It's just that when you combine them in the right proportions, it can be hard to control how much you eat.
The other misnomer is labeling chips as "not nutritious." They're loaded in macronutrients. They often don't have many micro nutrients, but most people aren't actually short on those.
The main problem with some of these foods is they're calorically dense, but not filling.
The other misnomer is labeling chips as "not nutritious." They're loaded in macronutrients. They often don't have many micro nutrients, but most people aren't actually short on those.
The main problem with some of these foods is they're calorically dense, but not filling.
And Kellogs now owns Pringles.
One definition of processed would be the amount of "steps" required to take from the base ingredient.
So if you make falafel for example, it's only two steps removed from chickpeas, as it's just mildly grinded and fried. That being said it's an exercise to the reader in determining if each "step" is equally bad. In general steps involving the destruction or heating of the food are worse than the "separation" (e.g. peeling or cutting vs frying or blending).
So if you make falafel for example, it's only two steps removed from chickpeas, as it's just mildly grinded and fried. That being said it's an exercise to the reader in determining if each "step" is equally bad. In general steps involving the destruction or heating of the food are worse than the "separation" (e.g. peeling or cutting vs frying or blending).
Ultra processed is defined by the FAO (The UN Food and Agriculture Organization) thusly:
> Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials.
Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
I believe this is the widest standard used to define "ultra-processed", though there are more sentences and paragraphs in that doc explaining the definition more thoroughly.
> Formulations of ingredients, mostly of exclusive industrial use, made by a series of industrial processes, many requiring sophisticated equipment and technology (hence ‘ultra-processed’). Processes used to make ultra-processed foods include the fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances using industrial techniques such as extrusion, moulding and pre-frying; use of additives at various stages of manufacture whose functions include making the final product palatable or hyper-palatable; and sophisticated packaging, usually with plastic and other synthetic materials.
Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
I believe this is the widest standard used to define "ultra-processed", though there are more sentences and paragraphs in that doc explaining the definition more thoroughly.
Thanks! It seems like a two- or three-prong test: (1) cannot be made at home using commonly-available tools and ingredients, (2) uses "industrial techniques" and "additives" and (3) is packaged.
The second prong seems ambiguous to the point of uselessness. "Industrial techniques" are covered by (1); "additives" seemingly impossible to define within this context.
The second prong seems ambiguous to the point of uselessness. "Industrial techniques" are covered by (1); "additives" seemingly impossible to define within this context.
They also have a definition of "additive"
(a) food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, (directly or indirectly) in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods. The term does not include contaminants, or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities, or sodium chloride;
http://www.fao.org/3/Y2770E/y2770e03.htm
The FAO has a standards body that will give you tons of detail to back up their papers.
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/
(a) food additive means any substance not normally consumed as a food by itself and not normally used as a typical ingredient of the food, whether or not it has nutritive value, the intentional addition of which to food for a technological (including organoleptic) purpose in the manufacture, processing, preparation, treatment, packing, packaging, transport or holding of such food results, or may be reasonably expected to result, (directly or indirectly) in it or its by-products becoming a component of or otherwise affecting the characteristics of such foods. The term does not include contaminants, or substances added to food for maintaining or improving nutritional qualities, or sodium chloride;
http://www.fao.org/3/Y2770E/y2770e03.htm
The FAO has a standards body that will give you tons of detail to back up their papers.
http://www.fao.org/fao-who-codexalimentarius/en/
That would still seem to cover the coagulants necessary to make tofu, the rennet used to make Gruyère or Parmigiano, or nitrates and nitrites for cured meats. I suppose "nor normally used as a typical ingredient" could be the turning point, but that does seem to acknowledge the question's complexity by, effectively, grandfathering in traditional additives.
That's pretty broad. Some of those things might be harmful, some might not be. I doubt extruding dough, cooking ("chemically modifying") it and wrapping it in plastic makes it any worse for you, for example. Whereas on the other side of the spectrum, there may indeed be food additives or chemical treatment process that _do_ make things worse.
Maybe it's not helpful to paint things with such a broad brush, and we should instead focus on specific substances or practices which might be causing problems?
Maybe it's not helpful to paint things with such a broad brush, and we should instead focus on specific substances or practices which might be causing problems?
Cooking can form many very bad things, e.g. neurotoxic heterocyclic amines.
Plastics commonly leach hormone disruptors to food.
Plastics commonly leach hormone disruptors to food.
As this document acknowledges, though, quite a few normal foods fall under their definition of "ultra-processed". Pasta sauce, sausages, ice cream, even bagged bread are all included.
So, almost all cow milk sold in supermarkets is ultra-processed by this definition: centrifuged, reconstituted in measured ratios of liquids and solids, and pasteurized. Likewise, non-dairy milk like soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel.
That's a heck of a broad definition!
That's a heck of a broad definition!
> soy milk, which additionally has gelling agents added to control mouthfeel
I'm sure all brands differ, but the box in my fridge says "Ingredients: Water, Organic Soybeans".
I'm sure all brands differ, but the box in my fridge says "Ingredients: Water, Organic Soybeans".
AFAIK, if the amount of an ingredient is small enough, it does not need to be listed on the packaging. The label is not authoritatively inclusive. Food for thought.
Example, Tic Tac mints are essentially entirely sugar yet fall under that threshold so the nutritional information reads '0g' of sugar per serving.
yes. very similar to how “organic” constitutes a range of acceptable values and does not mean all ingredients are organic (and organic itself does not mean zero pesticides/chemicals)
Yes. Coincidently, most modern cow milk is not really good for you.
That's right, paleo cows produced keto-friendly milk back in the stone age.
Ha ha, I maek funny coment.
You know cows didn’t change, we just started separating the milk and reconstructing milk-like products. The classic Simpsons ”Malk” gag is not far off.
You know cows didn’t change, we just started separating the milk and reconstructing milk-like products. The classic Simpsons ”Malk” gag is not far off.
And yet:
- Cold-pressed, extra virgin olive oil is considered to be the healthiest due to its fat and polyphenol content.
- Traditional cheeses are more nutritious than Kraft singles.
- Whole grain is more nutritious than Wonderbread.
- Freezing, cooking, and the passage of time all destroy vitamins and other micronutrients.
- Cold-pressed, extra virgin olive oil is considered to be the healthiest due to its fat and polyphenol content.
- Traditional cheeses are more nutritious than Kraft singles.
- Whole grain is more nutritious than Wonderbread.
- Freezing, cooking, and the passage of time all destroy vitamins and other micronutrients.
Protein powder?
Ensure / Boost? (important for people who can't chew food)
Canned or similarly preserved foods? (important for people without access to reliable refrigeration)
Even staple grains (wheat, rice, corn) are pretty highly processed. One can't exactly eat these raw, they need some machinery and sometimes chemistry to really get at the nutrients.
I guess this all depends on your definition of "ultra-processed" and "good for people." But the processing of food is a discovery that allowed for the civilizations to appear. Feeding people on fresh meat and veg doesn't scale.
Ensure / Boost? (important for people who can't chew food)
Canned or similarly preserved foods? (important for people without access to reliable refrigeration)
Even staple grains (wheat, rice, corn) are pretty highly processed. One can't exactly eat these raw, they need some machinery and sometimes chemistry to really get at the nutrients.
I guess this all depends on your definition of "ultra-processed" and "good for people." But the processing of food is a discovery that allowed for the civilizations to appear. Feeding people on fresh meat and veg doesn't scale.
> I'm not aware of any food that would be considered "ultra-processed" yet known to be good for people.
So, no meat substitutes for you, then? Because if Beyond Meat burgers aren't "ultra-processed", I don't know what is.
So, no meat substitutes for you, then? Because if Beyond Meat burgers aren't "ultra-processed", I don't know what is.
> So, no meat substitutes for you, then?
Is there something on my profile that indicates I only eat things that are good for me?
Is there something on my profile that indicates I only eat things that are good for me?
Yup, that was poorly phrased. My bad.
Let me try that again:
I'd say a lot of people view meat substitutes as a healthier choice. But the Beyond Meat burger is, to me, the very definition of an "ultra-processed" food.
Let me try that again:
I'd say a lot of people view meat substitutes as a healthier choice. But the Beyond Meat burger is, to me, the very definition of an "ultra-processed" food.
"Ultra-processed => not good" does not imply "not ultra-processed => good".
And I'm pretty sure people who believe Beyond is healthier are wrong regardless of how we classify Beyond Meat. (Though I'm not even sure the majority of Beyond Meat eaters believe it's healthier in the first place.)
And I'm pretty sure people who believe Beyond is healthier are wrong regardless of how we classify Beyond Meat. (Though I'm not even sure the majority of Beyond Meat eaters believe it's healthier in the first place.)
> Though I'm not even sure the majority of Beyond Meat eaters believe it's healthier in the first place.
I disagree. I suspect a lot of people believe Beyond's products are healthier simply by virtue of not being meat.
Heck, they might be right, though I tend to agree with you and suspect it's at best a wash.
Also, thanks for the refresher on modus ponens and the fallacy of the inverse. ;) It's been a long time since formal logic... not that I miss it...
I disagree. I suspect a lot of people believe Beyond's products are healthier simply by virtue of not being meat.
Heck, they might be right, though I tend to agree with you and suspect it's at best a wash.
Also, thanks for the refresher on modus ponens and the fallacy of the inverse. ;) It's been a long time since formal logic... not that I miss it...
Milk is ultra-processed. Lots of folks consider milk to be a healthy beverage option (in moderation, like everything else).
Vinegar is ultra-processed and is believed to have some health benefits. [1]
Coffee, same deal. Ultra-processed, believed to have health benefits. [2]
[1]: https://www.webmd.com/diet/vinegar-good-for-you#1
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/well/eat/coffee-health-be...
Vinegar is ultra-processed and is believed to have some health benefits. [1]
Coffee, same deal. Ultra-processed, believed to have health benefits. [2]
[1]: https://www.webmd.com/diet/vinegar-good-for-you#1
[2]: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/14/well/eat/coffee-health-be...
"Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you."
It bothers me too, but I think the problem right now is they don't exactly know what part of the "ultra processed" foods is harmful yet.
It bothers me too, but I think the problem right now is they don't exactly know what part of the "ultra processed" foods is harmful yet.
totally agree. i think there is no baseline at all for “healthy food.” it means different things to different people. even high calorie foods can be healthy for some groups.
i think this argument about processed foods tries to simplify it too much when there’s really a lot of different factors. high in calories? no vitamins? known carcinogens? individual allergies or trouble digesting? this one size fits all approach to labeling food good and bad ignores the details.
and the real issue is education: do you know what you’re eating? and how much? and what your body needs? i’d rather see answers there than “big soda bad” and “chips bad”
i think this argument about processed foods tries to simplify it too much when there’s really a lot of different factors. high in calories? no vitamins? known carcinogens? individual allergies or trouble digesting? this one size fits all approach to labeling food good and bad ignores the details.
and the real issue is education: do you know what you’re eating? and how much? and what your body needs? i’d rather see answers there than “big soda bad” and “chips bad”
It becomes tougher when pizza or bread can exist in all of the NOVA food classifications.
http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
"Ultra-processed" is a pretty meaningless standard. Pasta and Cheerios are very processed but part of the process is being fortified with loads of micronutrients. Cheerios are better for you than something like white rice which is almost pure starch. And high-fructose corn syrup has the same nutritional value as raw honey despite being processed. There's no substitute for just reading labels.
Flour is arguably "ultra processed."
Most flour should be classified as minimally processed by the FAO source others are referencing in the thread.
> Unprocessed foods altered by industrial processes such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, powdering, squeezing, crushing, grinding, fractioning, steaming, poaching, boiling, roasting, and pasteurization, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging, non-alcoholic fermentation, and other methods that do not add salt, sugar, oils or fats or other food substances to the original food.
Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
> Unprocessed foods altered by industrial processes such as removal of inedible or unwanted parts, drying, powdering, squeezing, crushing, grinding, fractioning, steaming, poaching, boiling, roasting, and pasteurization, chilling, freezing, placing in containers, vacuum packaging, non-alcoholic fermentation, and other methods that do not add salt, sugar, oils or fats or other food substances to the original food.
Source: http://www.fao.org/3/ca5644en/ca5644en.pdf
This whole argument strikes me as very similar to the "appeal to nature" fallacy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature
> Pharmaceuticals are ultra-processed and completely unnatural, yet many of them are life-saving. Clearly then, mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
Is someone suggesting to get 70% of calorie intake from pharmaceuticals though ?
Is someone suggesting to get 70% of calorie intake from pharmaceuticals though ?
You've extended the analogy beyond its intent or demonstration to show what, exactly? "70% of calorie intake" is not some magic figure. There is nothing inherently important or mythical about that number.
This was not an analogy, it was a flawed comparison. Is OP supporting ultra processed food because pharmaceuticals are ultra processed ?
> In other words, no doughnut is a minimally processed food.
Will someone please let me try a minimally-processed doughnut?
Will someone please let me try a minimally-processed doughnut?
My mom used to make homemade doughnuts. That was a long time ago, but I don't think the process (heh) was much different from making other sweet baked goods and other fried food.
I've never tried making them because I think muffins or cookies are just as good without the hassle of frying.
I've never tried making them because I think muffins or cookies are just as good without the hassle of frying.
I assume when people talk about “ultra-processed” they’re talking about foods which 90% would agree are bad for you: foods with a lot of added sugar or oil, or almost everything else taken out. e.g. candy, fried foods, chips, pizza on white bread, fruit juice.
Is pasta ultra-processed? What about salami? Mashed potatoes? Cheese? Honestly, no. Actually, high-calorie foods like cheese or wheat pasta are very nutritious. Of course a diet consisting of pasta, salami, and cheese with a side of mashed potatoes is probably bad. But it’s better than the above.
I wonder whether kids are really getting fat off of even hot dogs, mac and cheese, steak and cheese subs, and corn. Or if it’s the added sugar and refined carbs - candy, soda, white bread, “snacks”. People say that kids’ diet in the 60s was the former, and they were fine.
Honestly “ultra-processed” can be misleading because it isn’t the processing which is bad, it’s the amount of fat and carbs vs. protein, fiber, water, and other nutrients. Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
I wonder whether kids are really getting fat off of even hot dogs, mac and cheese, steak and cheese subs, and corn. Or if it’s the added sugar and refined carbs - candy, soda, white bread, “snacks”. People say that kids’ diet in the 60s was the former, and they were fine.
Honestly “ultra-processed” can be misleading because it isn’t the processing which is bad, it’s the amount of fat and carbs vs. protein, fiber, water, and other nutrients. Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
>
I assume when people talk about “ultra-processed” they’re talking about foods which 90% would agree are bad for you
So then we should just call it what it is: junk food.
"ultra-processed" is no better than "gmo", i.e. a completely meaningless label designed to scare people because of spooky "technology", as opposed to actual information people can use to make informed decisions.
> Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
LOL... damn, okay, I admit it, I didn't read all the way to the end before commenting. I'm leaving this here as it's a good reminder for myself to slow down...
So then we should just call it what it is: junk food.
"ultra-processed" is no better than "gmo", i.e. a completely meaningless label designed to scare people because of spooky "technology", as opposed to actual information people can use to make informed decisions.
> Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
LOL... damn, okay, I admit it, I didn't read all the way to the end before commenting. I'm leaving this here as it's a good reminder for myself to slow down...
Just as an aside. Is it really "added sugar" in candy where the entire point is that it's mainly made out of sugar?
All this about a headline? What kind of nuance are you demanding with respect to the impact of ultra-processed food on health in a headline?
> We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.
The headline doesn't communicate that. It communicates that U.S. kids are consuming an abundance of calories from those foods.
> mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
It doesn't communicate that either. That is prior knowledge on your part.
> We all know this, we don't need a headline for it.
The headline doesn't communicate that. It communicates that U.S. kids are consuming an abundance of calories from those foods.
> mere act of processing something doesn't make the thing bad for you.
It doesn't communicate that either. That is prior knowledge on your part.
Maybe we can put distinctive, unmistakeable labels on food packaging that indicates that the candy bar you're about to eat is "ultra-processed"
Maybe we can also tax "ultra-processed" food at a higher rate.
I just think it is naive to believe that people will make the right decisions for themselves or their loved ones without any "incentives"
Maybe we can also tax "ultra-processed" food at a higher rate.
I just think it is naive to believe that people will make the right decisions for themselves or their loved ones without any "incentives"
Without added sugar or artificial sweeteners, many of these ultra-processed foods are completely unpalatable. You could replace the sugar with fat, which would probably be healthier, but also reduce the shelf life due to rancidity.
The solution is to tax added sugar (including for sub-ingredients) per gram, and a flat tax for any food containing artificial sweeteners. 1c per gram of sugar, or 20% for anything containing artificial sweeteners seems reasonable.
The solution is to tax added sugar (including for sub-ingredients) per gram, and a flat tax for any food containing artificial sweeteners. 1c per gram of sugar, or 20% for anything containing artificial sweeteners seems reasonable.
I don't think that solution makes any sense.
To me, the solution has to be trying to get people to eat healthier things via education. I mean, the "incentive" is feeling good, looking good, being fitter and more capable.
One thing I've found particularly motivating as a parent is that a good diet is a huge competitive advantage for my children. We live on a farm, so we've always got great, healthful things to eat, and since we harvest ingredients and not factory-processed stuff, they're always cooking--it's not just their health now, but their ability to be healthy adults.
To me, the solution has to be trying to get people to eat healthier things via education. I mean, the "incentive" is feeling good, looking good, being fitter and more capable.
One thing I've found particularly motivating as a parent is that a good diet is a huge competitive advantage for my children. We live on a farm, so we've always got great, healthful things to eat, and since we harvest ingredients and not factory-processed stuff, they're always cooking--it's not just their health now, but their ability to be healthy adults.
Actually, food habits in the USA are pretty consistent across educational, income, and racial lines:
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/146/9/1722/4630474
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855172/
I wish there were more giant community kitchens in the West, as are commonly seen across Asia. This is one extreme example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT-N5wl0l-s
And at a smaller scale in Melbourne, Australia: https://youtu.be/dG8hH8zE7ZI?t=169
https://academic.oup.com/jn/article/146/9/1722/4630474
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5855172/
I wish there were more giant community kitchens in the West, as are commonly seen across Asia. This is one extreme example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TT-N5wl0l-s
And at a smaller scale in Melbourne, Australia: https://youtu.be/dG8hH8zE7ZI?t=169
> The solution is to tax added sugar (including for sub-ingredients) per gram, and a flat tax for any food containing artificial sweeteners. 1c per gram of sugar, or 20% for anything containing artificial sweeteners seems reasonable.
A sugar tax would mostly impact the people who have the least choice in what they buy, due to poverty and/or the availability of healthier foods. (See: food deserts)
Better to work on the affordability and availability of healthy food than try to penalize people for buying stuff that's cheap and ubiquitous. If you want to apply sticks, apply them to large retailers like Wal-mart and Target instead of to individuals.
A sugar tax would mostly impact the people who have the least choice in what they buy, due to poverty and/or the availability of healthier foods. (See: food deserts)
Better to work on the affordability and availability of healthy food than try to penalize people for buying stuff that's cheap and ubiquitous. If you want to apply sticks, apply them to large retailers like Wal-mart and Target instead of to individuals.
But that's exactly the behaviour we want to encourage, when we consider so many poor people in America have a huge calorie surplus (ie. are obese or overweight).
If 1kg of Oreos (41% sugar) costs $3.60 instead of $3.19, people will spend the same but just consume 11% less, or manufacturers will recreate the recipe to have less sugar. Both of those outcomes are good.
The money collected can be used to subsidise community kitchens, or raw fruit and vegetables.
If 1kg of Oreos (41% sugar) costs $3.60 instead of $3.19, people will spend the same but just consume 11% less, or manufacturers will recreate the recipe to have less sugar. Both of those outcomes are good.
The money collected can be used to subsidise community kitchens, or raw fruit and vegetables.
I don't known that "ultra-processed" is en especially useful label, but I am all for vastly increased food labeling in general. I'm often baffled by people who are opposed to increased mandatory food information (like animal welfare standards, GMO contents, country of origin, to name a few).
A bill was just introduced to improve Food Labeling in the US: https://cspinet.org/sites/default/files/attachment/FLMA%20Fa...
Given mineral soil depletion it's probably a necessity for most people to eat fortified foods.
Sugar and salt as primary flavoring is not the greatest, to be sure, but ultra-processing foods doesn't seem too bad considering that all the human body does is masticate food a bit to mix in some enzymes and dump it in a vat of acid and bacteria, pour in some more enzymes, and then stir it up for a day or so to get the nutrients out. It's not a boutique experience going on down there. The entire point is to reduce complex foods to simple component molecules that can be absorbed.
EDIT: and of course there's complex interactions between some vitamins and minerals that influence absorption that calls for variety in diet throughout the day/week.
Sugar and salt as primary flavoring is not the greatest, to be sure, but ultra-processing foods doesn't seem too bad considering that all the human body does is masticate food a bit to mix in some enzymes and dump it in a vat of acid and bacteria, pour in some more enzymes, and then stir it up for a day or so to get the nutrients out. It's not a boutique experience going on down there. The entire point is to reduce complex foods to simple component molecules that can be absorbed.
EDIT: and of course there's complex interactions between some vitamins and minerals that influence absorption that calls for variety in diet throughout the day/week.
> “Consumed in excess, these foods are linked to…”
Won’t most things consumed in excess cause these problems? Is the issue is that it is easier to consume them in excess.
One of the odd things among my son’s kids is that a lot of the kids who seemingly eat the worst seem the most fit and those who eat healthiest seem less fit (skinny unfit not obese unfit).
Won’t most things consumed in excess cause these problems? Is the issue is that it is easier to consume them in excess.
One of the odd things among my son’s kids is that a lot of the kids who seemingly eat the worst seem the most fit and those who eat healthiest seem less fit (skinny unfit not obese unfit).
It's amazing how easy it is to exceed daily recommendations on sugar and salt. You basically have to eat only non-fruity produce and lean meat to get close to what our bodies evolved to thrive on.
As to the not-yet-overweight kids, give it time. Genes are a lottery and the carbs get everyone eventually.
As to the not-yet-overweight kids, give it time. Genes are a lottery and the carbs get everyone eventually.
If you're active enough when young, you can be a trash can food-wise and still look fit. But it catches up with you, and those bad habits are tough to break, after the fountain of youth grinds to a halt.
For comparison: the consumption of ultra-processed food in selected European countries (from 2018):
Top 3 European countries with the most household purchases of ultra-processed food:
1. UK 50.7%
2. Germany 46.9%
3. Ireland 45.9
Top 3 European countries with least household purchases of ultra-processed food:
1. Portugal 10.2%
2. Italy 13.4%
3. Greece 13.7%
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-proces...
Top 3 European countries with the most household purchases of ultra-processed food:
1. UK 50.7%
2. Germany 46.9%
3. Ireland 45.9
Top 3 European countries with least household purchases of ultra-processed food:
1. Portugal 10.2%
2. Italy 13.4%
3. Greece 13.7%
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-proces...
It’s interesting there seems to be a correlation between countries who purchase/consume the least “processed food” and countries who have a cultural reputation for enjoying long meals.
Yes, in these countries it's common for people to cook meals from scratch without using any ultra-processed ingredients (e.g. not using a ready-made sauce).
In the UK, convenience foods and ready-made ingredients (like sauces and condiments) are common and popular in supermarkets. It will be interesting to see if people's eating and cooking habits have changed during the pandemic and lockdown (i.e. more home cooking).
In the UK, convenience foods and ready-made ingredients (like sauces and condiments) are common and popular in supermarkets. It will be interesting to see if people's eating and cooking habits have changed during the pandemic and lockdown (i.e. more home cooking).
Sad news.
Anecdotal: 5 years ago I went on the Dr. Fuhrman diet (no processed foods). Within 6 weeks I felt better than I had in a decade: everything was better: clearer thinking, inflammation and bodily discomfort gone, longer hikes without getting tired, and better sleep.
I hate to think of the costs to society and personal costs of people not getting healthy food to eat.
Anecdotal: 5 years ago I went on the Dr. Fuhrman diet (no processed foods). Within 6 weeks I felt better than I had in a decade: everything was better: clearer thinking, inflammation and bodily discomfort gone, longer hikes without getting tired, and better sleep.
I hate to think of the costs to society and personal costs of people not getting healthy food to eat.
Except that it's actually really not. If we take my 5 year old son as a normal kid, a bowl of cereal for breakfast and then whatever random food they feed him for school lunch and we're already 2/3rds of the way to the goal. He snacks on fruit and stuff, but also on pretzel sticks and honey roasted peanuts and all sorts of other kind of junky things.
I make dinner from scratch very nearly every night, and my kid still falls into this 70% bucket! And so I really don't have a good idea about how to change that. Maybe make our own bread and have them have toast for breakfast every day? That's going to get old quick.