More than half of Americans' calorie intake is from ultra-processed foods, according to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Their definition is clear but is still arbitrary. Fruit juice concentrate can be made by just reducing down juice yet fruit juice concentrate is considered ultra processed.
Mechanically separating meat has no effect on its nutrition so why is it a reason to call something “ultra-processed”
Warming sugar, water, and vanilla beans on the stove is technically considered ultraprocessed by nova
Using that from a manufacturing standpoint is at least somewhat acceptable but even then foods with much more complex manufacturing are considered processed vs ultraprocessed. However their method of clumping some bad food with such a wide range of products causes foods that are not heavily processed and are benign for your health to be labeled as unhealthy.
They then never controlled for confounding variables in the meta review study that linked the nova classification of ultraprocessed food to various health conditions.
This is like saying people sleeping outside 10 nights a year is linked to elevated levels of schizophrenia and never controlling for the difference in people sleeping outside due to homelessness and people sleeping outside for camping. Then the known link between people with schizophrenia being homeless drives the correlation and is strong enough to show elevated levels of schizophrenia amongst everyone who spends at least 10 nights outside
It’s just bad science and the fact it wasn’t picked up in peer review is just more evidence of how atrocious the whole field of nutrition is. My personal advice is any study that considers the effects of health outcomes without accounting for socioeconomic status or even relative fitness levels is just trash pop science
After extraction, the juice is taken through an evaporation process where much of the water is extracted. Most times, this is performed under low heat to make sure the flavor and all other nutritious components within are preserved. What results from the process is a thick, concentrated liquid, usually then pasteurized to eliminate unwanted bacteria. Finally, it’s packaged and shipped off to be used in various products.
This isn’t fruit juice that has been reduced using kitchenware.
Mechanically separated meat (MSM), mechanically recovered/reclaimed meat (MRM), or mechanically deboned meat (MDM) is a paste-like meat product produced by forcing pureed or ground beef, pork, mutton, turkey or chicken under high pressure through a sieve or similar device to separate the bone from the edible meat tissue. When poultry is used, it is sometimes called white slime as an analog to meat-additive pink slime and to meat extracted by advanced meat recovery systems, both of which are different processes. The process entails pureeing or grinding the carcass left after the manual removal of meat from the bones and then forcing the slurry through a sieve under pressure.
The resulting product is a blend primarily consisting of tissues not generally considered meat, along with a much smaller amount of actual meat (muscle tissue). In some countries such as the United States, these non-meat materials are processed separately for human and non-human uses and consumption.[1] The process is controversial; Forbes, for example, called it a “not-so-appetizing meat production process”.[2]
Mechanically separated meat has been used in certain meat and meat products, such as hot dogs and bologna sausage,[2] since the late 1960s. However, not all such meat products are manufactured using an MSM process.
This isn’t meat that has been cut up or even ground up using tools in the kitchen.
foods that are not heavily processed and are benign for your health to be labeled as unhealthy
With respect, which foods, according to whom, on the basis of what?
more evidence of how atrocious the whole field of nutrition is
I agree. Even studies that account for socioeconomic status and relative fitness levels are still not science, but that’s epidemiological studies for you. To quote @jet@hackertalks.com, “Epidemiology is not science, it’s the start of science, but it cannot establish causation.” And yes, they are epidemiological studies, but Nova class 4 is is the class associated with all the chronic metabolic diseases, and yet not Nova class 1 through 3.
The Nova classification is far better than any current mainstream “dietary recommendation” or guidelines. It’s a large step in the right direction, so I wouldn’t brush it off as “arbitrary” just because it’s not perfect. At the very least, it’s useful as a tool to flag a class of products that are designed and marketed to promote overconsumption and that displace whole foods, and it needn’t be the only tool we use.
With both mechanically separated meat and the fruit juice concentrate using a vacuum evaporator there should be no difference in nutrition.
The link to metabolic syndromes and novas class 4 is what I was complaining about because they made the classification overly broad the only people who can fully avoid it are people with extra means or people who but a much more concerted effort into their health and neither of which was controlled. We already know that rich people are generally healthier than poor people so showing that foods that are in general more expensive are “healthier” is just repeating our known values and muddying the waters where it says that simple syrup is a level 2-3 (I don’t remember which and am on mobile) yet throw some ginger into that syrup and now it’s a level 4
Their definition is clear but is still arbitrary. Fruit juice concentrate can be made by just reducing down juice yet fruit juice concentrate is considered ultra processed.
Mechanically separating meat has no effect on its nutrition so why is it a reason to call something “ultra-processed”
Warming sugar, water, and vanilla beans on the stove is technically considered ultraprocessed by nova
Using that from a manufacturing standpoint is at least somewhat acceptable but even then foods with much more complex manufacturing are considered processed vs ultraprocessed. However their method of clumping some bad food with such a wide range of products causes foods that are not heavily processed and are benign for your health to be labeled as unhealthy.
They then never controlled for confounding variables in the meta review study that linked the nova classification of ultraprocessed food to various health conditions.
This is like saying people sleeping outside 10 nights a year is linked to elevated levels of schizophrenia and never controlling for the difference in people sleeping outside due to homelessness and people sleeping outside for camping. Then the known link between people with schizophrenia being homeless drives the correlation and is strong enough to show elevated levels of schizophrenia amongst everyone who spends at least 10 nights outside
It’s just bad science and the fact it wasn’t picked up in peer review is just more evidence of how atrocious the whole field of nutrition is. My personal advice is any study that considers the effects of health outcomes without accounting for socioeconomic status or even relative fitness levels is just trash pop science
You may misinterpreting the terms used. The “foods” within quotation marks are a specific industrially processed product:
From Taraz Foods:
This isn’t fruit juice that has been reduced using kitchenware.
Mechanically separated meat:
This isn’t meat that has been cut up or even ground up using tools in the kitchen.
With respect, which foods, according to whom, on the basis of what?
I agree. Even studies that account for socioeconomic status and relative fitness levels are still not science, but that’s epidemiological studies for you. To quote @jet@hackertalks.com, “Epidemiology is not science, it’s the start of science, but it cannot establish causation.” And yes, they are epidemiological studies, but Nova class 4 is is the class associated with all the chronic metabolic diseases, and yet not Nova class 1 through 3.
The Nova classification is far better than any current mainstream “dietary recommendation” or guidelines. It’s a large step in the right direction, so I wouldn’t brush it off as “arbitrary” just because it’s not perfect. At the very least, it’s useful as a tool to flag a class of products that are designed and marketed to promote overconsumption and that displace whole foods, and it needn’t be the only tool we use.
With both mechanically separated meat and the fruit juice concentrate using a vacuum evaporator there should be no difference in nutrition.
The link to metabolic syndromes and novas class 4 is what I was complaining about because they made the classification overly broad the only people who can fully avoid it are people with extra means or people who but a much more concerted effort into their health and neither of which was controlled. We already know that rich people are generally healthier than poor people so showing that foods that are in general more expensive are “healthier” is just repeating our known values and muddying the waters where it says that simple syrup is a level 2-3 (I don’t remember which and am on mobile) yet throw some ginger into that syrup and now it’s a level 4