Eating Processed Foods Tied To Shorter Life, Study Suggests (theguardian.com) 243
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times: The study, in JAMA Internal Medicine, tracked diet and health over eight years in more than 44,000 French men and women. Their average age was 58 at the start. About 29 percent of their energy intake was ultraprocessed foods. Such foods include instant noodles and soups, breakfast cereals, energy bars and drinks, chicken nuggets and many other ready-made meals and packaged snacks containing numerous ingredients and manufactured using industrial processes. There were 602 deaths over the course of the study, mostly from cancer and cardiovascular disease. Even after adjusting for many health, socioeconomic and behavioral characteristics, including scores on a scale of compliance with a healthy diet, the study found that for every 10 percent increase in ultraprocessed food consumption, there was a 14 percent increase in the risk of death (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source). The authors suggest that high-temperature processing may form contaminants, that additives may be carcinogenic, and that the packaging of prepared foods can lead to contamination.
Processed flour, sugar and corn (Score:2)
sugars are the devil.
Re: (Score:3)
sugars are the devil.
Sucrose certainly is. Avoid it.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most processed foods are engineered to be hyper palatable and include added sucrose. They also commonly contain zero, or nearly zero fiber. Highly refined starches can also present a challenge to the human metabolic system.
Have you noticed how fucked up the world is? (Score:4, Interesting)
Pass me another can of pasteurized processed spray cheese food product so I can take myself out before it gets any worse.
Processed milk (Score:2, Insightful)
Raw milk is better for you. Listeria is fake news created by the dairy industrial complex to keep consumers on profitable processed food.
Re: (Score:2)
The burden of proof is for you to prove that Listeria exists.
The symptoms described as "Listeria" are caused by a bacteria called Listeria monocytogenes. We can see it in microscopes....that is being used to examine milk....that made people sick....and the stuff coming out of those sick people has a lot of that bacteria, while normal people do not.
I don't have to prove a negative.
You made a positive claim: that there is a conspiracy against raw milk. So, time to show your evidence.
Re: Please, Drink Raw Milk! (Score:2)
Any specific raw milk? Or just the store-brand raw milk that's been sitting there for a few days?
Filtered raw milk that came from the dairy maybe a minute and a half ago isn't quite the same stuff.
The Snack of Dorian Gray (Score:5, Funny)
You even wonder how processed foods last so long?
They do it by consuming the life energy of the future consumers to keep themselves looking youthful!
Re: (Score:2)
You even wonder how processed foods last so long?
They do it by consuming the life energy of the future consumers to keep themselves looking youthful!
Never accept candy from a time vampire.
Re: (Score:2)
at least with all those perservatives my body will outlast organophiles.
Now THAT is some quality trans-humanism!
My cognitive ability ... (Score:4, Interesting)
... directly correlates with my current diet. When I force myself / see to it that I cook myself and eat healthy and ad in an amount of fresh veggies and similar foods and reduce sugar (the only substance I'm addicted to) I am more "awake" than usual. That effect kicks in noticably after a week or so.
The more processed foods are, the more unhealthy you're living. To me that's evident in quite a few ways.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: My cognitive ability ... (Score:2)
And when someone runs ANOVA and determines that factor X is significant but factor Y is not, one generally needs a more convincing argument to assert factor Y is really the important one.
It's actually not the fact ist's processed ... (Score:2)
... it is the way and procedure food is processed. Foodprocessing factories put way too much sugar and salt in their products, and of course other substitutes that are just not right in food (cellulose, fibers etc.). Proper, wealthy processed food is possible, think of things like greatgrandmothers used to preserve food.
Re: (Score:2)
Many traditionally cured meat products contain nitrites.
By the way, nitrites are still nitrites even if they come from triple organic certified celery.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's Dr Ken Berry MD's recent deep dive into the bullshit research: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
On one hand, we have a significant pile of peer-reviewed studies with controls, involving nitrites from food and non-food sources.
On the other hand, we have one guy talking on Youtube.
You chose to follow the Youtube guy.
You are what is wrong with society today.
Re: (Score:2)
and of course other substitutes that are just not right in food (cellulose, fibers etc.).
You know that cellulose is the chemical name for dietary fiber, which is something very good for you that is sadly lacking in a lot of processed foods, right?
Deficiency disorders? (Score:5, Interesting)
I really wonder how many of the maladies of old age are actually deficiency disorders.
Vitamins were discovered when someone figured out that people going months without eating Vitamin C got sick. Someone empirically figured out that eating citrus fruit staved off scurvy and that led to the discovery of Vitamin C. Other vitamins are also important but take longer before a deficiency makes you sick.
Natural food has all kinds of stuff in it and I wonder if some of it is healthy in really subtle ways that take a very long time to show up.
Also, processed foods lack fiber, and you need some in your diet, to help your body control cholesterols.
Finally, omega 3: I read a book called Fats That Heal, Fats That Kill [goodreads.com] that claims that omega 3 fatty acids are essential to health but at least 95% of people in North America don't get enough of it. Omega 3 is not found in processed foods, because omega 3 oils go rancid very quickly. Before processed foods, everyone got omega 3 naturally (for example, by eating fish or eating meat from grass-fed cattle) but these days people get very little, and get other kinds of oils instead. Since your body is made from what you eat, if you don't eat enough omega 3, your body has to use the other oils and it doesn't work as well. The book claims that while our bodies can't make omega 3, our bodies can convert it from one form to another; so it would suffice to eat only fish oil or only flax oil or whatever and trust the body to convert DHA to GLA or whatever.
My wife and I buy flax oil blend and use it to make salad dressing; it's a painless way to add omega 3 to your diet.
Simple salad dressing recipe:
3-4 tablespoons of oil (flax oil, or olive oil)
1 tablespoon of balsamic vinegar (or any other vinegar you like)
sea salt to taste
black pepper to taste
We measure into a convenient cup, then whisk with a small wire whisk. It's fast and easy. We have figured out how many cranks of the pepper mill or how many twists of the sea salt grinder measure out the amount we like so it's a quick grind-and-count, no need to use measuring spoons for the salt and pepper.
Sometimes we put in some tomato paste; you can buy tomato paste in a tube [epicurious.com], and it's a handy way to add just a little bit when making just enough dressing for a couple of salads. Or garlic powder or any other spice that suits your taste. It's easy to tweak the recipe. We don't bother buying pre-made salad dressing anymore.
We used to buy omega-3 chocolate truffles. They were expensive but were a tasty way to add omega-3 to our diets. Sadly the manufacturer no longer makes them... I think they were too expensive and didn't sell fast enough.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, processed foods lack fiber, and you need some in your diet, to help your body control cholesterols.
We have excellent feedback systems in the body to produce exactly the right amount of cholesterol. We don't need fiber for that, but it is important not to disregulate the system by eating crap that we weren't meant to eat.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe that the cholesterol feedback systems are thrown off by too much saturated fat. But dietary fiber helps reduce the impact of saturated fat.
Re:Deficiency disorders? (Score:4, Informative)
You have a kernel of an idea, but I can't help but think that you're coming from a bias.
Certainly it's possible that "some unidentified, or thought irrelevant, deficiency could contribute to ill health later in life" is certainly possible.
However, all food is "natural", using such wording makes me doubt the origin of your viewpoint. All food is natural. There's no such thing as synthetic food, in essence. Just processed or unprocessed.
Thus it's a question of whether that process affects the food negatively or not. Unfortunately the study stands alone in a sea of other studies that find that the benefits of processed food (i.e. no bugs, no diseases, food safety standards, wide range of foods available in the shops year round) basically outweigh any processing downsides so long as the consumer is sensible. It's much more a "consumer habit makes them get sick" than anything else, rather than laying the blame at processed foods in themselves.
However, the study (which is based on web-reporting of people's food habits, and some of those people barely contributed at all) also finds that the deaths are cancer and cardiovascular disease. Cancers are basically what you die of if you die of nothing else. They are inherent, ever-present, virtually inevitable (unless you're a certain species of lobster, etc.), etc.
Omega-3, in particular, is another snake-oil term from the "health" food industry. Like fibre, vitamin C and many other things, including oxygen - being DEFICIENT in it isn't good for you. But consuming more of it doesn't make you healthier. There are more studies concluding "Dietary supplementation with omegaâ'3 fatty acids does not appear to affect the risk of death, cancer or heart disease." than anything to the contrary, for instance. The EU's official line is "contributes to the normal function of the heart" (which appears a lot in our health adverts as they aren't allowed to claim things that can't be proven - if you read that sentence carefully it basically means "Yeah, you need some, that's about it")
There were many hypotheses saying that Omega-3 is what caused us to evolve from wading animals to super-brain predators, but that's nowhere near true either. Probably it helped, having access to sea-food, but it's not an automatic "makes your brain better" food or else blue whales and sharks would be the cleverest things on Earth - all that fresh Omega-3!
Again - necessary, but not super-boosting just because you eat more.
The basic rule of any health nutrient is "the difference between 'normal' and what happens if you don't have it doesn't mean it'll give you those benefits again ON TOP of normal by having it". More fibre isn't better than normal amounts. More sugar isn't better than normal amounts. Similarly no-sugar isn't better than normal amounts. And "normal amounts" are widely publicised, heavily tested, and also subject to millions of years of evolutionary selection - we call it hunger.
The reason your manufacturer no longer makes "Omega-3 chocolate truffles"? They were a processed food that likely eliminated most of the Omega-3 in their production (like any processed food), and then the hype around Omega-3 died off and nobody bought them.
Honestly, if you haven't read up on this stuff, you shouldn't be offering nutritional advice (I'm not offering nutritional advice either - I'm asking people to exercise caution and, ironically, take every health-fad with a pinch of salt).
The recommended diets are there, heavily researched and tested down to every individual component. They don't mention extremes of Omega-3 or anything else like that, nor do they say "don't eat any processed food". That's your current science. Any parroting of something that sounds like something a "health food shop" checkout girl would tell you is likely to be proven nonsense after the fad has worn off.
But your original line - that's probably right. It's not much use to us, however, if people just don't eat the right diet in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
And to add to that great silver lining of the post chain:
The problem with the study of nutrition is that its based on a chain of events. Its one thing when a baby is in the womb, where the mothers body is going into full overdrive to create nutrients to stave off deficiency during birth, and eventually staving it off defencies at some later point.
For humans its one thing, because we are at the top of the food chain and we live long. Humans can live long enough to experience long term deficiencies in mineral
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However, all food is "natural", using such wording makes me doubt the origin of your viewpoint. All food is natural. There's no such thing as synthetic food, in essence. Just processed or unprocessed.
I think most people understand the idiom where "natural food" means less-processed food. In case anyone didn't get that: when I said "natural" I meant "less-processed, fresher food, as opposed to more-processed food that may have had nutrients stripped out to make it more shelf-stable or more palatable."
The re
Omega 3 vs omega 6 (Score:2)
Hello,
I heard the omega 3 fatty acid story slightly differently than you tell it. ALA is the primary omega 3 fatty acid present in plant sources. Your body doesn't want ALA, it wants DHA or other forms of omega 3.
No problem, your body will convert ALA into DHA or whatever it needs. However, I read that this metabolic pathway competes with a process that converts dietary omega 6 fatty acids into what the body needs. So if you have a lot of omega 6 fatty acids in your diet, a
Re: (Score:2)
I really wonder how many of the maladies of old age are actually deficiency disorders.
Interestingly enough, there's recent research that indicates some aging related ailments could be caused by too much accumulated iron [sciencealert.com].
Re: (Score:2)
Since your body is made from what you eat, if you don't eat enough omega 3, your body has to use the other oils and it doesn't work as well
This is not how digestion and biosynthesis works.
he book claims that while our bodies can't make omega 3, our bodies can convert it from one form to another; so it would suffice to eat only fish oil or only flax oil or whatever and trust the body to convert DHA to GLA or whatever.
Unfortunately for the book's claim, this was studied by giving people omega 3 fatty acids, and not giving them to the control group. It did not have the effect claimed in the book.
The old ones are the best (Score:2)
Q. If I eat nothing but vegetables and brown rice and give up beer, wine, tea and coffee will I live to be 100?
A. It'll sure feel like it!
TY, IHAW.
What? (Score:2)
packaged snacks containing numerous ingredients and manufactured using industrial processes.
The only thing one could consume that would not fall under that is water. Everything else contains numerous ingredients. And we can't manufacture things using non-industrial processes.
Re: (Score:2)
And we can't manufacture things using non-industrial processes.
Isn't that the point? Cook your own food.
Toxic aminoacids (Score:2)
I suspect part of the aminoacids of the protein in food are chemically changed by the industrial processing to unnatural toxic aminoacids.
Here are examples of toxic aminoacids:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I suspect the body could use the unnatural aminoacids to build proteins. Those proteins could cause proteopathy, like for example alzheimer's.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Define Process (Score:2)
Well lets try it. (Score:2)
I tried eating no processed foods once for a year.
But then I died of starvation.
Self reported data (Score:2)
Self reported data on food consumption is incredibly flimsy. So you're going to get flimsy results. You can't ethically lock people up and force them to eat only this type of food to get solid data. And they need a better term than 'processed' foods; washing is a process.
Re:LOL industrial processes (Score:4, Informative)
Nobody really knows why "processed foods" cause harm. Studies on salt itself say too much salt affects some people negatively, but not all. Salt sensitivity can usually be detected with specific tests. And lower-processed foods are often also salty. Being heavily processed by itself doesn't mean it automatically has more salt.
As the intro hinted, the exact cause is only speculation at this point. Further studies would be needed to isolate the offending trait(s). Candidate factors include but are not limited to:
* More alleged salt
* More MSG
* More alleged oil/fat
* Less fiber and "roughage"
* Longer cooking period
* More preservatives and "odd" chemicals
* More frying
* On the shelf longer
* Less of certain vitamins and minerals
Re: LOL industrial processes (Score:3, Interesting)
Nitrates in processed meat are heavily linked to bowel cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrates in processed meat are heavily linked to bowel cancer.
Nope. The is a weak link between bowel cancer and processed meat, which includes all kinds of processing, including drying, canning and salting, not just adding nitrates. As far as I know, there's no clear dose-response test done to point to nitrates as the culprit.
Plus there are tons of confounders. People who eat more processed meat have a worse lifestyle in general. Factors in that lifestyle could easily account for difference in cancer rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Because celery is rarely fried in fat so the nitrites don't form nitrosamines?
Re: (Score:2)
Nitrosamines can also form without high heat. You'll find them in fermented foods like kimchi, for instance.
Also, most processed meat is not fried either.
Re: LOL industrial processes (Score:5, Funny)
It is in Glasgow.
Re: (Score:2)
It is in Glasgow.
Yeah but most fresh meat is fried in glasgow too, and veg, and sweets and probably drinks too.
Re: (Score:2)
But bacon is by far the most popular cured meat...
Re: (Score:2)
I guess bacon is popular, but the typical quantity eaten is rather low. People eat a few strips, not a plate full. I think the total amount of luncheon meats, ham, hot dogs and sausage is much higher, and those are typically not fried. And not everybody eats their bacon crispy. If you heat it up in the microwave, you get very little nitrosamines.
I tried to find statistics on different kinds of processed meat consumption, but could not find anything decent.
Re: (Score:2)
Since hot dogs and sausages provide their own fat, grilling will also form nitrosamines. Same deal in a skillet (very common for both).
Celery, not so much.
Re: (Score:3)
Here's a list of different foods and their analysis of various kinds of nitrosamines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p... [nih.gov]
You'll find them in fruits and vegetables, sauces, fish, vegetable oils. The meats don't particulary stick out, except for salted fish (which I think it rarely mentioned when people talk about danger of processed meats).
Re: LOL industrial processes (Score:4, Insightful)
If you heat it up in the microwave, you get very little nitrosamines.
Yeah but then you've got a whole different set of problems, chiefly being what the fuck happened to me that I think it's acceptable to microwave bacon? Fucking philistines man.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess bacon is popular, but the typical quantity eaten is rather low. People eat a few strips, not a plate full. I think the total amount of luncheon meats, ham, hot dogs and sausage is much higher, and those are typically not fried. And not everybody eats their bacon crispy. If you heat it up in the microwave, you get very little nitrosamines.
I tried to find statistics on different kinds of processed meat consumption, but could not find anything decent.
The studies on nitrates and nitrites (widely ridiculed for their awful methods) have tended to focus on the hotdog and not the bun it's delivered in. The inflammatory properties of wheat should concern people.
So the underlying assumption that nitrites and nitrates cause cancer and the dose is what is making the difference is wrong. There is no evidence that they cause cancer. Just bad studies that didn't control correctly. this problem of misunderstanding is compounded when outfits like EAT-Lancet and the W
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to bacon.
But the WHO says clearly that increased cancer is associated with all processed meats. If bacon was the culprit, they should have said that cancer is associated with bacon. Instead, they also mention stuff like corned beef and beef jerky.
Re: (Score:2)
I refer you to bacon.
But the WHO says clearly that increased cancer is associated with all processed meats. If bacon was the culprit, they should have said that cancer is associated with bacon. Instead, they also mention stuff like corned beef and beef jerky.
Selective interpretation of data - The WHO report was a disgrace. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com] .
Re: (Score:2)
Except when it's used to make "nitrate-free" sausages.
Re: (Score:2)
In that case, it's a marketing scam and shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as nitrite free.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a marketing scam that's literally mandated by law. Any meat using natural sources of nitrates must be listed as uncured under 9CFR317.17.
Re: (Score:2)
Uncured != nitrite free.
Re: (Score:2)
They have to claim both and then say "except those naturally occurring..."
Re: (Score:2)
So what constitutes an unnatural source? You can get them out of a hole in the ground, and I didn't put 'em there.
Re: (Score:2)
The specific wording is "except for those occurring naturally in celery juice" or whatever. They're not adding nitrates, just an ingredient that happens to contain them. And of course that's the only reason that ingredient was added, so there's no important difference between cured and "uncured" except that cured meat has limits to the amount of nitrates you can use.
Re: (Score:2)
That's called sauteeing unless all the water in the veggies evaporate. As long as there's still water content, the temperature of most of the celery won't go above 212*F.
Re: (Score:2)
As a matter of fact, I do. You're supposed to sweat those, not fry them.
The question is, do YOU?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe because people don't eat anywhere near as much celery as they eat meat and because celery is eaten either raw or boiled, not fried.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just about all ice cream these days uses carrageenan (a seaweed extract) in place of a large portion of actual cream. Nobody more guilty than McDonald's milk shakes since around 2005. They're already supposed to be half liquid but also don't really melt.
It was bad enough being whipped to the point of being 40% air.
Re: (Score:2)
Just about all ice cream these days uses carrageenan (a seaweed extract) in place of a large portion of actual cream. Nobody more guilty than McDonald's milk shakes since around 2005. They're already supposed to be half liquid but also don't really melt.
It was bad enough being whipped to the point of being 40% air.
McDonald's Shakes are classified as an "edible plastic" by the FDA, according to the plastics lady who came into our science class 22 years ago....
Re: LOL industrial processes (Score:2)
And the FDA lets manufacturers call things normally heavy in cream "creamier" when they replace the cream with junk like carrageenan.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Studies on salt itself say too much salt affects some people negatively, but not all.
This is race related. East Asians tend to be the least sensitive to salt, sub-Saharan Africans the most sensitive, and Caucasians in between. This correlates with the historical availability of salt. In much of Asia it has been available and affordable for millennia. In Africa, it was historically difficult to obtain. So Asians evolved to excrete salt, while Africans evolved to retain it.
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a common term in wide colloquial usage. It's easier to redefine the word than to stop using it.
Re:LOL industrial processes (Score:5, Interesting)
Back in the 90's, rBST was given to cows en masse', and while it increased milk yields, it also made the cows sick and would result in milk that sometimes had a double digit percentage of pus, blood and other nastyness. Suffice to say, during this time a bunch of people began getting sick from Dairy-related foods and wierdly enough, you started seeing studies correlating dairy products to every ailment from Cancer to Diabetis. I used to get hemmoroids and diahrhea from drinking milk and when I cut dairy I felt a lot better. I cut it for about 6 or 7 years then found out the organic products didn't give me issues.
Apparently enough people found enough problems with the milk they were drinking they did the same, hence organic foods were born.
In the 00's, the same thing was repeated with corn syrup. Monsanto released their roundup product which was used on corn for ethanol production, companies moved to corn syrup from sugar because it was less expensive, and the refined syrup had a concentration of pesticides. People got sick from corn syrup, studies began linking it to cancer and diabetis and all sorts of things, and people began eliminating it from their diets. Some people went "gluten free". In my case I never had corn syrup in my diet so I never had issues, but lots of people did.
The lessons to be learned is, it isn't cooks or chefs or scientists that run food companies.
It's accountants.
And to them, you and your health is just a number, and they will fight tooth and nail and everything inbetween to force food down your throat that will make you fat, mentally ill, and sick because they think they have a right, not the privelage, of a market share.
Go look on a milk carton sometime. They'll have "No rBST" and then a legal disclaimer.
These people are nuts.
Personally, I am losing faith in the entire food industry and going back to basics. It really takes a hell of a lot of effort to mess up fruits and vegitables.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 00's, the same thing was repeated with corn syrup. Monsanto released their roundup product which was used on corn for ethanol production, companies moved to corn syrup from sugar because it was less expensive
Unfortunately for your story, your timeline is off by several decades.
Companies moved to HFCS en-mass (in the US) in the 1970s because corn subsidies made it much cheaper than sugar.
Re: (Score:3)
Bullshit. If you could afford enough spices to do that, you could afford food that wasn't off.
And no amount of spices will remove botulism or salmonella pathogens.
Re:LOL industrial processes (Score:5, Informative)
Nobody really knows why "processed foods" cause harm. Studies on salt itself say too much salt affects some people negatively, but not all. Salt sensitivity can usually be detected with specific tests. And lower-processed foods are often also salty. Being heavily processed by itself doesn't mean it automatically has more salt.
As the intro hinted, the exact cause is only speculation at this point. Further studies would be needed to isolate the offending trait(s). Candidate factors include but are not limited to:
* More alleged salt
* More MSG
* More alleged oil/fat
* Less fiber and "roughage"
* Longer cooking period
* More preservatives and "odd" chemicals
* More frying
* On the shelf longer
* Less of certain vitamins and minerals
There are well researched mechanisms:
1) The increased GIP/GLP-1 ratio from finely processed foods (as in chopped up or pureed) promoting insulin resistance.
2) The low F/N ratio fats (aka seed oils) used in western food preparation, impairing satiety signaling by impairing RET.
3) The absence of DHA and EPA, so the body keeps up the hunger till it gets enough. Eat that fatty fishy to feel full quicker.
The strawmen you list are the domain of uninformed speculation.
Re: (Score:3)
Oh - and sugar.
Re: (Score:2)
The FUD is strong with this one.
Re: (Score:2)
You didn’t link to any studies, so speculation.
I didn't link to any studies because I value my time over yours.
Gabor Erdosi has an excellent talk reviewing the literature of GIP/GLP-1 things on YouTube.
The protons series on hyperlipid has a very in-depth review of the literature on F/N ratios of fats and the effects at the mitochondrial boundary
There was a study doing the news rounds on the DHA and EPA thing last week but I can't be bothered to find it for you. The summary is people who eat fish eat less.
not MSG (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> Your own body need glutamate and produce it in quantity
Doesn't alter the obvious allergic reaction many of us have experienced from consuming these things from external sources.
Re:LOL industrial processes (Score:4, Interesting)
* On the shelf longer
* Less of certain vitamins and minerals
I think that eventually it is a combination of factors. That said, nutrition is about more than just the 3 food groups (carbs, fats, protein) with some vitamins and minerals tossed in.
One of the things needed for proper digestion and absorption of nutrients is enzymes. Lots are available especially in raw foods, but they are quite heat sensitive and temperatures of 60 or 70 degrees Celsius destroy them. Which is good if you want long shelf life, since they (by definition) help with the breakdown/rotting process.
Another factor that allegedly, according to some dieticians' writings, is present in raw produce is termed "hydrophilic colloids". I'm not sure about the accuracy of the term, but these are claimed to be substances that enhance the water solubility of other nutrients, also improving absorption of nutrients. Also destroyed by heat and thus not present in processed foods.
Then there's the whole intestinal population of flora, also playing a role in digestion. Many raw vegetables carry with them lactobacillus and other species which is part of the plant's natural defenses. Hence the traditional ability to pickle foods via fermentation of their own microbes, without the addition of other cultures. Plus the prebiotic substances that these microorganisms consume as food.
In short, you can't really get around adding fresh veggies and fruit to your meals.
It is difficult to sift through all the health hype and scientifically quantify each factor, but I think it is safe to say that having a diet of which around half (or more) consists of raw produce (which corresponds with the advice of a dietician I once consulted) would be close to optimal. The traditional way of preserving foods (before cooling, preservative chemicals and industrial processing became available) - in other words fermented foods, would probably also add some small measure to proper nutrition, with the provision that these foods are prepared via traditional/homemade methods, and not industrial shortcuts.
Re: (Score:2)
One of the things needed for proper digestion and absorption of nutrients is enzymes. Lots are available especially in raw foods.
Your body makes its own enzymes. If there are enzymes in the food, our intestines break them down into amino acids before absorption, and the rebuild the amino acids into new enzymes.
Re: (Score:2)
* More alleged oil/fat
Doubtful. These are French people eating French food.
Re: (Score:2)
45mg of sodium per 12 oz, even in salt form, is not enough to make anything taste salty. Canned vegetables have roughly 10 times the sodium.
Re: (Score:2)
As for Coke, caffeine is a really bitter alkaloid (as are some of the remnants of the coca leaf, most likely). Gatorade has roughly 3 times the sodium - which is kind of the point as an electrolyte replenisher. It wasn't designed as a casual beverage.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but it's marketed as one.
Your average kid playing sports does not need anything other than good food and water.
You have to (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When you say "hard science", do you mean IQ?
No, I mean peer reviewed studies (Score:2)
When somebody throws nonsense like supply side economics or anti-vaxxer crap or anti-GMO crap in your face you need to be able to say "You're wrong" with no doubt. Faith doesn't work when you're trying to make it in the real world. Faith is too easily exploited. You need the certainty that comes from being factually correct.
Re: You have to (Score:2)
IQ doesn't exist, so probably not.
Re: (Score:2)
They know that, and took it into account. From the abstract:
"Ultraprocessed foods consumption was associated with younger age (45-64 years, mean [SE] proportion of food in weight, 14.50% [0.04%]; P.001), lower income (€1200/mo, 15.58% [0.11%]; P.001), lower educational level (no diploma or primary school, 15.50% [0.16%]; P.001), living alone (15.02% [0.07%]; P.001), higher body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; 30, 15.98% [0.11%]; P.001), and lower physi
Re: (Score:2)
Humans aren't as controlled as rats...
I think it's more like the poor in developed countries with lots of cheap processed food are able to afford enough of it to make themselves quite fat and unwell.
We've had processed food for a while now and life expectancy for people who aren't enormous hasn't gone down.
If the rat studies supplied endless quantities of tasty processed food and bland unprocessed food, the might be closer to these results.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Poor people eat more processed foods. Poor people die sooner.
In India, it's the wealthier people that can afford more processed foods, and they are the ones getting sick. The poor get low quality food, but at least they aren't overeating.
they'd be feeding rats different types of food and studying their life cycles
Last common ancestor between humans and rats is 75 million years old. Last common ancestor between sheep and whales is only 50 million years old, but nobody would say that we should do nutrition studies on sheep to figure out the best diet for a whale.
Re: (Score:3)
If the study was done in India, that would be relevant. it was done in France. And you gave no study confirming your claim, so you are basically repeating anecdotal rumor.
Last common ancestor is a scientific sounding but irrelevant argument. If you had at least mentioned genetic similarity (92%, vs chimp at 98%), it would have SOUNDED relevant. But when it comes to the digestive tract, rats are more than sufficiently similar genetically to humans for this kind of testing. They eat the same things and l
Re: (Score:3)
-- it's a joke.
Re:sigh. (Score:5, Informative)
You are so, so arrogant...
They are not stupid. They are aware of those correlations, and accounted for them. From the abstract:
"Ultraprocessed foods consumption was associated with younger age (45-64 years, mean [SE] proportion of food in weight, 14.50% [0.04%]; P.001), lower income (€1200/mo, 15.58% [0.11%]; P.001), lower educational level (no diploma or primary school, 15.50% [0.16%]; P.001), living alone (15.02% [0.07%]; P.001), higher body mass index (calculated as weight in kilograms divided by height in meters squared; 30, 15.98% [0.11%]; P.001), and lower physical activity level (15.56% [0.08%]; P.001). A total of 602 deaths (1.4%) occurred during follow-up. After adjustment for a range of confounding factors, an increase in the proportion of ultraprocessed foods consumed was associated with a higher risk of all-cause mortality"
Re: (Score:3)
From TFA:
Self-reported data were collected at baseline, including sociodemographic, lifestyle, physical activity, weight and height, and anthropometrics.
Unfortunately the paper is paywalled but I think we can safely assume that they collected that data in order to control for it.
No need to set yourself on fire though.
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately the paper is paywalled but I think we can safely assume that they collected that data in order to control for it.
No, we cannot. What happens is the researchers collect a bunch of potentially confounding data, and then run it through a standard statistical package, typically the Cox proportional hazards model. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The problem is that the Cox model only works if the confounders are linear, time-invariant, and independent. In practice, none of these requirements are met. In addition, not all possible confounders are collected, and they are also not measured accurately. People lie and they
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>Socioeconomic factors can't be "controlled for" because they are all encompassing.
Dude you really have no fucking clue how this shit works.
Re: (Score:2)
> People eat shit because they're poor, and they're poor because they're exploited
Except people who live in McMansions eat the exact same shit despite not being poor and not being terribly well exploited. Everyone engages in the stupid including people for whom you can't spin such an obvious SJW narrative.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't understand percentages and how they differ from percentage points, I take it?
Re: (Score:2)
I thought recent advances have pointed to the importance of gut bacteria which isn't/wasn't well understood.
If you ever find a study/article/claim that there is one cause of any particular disease involving nutrition, you can almost always disregard their study/article/claim.
Shit's complicated. There are a giant number of interacting causes.
Re: (Score:2)
Um.....photosynthesis does not select between different isotopes of hydrogen or any other atom involved in the process.
This was rather handy when we figured out whether the oxygen released from plants comes from the water or CO2. (The released oxygen comes from the water, the O fixed into sugars comes from the CO2).
Re: (Score:2)
There is a new study that says the Gingivalis might be a cause of Alzheimer's.
https://science.slashdot.org/s... [slashdot.org]
Not sure if that runs in your family, but it's worth checking and trying to fix it.
Re: Math adds up (Score:2)
Lots of people on Slashdot don't understand percentages.