More Than Half of What Americans Eat Is 'Ultra-Processed'

Status
Not open for further replies.

entremet

Member
lead_960.jpg
And those foods account for 90 percent of U.S. added sugar intake, new research says.

Michael Pollan’s guideline that people should “eat food, not too much, mostly plants,” is oft-quoted, less oft-followed. Once again, research has demonstrated that Americans actually tend to eat food, too much, mostly things that are no longer recognizable as plants, if indeed they ever were: More than half of Americans’ calories come from “ultra-processed foods,” according to a new study published in BMJ Open.

“Processed” is not inherently an evil word. According to the Food and Drug Administration, the only time a food can be called fresh is when you’ve just ripped it out of the ground or off a tree and shoved it in your mouth. (Ok, you’re allowed to wash it, coat it, and use pesticides, too.) So bread, even the whole-wheat kind with the weird seeds in it, is processed. Frozen spinach is processed.

But that is not the kind of processing they’re talking about in this study. The researchers, from the University of São Paulo and Tufts University, defined “ultra-processed” as:

Formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils, and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavors, colors, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product.​

What's interesting about this research is they decided to define the nebulous term--processed, creating a more specific term--ultra processed--defined above.

Moreover, the study defines why these ultra processed foods are bad--added sugar.

Part of the reason this ratio is so troubling is that ultra-processed foods account for almost all of the added sugars Americans eat—90 percent, to be specific. Added sugar (that is, any sugar not naturally occurring in a food) has recently become even more of a target for elimination from people’s diets. The most recent U.S. dietary guidelines recommend that people get less than 10 percent of their calories from added sugars. In this study, the average was 14 percent—292.2 added sugar calories out of the 2069.5 daily total.

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/a...what-americans-eat-is-ultra-processed/472791/
 
I'm surprised it's not even more tbh. I think this study might be an under-report based on anecdotal evidence which I understand isn't a whole lot to go by. I don't have any issue with lab-made or highly processed food, but it's truly unfortunate it packs in so much sugar, sodium and other badness.

So what? Does it mention why I should care? What do they claim this means to me?

So what: Americans are not following the recommended dietary guidelines, which are pretty lax to begin with. Why you should care: it may affect your health. Why they claim it means to you: higher risk of heart, gastric and endocrine disease, I imagine.
 
First change I made when I started making more money was upgrade my diet from cheap and easy TV dinners (which I assume qualify as 'ultra-processed') to making my own food from ingredients. That way I could better measure my intake (though I measure purely by calories and not sugar). I dropped a significant amount of weight with that change alone.
 
Not surprising in the least with American fast food culture. Chain restaurant food and frozen food are the same, basically.
 
So what? Does it mention why I should care? What do they claim this means to me?

Sugar is bad for you, and 90% isn't coming from the candy/pop/desserts/snacks that are typically understood to have sugar. Its coming from processed meals like frozen dinners, cereals, bread, microwave lunches etc.
 
So what? Does it mention why I should care? What do they claim this means to me?
Processed foods have all kinds of added stuff (not only sugar) that can be unhealthy if all you eat are those ultra-processed foods (almost) daily for decades. They also often have too much salt, fat & shit. The ingredients can also be of questionable quality/from a questionable source or not as advertised.

First change I made when I started making more money was upgrade my diet from cheap and easy TV dinners (which I assume qualify as 'ultra-processed') to making my own food from ingredients. That way I could better measure my intake (though I measure purely by calories and not sugar). I dropped a significant amount of weight with that change alone.
Cooking your own food is far cheaper than any pre-made shit, unless you buy some monkey meat or something.
 
First change I made when I started making more money was upgrade my diet from cheap and easy TV dinners (which I assume qualify as 'ultra-processed') to making my own food from ingredients. That way I could better measure my intake (though I measure purely by calories and not sugar). I dropped a significant amount of weight with that change alone.
Congratulations! You're now above the income level that prevents Michael Pollan from shaming you from his nantucket yacht as he discusses his next meal with is private chef.
 
I predict that in the future the consensus will be that it is not so much the ratio of protein/carbs/fat that is fucking up Americans but rather the abundance of heavily processed foods in the diet.

Extremely calorie dense but very nutrient sparse.
 
Sugar is bad for you, and 90% isn't coming from the candy/pop/desserts/snacks that are typically understood to have sugar. Its coming from processed meals like frozen dinners, cereals, bread, microwave lunches etc.
Pretty sure most candy/pop/deserts/snacks that Americans consume fall under their definition of "ultra-processed."
 
Another bash America thread?
It isn't really an issue in just America, it was an issue in EU until things were made to outlaw it.
The problem is that the US isn't gutsy enough to pass laws to make our food healthy.

Yeah, like "GMO", "Processed" is becoming a red herring among health conscious people.
There is a huge difference between GMO and Processed. GMO in theory should have no differences from actual food. Processed means things were added for preservation/time management/taste.
 
Yeah it is ultra ironic that companies are adding a bunch of shit and processing food so that it mimics the qualities of nonprocessed and natural foods. You'd think it would just be cheaper and better for all involved to just eat the natural food to begin with, and it is.
 
There is a huge difference between GMO and Processed. GMO in theory should have no differences from actual food. Processed means things were added for preservation/time management/taste.

No it doesn't. It means goods went through some form of minimal packaging process before it reached the shelves or is sold to you. Salting peanuts qualifies. Turning peanuts into peanut butter qualifies, with no necessary additives. Frozen vegetables qualify.

Processing does not necessarily mean "additives and preservatives".
 
I switched from eating food from a box or a microwave dinner tray to fresh veggies, lean meat, better fats, etc. Lost lots of weight pretty quick, initially.

Not going to shame anyone for their eating habits, but I mean, the simpler you eat, the better. Doesn't mean you can't have take-out Chinese every once in awhile, but it does mean you probably shouldn't eat it three times a week.
 
I cook from scratch pretty much everything that I am not buying from a restaurant, and since I don't eat fast food much even that is usually cooked from scratch. I think the closest thing I regularly eat that is "ultra-processed" is my Fage yogurt every morning.
 
So, if I eat a chicken sandwich, the bread is part of the ultra-processed sugar will kill me stuff? Even black bread? That thing doesn't taste like sugar at all.
 
No it doesn't. It means goods went through some form of minimal packaging process before it reached the shelves or is sold to you. Salting peanuts qualifies. Turning peanuts into peanut butter qualifies, with no necessary additives. Frozen vegetables qualify.

Processing does not necessarily mean "additives and preservatives".
Yes, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, but a lot if not even most processed foods do have unhealthy amounts of one thing or the other. When it's not sugar, then it can be salt and/or fat. In the worst case scenario, it's all of them.

So, if I eat a chicken sandwich, the bread is part of the ultra-processed sugar will kill me stuff? Even black bread? That thing doesn't taste like sugar at all.
If it's (super-)white bread, yeah, it's really unhealthy and you should avoid it. Bread with at least some amounts of more fiber & protein rich whole grain flours used is ok so long as you eat it in moderation. Dark rye bread is probably (one of) the healthiest alternative as far as breads go, so choose that if you can, though even then some moderation is always good, don't eat a bagful at once or anything. :P
 
Yes, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, but a lot if not even most processed foods do have unhealthy amounts of one thing or the other. When it's not sugar, then it can be salt and/or fat. In the worst case scenario, it's all of them.
can you substantiate this? my impression is that using the technical definition of processed, things aren't nearly as bad. issue is there's a quite a bit of stuff that goes beyond "processed" and it tends to be consumed dispropprtionately. Example being premade meals.
 
Yes, it doesn't NECESSARILY mean that, but a lot if not even most processed foods do have unhealthy amounts of one thing or the other. When it's not sugar, then it can be salt and/or fat. In the worst case scenario, it's all of them.

And this is just the kind of alarmist crap I was referring to in my first post.

Read labels and make informed decisions to support your energetic needs but don't go dismissing whole classes of food, outright, due to mythologies regarding what they are or aren't.
 
I get it's bad for your health, but one day our health will fail us all and we will eventually die anyway, so whatever.
 
Live until 70+ likely with decent exercise, eat awesome food and don't have to go through the late late aging process. I'm cool with this.
 
I don't care about the processed part, but if it means it has a disproportionate amount of added sugar and salt then it can't be part of my regular diet.

I do enjoy some processed food regularly: pasta, cottage cheese, protein powder, a little bit of ham (because it has a lot of sodium), and mct oil. I would like to substitute the ham and lower my sodium intake even more but preparing raw meat is too time consuming.

I get it's bad for your health, but one day our health will fail us all and we will eventually die anyway, so whatever.

Living is dying. But some habits leave you cripple, obese, immobile, unattractive and miserable until sweet death comes for you many years later. That is why people care about health, not to live forever but to live now.
 
I get it's bad for your health, but one day our health will fail us all and we will eventually die anyway, so whatever.

We are going to die anyways, so lets make our life potentially shorter by consuming things that are unhealthy!
 
Americans have digusting eating habits.
But I think this is the only way to keep the costs of food down.
Hit the nail on the head.
This is a country where food deserts exist, where people don't even have a decent access to a grocery store. Not to mention the myriad people who are living day by day, barely able to afford even the cheapest, but fattiest foods.
There are plenty of obese poor people,not because they overeat but because all they can afford is crappy food.
 
Rule of thumb: the more processed a food is, the worse it is for you.

Think fresh apple > baked apple > Apple pie > Apple "extract" in things like sweets/candy.

Generally speaking the further down the "chain" a food is processed, the higher the calorie concentration and the lower the nutrients.
 
I don't know if this sort of simplification helps people, I worry that in the attempt to make nutrition simplistic, it's given people bad ideas. Fundamentally, the largest issue facing consumers in the US is consuming too many calories, which is not a simple problem to resolve and has a lot of confounding factors.

When you tell people that processed foods are bad, and they'll be healthy eating non processed foods, you'll start to see food makers creating "non/minimally processed" dishes, meeting technical criteria, but have 1500 calories per serving.

The same shit happened with low fat, and low added sugar (see juices), and happens with the naturalistic fallacies you see in food.

Nutrition is complicated, and I don't more if trying to simplify it to buzz words is doing anyone any favours.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom