IMO the problem is the definition. According to wikipedia UPF is "an industrially formulated edible substance derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds. The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings." The Wikipedia features a photo of fruit loops breakfast cereal but that's a total red herring. The food coloring and preservatives are a side show; what really matters is the macro and micronutrition that is sacrificed in the name of processing.
The article uses a photo of what looks like fishball type products and imitation crab legs which illustrates the problem: while those are highly processed, they're made of fish that doesn't lose much nutritional value in the cooking and preserving process. They're nowhere near as bad as other processed foods like pasta or bread made from bleached flour where the germ and bran were discarded before milling.
It is a confusing definition. I wouldn’t consider most bread and pasta to be ultra processed but simply processed (except the bread that lasts for weeks). Ultra processed in my mind is when you take the source materials down to constitute parts and then Frankenstein a new food item out of it. Like Pringles. And then a traditional actual sliced potato chip is processed food because it’s a deep fried sliced potato. They’re probably about equally unhealthy too.
It’s also confusing because I’ve had lentil or chickpea pasta which is ultra processed but has higher fiber and protein and is probably healthier than wheat based traditional pasta.
it's interesting that the definitions are so varied.
what i've seen, is that UPF is usually defined as "a high proportion of the ingredients do not exist naturally in that form." so for example, the ingredients of an Oreo
In the manufacturing industry we called Frozen and Canned vegetables "Fresher than fresh". Because they are essentially processed within a few hours of the harvest, where are the stuff we usually get at super markets are a few days at the least and up to a few months old at worst.
While there is some processing, they typically aren't removing huge amount of material or being ground up into another form.
On the NOVA scale, these wouldn't be considered ultra-processed. Yogurt would be considered minimally processed and canned vegetables would be considered processed but not ultra processed
The term "Ultra Processed Food" is basically undefinable in any sort of sensible way, and because of that appears to just be used by the layman synonymously with "unhealthy food".
Trying to find out whether "Ultra Processed Food" is "unhealthy" then just becomes an excercise in unwrapping a tautology.
It's really not that difficult to define, but like most things there's degrees to what it is considered processed.
This is why there are now frameworks in place like the NOVA classification system to try break down and develop a degree to which something is considered processed.
> “We’ve had that issue in the past, as with low-fat recommendations” that later turned out to be counterproductive, says Duane Mellor, a dietitian at Aston University in England. “We’ve messed up too many times. We need to make smarter changes more carefully.”
Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement.
What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what?
I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization
AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat...
It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.
‘Low-fat’ is pretty bad, not just because it turns out excess sugar is far worse (and ‘low-fat’ marketed foods often increased sugar to make them taste better), but also because there are fats that are fine (like monounsaturated fats), and ones we should probably be having more of (like omega 3). There can be inherently bad things about eating less of that, even if lowering saturated fat intake is a good thing… So I would say ‘low-fat’ as a principle was definitely bad and counter-productive advice.
AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself.
As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption.
I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion.
So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on.
>Smarter changes than what?
Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.
If you're looking for the who, Rhonda Patrick points the finger at rampant corruption in nutrition research and public policy. For example the American Heart Association being sponsored by Cheetos.
> AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake.
Two things:
- Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs.
Processed foods were actually a boon in the 50s because they were much better than the alternative, which was often rotten food or simply starving. Famine was a real danger late into the 20th century even in the USA. The memories of WWII and Dust Bowl famine were still fresh in adults' minds. And foods spoiled quickly unless pickled, refrigerated, etc. So anything that could prolong the shelf life and make the food supply stretch while still remaining appetizing was welcome from a food security standpoint -- even with all those additives and preservatives. The trope of "starving kids in China would be glad to eat that" was a thing for a reason; under Chairman Mao people really were starving in China, and starvation was still almost at your doorstep even in the USA.
These days we have agro-tech out the wazoo and can, potentially, feed billions with fresh crops reliably and relatively cheaply, so the processed stuff doesn't have the advantages it once had and numerous disadvantages.
Contra this article, I'd highly recommend the book it mentions: Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken. It collates a lot of good studies and evidence that highly processed food is less healthy in and of itself, even if macro- and micronutrient composition is identical. It also covers a lot of the misbehavior and lobbying by food companies, marketing to create addictive behavior, as well as the engineering going on to create hyperpalatable foods.
My diet's generally clean, but the book was a great reminder/jumpstart with clear guidance (eat less processed food) that's not preachy or prescriptive.
Absolutely wonderful book. The 30 grams of cornflakes vs oats is so weird, but when you think about it, yes, I would eat WAY more cornflakes and milk than I eat oats and milk.
I’ll save you the trouble of researching this - we don’t know the answer to this and probably won’t in this lifetime.
We still don’t understand how amino acids are able to perform such complex functions. We have zero understanding of how the same exact cell in every sense can evolve into different organs in the human body. We don’t even know how we fall asleep, or the complete role of serotonin and melatonin on sleep and mood - their interactivity (which influences which).
So who knows how the amino acids or whatever are the constituents of the foods we consume interact in our body. It’s definitely not a black and white answer. Depends on what exactly are we talking about and the physiology of the individual that likely influences it.
My issue with ultra processing is that it makes it easier to swap ingredients for cost cutting reasons. I think corn syrup in soda is the most famous example, and that substitution has had plenty of unintended consequences.
> Perhaps the problem with ultra-processed food is its energy density; or its texture, which may encourage people to eat too fast; or its alleged “hyper-palatability,” which is defined by specific combinations of sugar, salt and fat.
My hypothesis is that UPFs are not inherently less healthy, it's that they are cheap, convenient, and delicious, so it's easy to eat a little too much. I doesn't take much: fifty extra calories every meal is almost 20 pounds a year.
A trajectory question: have we have definitive answer to why the US now has so many obese people when before 70s not so many (or I just got the wrong impression from poor sampling of videos)? It's not like the US didn't have enough supply of food or people didn't have access to cars. The US was wealthy then and still wealthy now.
Obesity has definitely increased and I’ve seen many hypotheses floated. The most convincing one to me so far has been simple sugar and the fact that sugar is now added to practically everything.
Other hypotheses I’ve seen include more sedentary jobs, endocrine disruptors, and cigarette smoking going away. Nicotine is a stimulant and an appetite suppressant.
I guess a combination of less nicotine and more sugar isn’t a bad one.
Of course it’s not that people were categorically more healthy back then. Heart disease was pretty rampant.
I don't think we've figured out exactly what's causing it. The simplest explanation is an abundance of easy, cheap calories. Some think it's some unknown/unstudied environmental factor like PFAS. There are various other theories. It's another unsolved billion dollar question.
The most likely explanation is that back in the 70s, the dietary villain of the day was high-fat foods. So manufacturers switched to low-fat varieties and marketed them based on the lower fat content. But foods in which the fat was lowered tasted blander, so to compensate they added a potent flavorant -- sugar. Sugar was safe, right? It was a simple carbohydrate, not a fat, so it wouldn't make you fat... right?
I think one of the main healthy ingredient lost to processing is fiber. It is good for moving food through your digestive system, plus it moderates harmful glucose spikes which is very unhealthy.
Potatoes have a lot of fiber in the skin, but fries remove all that.
(I've also been told, eating potatoes are like eating a plate of sugar)
I mean, they typically have their skin removed then are soaked in some kind of saline bath. At least half if not more of the fiber in a potato is remove when you skin it. Then oil based frying adds a massive amount of calories.
If you need calories to survive potatoes are a good option, once you've met those minimum requirements they are a pretty terrible food in the sense it's really easy to over consume them.
What always gets lost in the great diet debate is that if you did (preferably high intensity) routine exercise that will represent a far greater improvement to your health.
Note I am also not talking about weight or weight loss. I am talking about being healthy, generally in the "lives longer and lives better" deconstruction of "healthy".
What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data - as religion itself.
A few things I notice:
- "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.)
- A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.
- For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.
> What I've observed is that nutrition, including nutrition research, has become as religious - meaning, following faith rather than data
Most of the people who make comments like this sound more religious than most.
> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so.
It's well established that processed meats containing nitrates, like bacon, are carcinogens.
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans
That's completely backwards. Actually a lot of nutrition research is paid for by large multinationals who sell ultra-processed food. That's where all the cash is.
The less processed a food is the fewer chances companies have to cut the cost of the food in a way such that it will introduce an unknown aspect that will hurt you. The problem with research is its always going to be 1 step behind the state of the art.
It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact.
Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult.
This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"?
> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so
Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.
There's always some food boogyman, but UPF is about as indistinct as you can get.
Food-processing itself is quite unlikely to the problem, it'll be some common additive, or the general balance of fats (and fat types), proteins, carbs, micronutrients, etc.
For my money, the big problem, after sugar, is vegetable oil.
I'm convinced fake fats were absolutely terrible for us. Kind of feels like the rest is falling to scape goat territory. Probably not good, as it were. But not as terrible as fake fats.
I also think steering people away from salt is probably misguided. So, take my view with appropriate salt. :)
Are you talking about substances such as Olestra? Such non digestible oils are almost completely absent from most people’s diets, even those that eat lots of processed foods. Not sure why it would be a big factor if hardly anyone consumes it.
All food is just macros, in the end. You can become obese eating healthy food, as many can attest. Plenty of overweight or obese vegans due to too much nuts or tofu.
When I go hiking for long periods of time, I make sure to include lots of nuts in my pack. Pecans and peanuts are staples, but macadamia nuts are best of all: They're the most calorie-dense food on the planet, at about 720 calories per 100g.
Peanut Butter Twix -- the apotheosis of ultra-processed calorie-dense junk food -- isn't even close, at 536 calories per 100g.
One can easily gain lots of weight by eating too many nuts -- and it takes fewer of 'em than one might think.
This is narrow mindset and speaks to what a lot of the article is trying to explain.
This isn't just talking about obesity. But also talking about other additives that make foods less nutrient dense for you, eating foods that can cause other adverse health problems outside of just obesity. Additionally, UPF foods are engineered to make them hyperpalatable, meaning you want to eat more of them than you would a less processed food. Lastly, processed foods are often stripped of many micronutrients that in some cases are artificially added back in. These nutrients we would normally get from unprocessed foods in abundance.
You can get overweight by eating high fiber food, but it's way harder to do so then eating a few bites that have 500 cals in them. And yes, nuts fall into the high caloric density category.
Obese vegans don’t eat too much tofu and nuts. That would be quite a challenge. Potato chips, Oreos, candy, alcohol, there’s plenty of tasty stuff to binge on
I do considerable weight training and HIIT through out the week. I can move large amounts of weight and my body shows it.
But I'll tell you this, when I eat cheddar sour cream ruffles, I feel like @$$. Thy taste so good going down but I will feel gross .
In my non physical fitness day, eating these wouldn't make me feel gross.
Are ultra processed foods unhealthy? Probably, especially if they make someone who is a high performing athlete feel gross. A body at peak performance demands clean macros.
But even at the end of the day, calories in, calories out.
Doesn't take much digging to figure out that Gunter Kuhnle has been funded by Mars Inc [1] and Peter Rogers has been funded by Sugar Nutrition UK (fka: British Sugar Bureau) [2][3] and their names appear all the time in the popular press always defending the interests of big food.
Remember, a lot of the big food people came from big tobacco once the government started cracking down and they're just running the same playbook.
Lol if only the disclosed who funds Gunter Kuhnle. Doesn’t take much to put two and two together. This is a clear pr hit piece article from Big Food to fight against UPF research. Sad work from the OpenMinds team.
throwup238|1 year ago
The article uses a photo of what looks like fishball type products and imitation crab legs which illustrates the problem: while those are highly processed, they're made of fish that doesn't lose much nutritional value in the cooking and preserving process. They're nowhere near as bad as other processed foods like pasta or bread made from bleached flour where the germ and bran were discarded before milling.
coffeebeqn|1 year ago
It’s also confusing because I’ve had lentil or chickpea pasta which is ultra processed but has higher fiber and protein and is probably healthier than wheat based traditional pasta.
bobthepanda|1 year ago
what i've seen, is that UPF is usually defined as "a high proportion of the ingredients do not exist naturally in that form." so for example, the ingredients of an Oreo
> INGREDIENTS: UNBLEACHED ENRICHED FLOUR (WHEAT FLOUR, NIACIN, REDUCED IRON, THIAMINE MONONITRATE [VITAMIN B1], RIBOFLAVIN [VITAMIN B2], FOLIC ACID), SUGAR, PALM OIL, SOYBEAN AND/OR CANOLA OIL, COCOA (PROCESSED WITH ALKALI), HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP, LEAVENING (BAKING SODA AND/OR CALCIUM PHOSPHATE), SALT, SOY LECITHIN, CHOCOLATE, ARTIFICIAL FLAVOR.CONTAINS: WHEAT, SOY.
Of these arguably only salt really exists in its natural form with minimal processing.
mcmoor|1 year ago
nokcha|1 year ago
> Frozen and canned vegetables are often classified as ultra-processed
I think this goes against the common usage of the term "ultra-processed".
VelesDude|1 year ago
While there is some processing, they typically aren't removing huge amount of material or being ground up into another form.
NoPicklez|1 year ago
koolba|1 year ago
airstrike|1 year ago
p1necone|1 year ago
Trying to find out whether "Ultra Processed Food" is "unhealthy" then just becomes an excercise in unwrapping a tautology.
code_biologist|1 year ago
NoPicklez|1 year ago
This is why there are now frameworks in place like the NOVA classification system to try break down and develop a degree to which something is considered processed.
airstrike|1 year ago
Now that's some terrible logic coupled with a ridiculously handwavy statement.
What was the issue with low-fat recommendation? Why was it counter productive? Who messed up too many times? Who needs to make smarter changes? Smarter changes than what? More carefully than what?
I swear statements like that make my blood boil. Even if you replace either "we" with {"scientists", "nutritionists", "dietitians", "humanity"}, it's still a problematically sweeping generalization
AFAIK (not a dietitian), there's nothing inherently bad about lowering fat intake. I can imagine a low-fat diet that comes at the expense of increasing sugar intake could be bad, but that's because of the high sugar, not the low fat...
It seems pretty obvious that the "more careful" approach to ultra-processed foods seems is to avoid them? So long as you're not replacing them with something even worse.
stephen_g|1 year ago
tssge|1 year ago
AFAIK the issue wasn't with low-fat itself per se, but rather that fat was replaced with sugars for things to be palatable. This ended up being much more harmful than having fats, as sugar takes a toll on blood sugar levels and has high energy content itself.
As things got labeled low-fat, people thought this meant a healthier alternative, when in fact it was worse or similar. The view that it was more healthy led to higher rates of consumption.
I consider fats far more healthy than sugar, main issue with fats is their high amount of energy, but from blood sugar standpoint they're a non issue in my opinion.
So yeah there's nothing bad with say no sugar low fat yoghurt healthwise. I eat such yoghurt sometimes and find the taste refreshing. However most people would consider this totally unpalatable as the taste is bitter, not creamy at all and so on.
>Smarter changes than what?
Smarter changes than calling low-fat same as healthy I guess. Careful as in not labeling omission of some nutrient as healthy outright.
hnzix|1 year ago
hilux|1 year ago
Two things:
- Why remove naturally occurring fat from a food? If to lower calories, why not remove total quantity of food, and fat in its natural proportion? Here's a fact: humans NEED dietary fat to survive. We don't need dietary carbs.
- When we remove fat, what is replacing it?
bitwize|1 year ago
These days we have agro-tech out the wazoo and can, potentially, feed billions with fresh crops reliably and relatively cheaply, so the processed stuff doesn't have the advantages it once had and numerous disadvantages.
code_biologist|1 year ago
My diet's generally clean, but the book was a great reminder/jumpstart with clear guidance (eat less processed food) that's not preachy or prescriptive.
WirelessGigabit|1 year ago
sheepscreek|1 year ago
We still don’t understand how amino acids are able to perform such complex functions. We have zero understanding of how the same exact cell in every sense can evolve into different organs in the human body. We don’t even know how we fall asleep, or the complete role of serotonin and melatonin on sleep and mood - their interactivity (which influences which).
So who knows how the amino acids or whatever are the constituents of the foods we consume interact in our body. It’s definitely not a black and white answer. Depends on what exactly are we talking about and the physiology of the individual that likely influences it.
ortusdux|1 year ago
karaterobot|1 year ago
My hypothesis is that UPFs are not inherently less healthy, it's that they are cheap, convenient, and delicious, so it's easy to eat a little too much. I doesn't take much: fifty extra calories every meal is almost 20 pounds a year.
hintymad|1 year ago
api|1 year ago
Other hypotheses I’ve seen include more sedentary jobs, endocrine disruptors, and cigarette smoking going away. Nicotine is a stimulant and an appetite suppressant.
I guess a combination of less nicotine and more sugar isn’t a bad one.
Of course it’s not that people were categorically more healthy back then. Heart disease was pretty rampant.
fallingsquirrel|1 year ago
https://ourworldindata.org/obesity#obesity-varies-widely-wor...
I don't think we've figured out exactly what's causing it. The simplest explanation is an abundance of easy, cheap calories. Some think it's some unknown/unstudied environmental factor like PFAS. There are various other theories. It's another unsolved billion dollar question.
bitwize|1 year ago
datascienced|1 year ago
However of course some processed stuff can be healthy. A vitamin D capsule is super healthy if you are low on vitamin D!
Not to mention you need to consider quantities. A gram of refined sugar is OK, probably neutral.
karmasimida|1 year ago
m463|1 year ago
Potatoes have a lot of fiber in the skin, but fries remove all that.
(I've also been told, eating potatoes are like eating a plate of sugar)
NoPicklez|1 year ago
This takes a complex carbohydrate, strips it of most of its fiber content, adds sodium and then adds trans fats through the deep frying process.
pixl97|1 year ago
If you need calories to survive potatoes are a good option, once you've met those minimum requirements they are a pretty terrible food in the sense it's really easy to over consume them.
foobiekr|1 year ago
Havoc|1 year ago
Say you revert to home cooked meals. Not the worst thing in the world & unlikely to cause harm...
AtlasBarfed|1 year ago
Note I am also not talking about weight or weight loss. I am talking about being healthy, generally in the "lives longer and lives better" deconstruction of "healthy".
immibis|1 year ago
epistasis|1 year ago
hilux|1 year ago
A few things I notice:
- "Processed foods" are lumped together as if they're all the same. But they're not. Specifically, processed foods with high carbs and artificial sweeteners have a very different effect on insulin than no-carb processed meats like most luncheon meats and bacon. Yes, Coke and donuts are bad for you. That has nothing, zero, to do with bacon. (Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so. But even if it is, that would be for reasons completely unrelated to cookies, Coke, etc.)
- A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans. It's a cult. They have re-branded themselves "plant-based." You sometimes have to dig to find this. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.
- For the vegan researchers, the big win is getting the headline. They know (and this is true for all "science") that 99% of consumers who see the initial headline will never see the rebuttals. Recent Stanford twin study is a good example.
chimprich|1 year ago
Most of the people who make comments like this sound more religious than most.
> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so.
It's well established that processed meats containing nitrates, like bacon, are carcinogens.
> A lot, and I mean a LOT, of nutrition research is done by vegans and sponsored by vegans
That's completely backwards. Actually a lot of nutrition research is paid for by large multinationals who sell ultra-processed food. That's where all the cash is.
Who are these shadowy rich vegan organisations?
bcrosby95|1 year ago
It's kinda like all that BPA stuff... I skipped it completely with bottles by just using glass. Glass is pretty well understood, I don't want to put my trust into a newly invented thing that replaces the other newly invented thing that we didn't figure out was problematic until decades after the fact.
Also, I'm not religious about it. I just avoid these things where I can.
timClicks|1 year ago
That conclusion is unsupported by the evidence that you're offering. It could also be explained by vegans simply wanting more research on nutrition.
the_gastropod|1 year ago
This cracks me up. Who do you think has more money and vested interest to spend on bs nutritional studies: the meat / dairy / egg industry or "vegans"?
> Maybe bacon is bad for you. I don't think so
Right. Yea. It's those vegans who are irrational cultists.
jacknews|1 year ago
Food-processing itself is quite unlikely to the problem, it'll be some common additive, or the general balance of fats (and fat types), proteins, carbs, micronutrients, etc.
For my money, the big problem, after sugar, is vegetable oil.
taeric|1 year ago
I also think steering people away from salt is probably misguided. So, take my view with appropriate salt. :)
semiquaver|1 year ago
paulpauper|1 year ago
A_D_E_P_T|1 year ago
Peanut Butter Twix -- the apotheosis of ultra-processed calorie-dense junk food -- isn't even close, at 536 calories per 100g.
One can easily gain lots of weight by eating too many nuts -- and it takes fewer of 'em than one might think.
NoPicklez|1 year ago
This isn't just talking about obesity. But also talking about other additives that make foods less nutrient dense for you, eating foods that can cause other adverse health problems outside of just obesity. Additionally, UPF foods are engineered to make them hyperpalatable, meaning you want to eat more of them than you would a less processed food. Lastly, processed foods are often stripped of many micronutrients that in some cases are artificially added back in. These nutrients we would normally get from unprocessed foods in abundance.
pixl97|1 year ago
You can get overweight by eating high fiber food, but it's way harder to do so then eating a few bites that have 500 cals in them. And yes, nuts fall into the high caloric density category.
coffeebeqn|1 year ago
freitzkriesler2|1 year ago
But I'll tell you this, when I eat cheddar sour cream ruffles, I feel like @$$. Thy taste so good going down but I will feel gross .
In my non physical fitness day, eating these wouldn't make me feel gross.
Are ultra processed foods unhealthy? Probably, especially if they make someone who is a high performing athlete feel gross. A body at peak performance demands clean macros.
But even at the end of the day, calories in, calories out.
from-nibly|1 year ago
ranger_danger|1 year ago
shalmanese|1 year ago
Remember, a lot of the big food people came from big tobacco once the government started cracking down and they're just running the same playbook.
[1] https://www.linkedin.com/posts/gunter-kuhnle-13aba0171_a-who...
[2] https://www.bristol.ac.uk/people/person/Peter-Rogers-be40b6c...
[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/study-that-said-d...
kiwiguy|1 year ago
unknown|1 year ago
[deleted]
black_13|1 year ago
[deleted]
DueDilligence|1 year ago
[deleted]
dangmum|1 year ago
[deleted]