Slashdot Mirror
Eating Processed Foods Tied To Shorter Life, Study Suggests (theguardian.com)
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.
sugars are the devil.
at some point, we're going to start setting these kids on fire when they try to publish stupid shit like this instead of giving it media attention.
Poor people eat more processed foods. Poor people die sooner.
if they were doing an ACTUAL study, instead of this nonsense? they'd be feeding rats different types of food and studying their life cycles.
(hint: that's been done, i'll let you find it though! the results may shock you!)
Pass me another can of pasteurized processed spray cheese food product so I can take myself out before it gets any worse.
Raw milk is better for you. Listeria is fake news created by the dairy industrial complex to keep consumers on profitable processed food.
Salt? Only if the sugar and refined carbs don't get you first. Which, statistically speaking they will.
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!
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
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
Table-ized A.I.
I thought recent advances have pointed to the importance of gut bacteria which isn't/wasn't well understood. The fact that in order for processed food to have the long shelf life, bacteria killing chemicals are added to these processed food which kills what you have in the gut.
I am surprised this wasn't mentioned at least as a probably cause.
Nitrates in processed meat are heavily linked to bowel cancer.
the only way to combat "common sense" is with education & hard science. For centuries the excuse for abandoning the poor has been "they're just of low moral character". Science is gradually eliminating that excuse and education means folks can't pretend not to know it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I'm astonished that we are still paying good money for researchers to confirm this very simple fact over and over again.
Read: "Even after adjusting for many health, socioeconomic and behavioral characteristics".
You don't understand percentages and how they differ from percentage points, I take it?
A llt of stuff has added "fillers" too. If memory serves me, Walmart had an ice cream sandwich that didn't melt when left outside in the daylight. Turns out it wasn't made from regular, run of the mill ice cream, but a cheaper approximation of ice cream ... with white colorant and flavoring mixed in to make it look and smell like ice cream.
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.
... 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.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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.
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Oh - and sugar.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Salt is an essential nutrient w/natural negative feedback loop. Coke's sodium content would be undrinkable w/o the sugar. Sugar, OTOH, has no negative feedback loop & also disrupts our other negative feedback loops.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
Because celery is rarely fried in fat so the nitrites don't form nitrosamines?
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.
... 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.
Bach says it all.
Your own body need glutamate and produce it in quantity which are nearly 100 times higher than what is in food: there is a few hundred mg free glutamate in food (the rest is bounded in protein) and your body produce about the order of magnitude of 10s grams per day during the protein processing. Basically the few hundred mg are not doing anything much (well or you should stop eating fresh tomatoe !). The only few study I know of, which showed an effect, had to inject huge quantity of glutamate at nerve termination, but then again you may as well do the same study and inject any stuff the body does not expect at nerve termination in huge quantity and see an effect. All other studies showed exactly zilch.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
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.
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 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, 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.
lf(1): it's like ls(1) but sorts filenames by extension, tersely
It is in Glasgow.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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 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"
* 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.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
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.
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
But bacon is by far the most popular cured meat...
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.
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.
I fry celery in fat all the time when making soup. Chop some onions, grate some celery into a mush, and cook both in olive oil. Then you go on to add the other ingredients. You don't burn or blacken it though, so perhaps nitrosamines cannot form.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Here's a list of different foods and their analysis of various kinds of nitrosamines.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/p...
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).
Why do you keep calling pale European people Caucasian? They are Indo-European. The term "Caucasian" is based on Blumenbach. It's a stupid term, and people need to stop using it.
Note that not ALL pale Europeans are Indo-European, as well. The Basques aren't. Sadly, most of the pale people having lineage from Europe from before the introduction of the Indo-European groups have long since died out or been bred out of existence.
It is in Glasgow.
Yeah but most fresh meat is fried in glasgow too, and veg, and sweets and probably drinks too.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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.
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
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, and not very much ALA, your body can't effectively make enough omega-3 like DHA that it needs, even though there's sufficient ALA. In this circumstance, you're better off eating DHA or whatever your body needs directly. I.e., not flax oil, but rather fish oil.
So flax definitely helps, but you'll want to dial back the amount of plant-based omega-6 as well.
--PM
There have been all kinds of politically-motivated attempts to destroy health in the United States.
The biggest one was the demonization of fat at the behest of the Corn Grower's Association and the introduction of "low fat" foods that were instead loaded up with ounces of high fructose corn syrup just to make them palatable.
I agree with you on "link" studies as well. Correlation does not imply causation except in a "link" study.
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.
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.
"It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
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.
The FUD is strong with this one.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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 WHO who stock their review boards with vegan doctors who from a field that includes well run RCT studies, instead choose to reference only the epidemiological subset using food frequency questionnaires that give the answer they are looking for.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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?... .
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
* More alleged oil/fat
Doubtful. These are French people eating French food.
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.
Except when it's used to make "nitrate-free" sausages.
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.
Because it's a common term in wide colloquial usage. It's easier to redefine the word than to stop using it.
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.
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.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
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.
Drink the Coke or Gatorade without the sugar. Apparently, the original Gatorade formula without the sugar was pretty vile. Nevertheless, salt has a natural negative feedback loop with varying sensitivities between individuals.
"Tempers are wearing thin. Let's just hope some robot doesn't kill everybody." --Bender
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/...
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/...
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.
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....
Processed foods -- while related to your #1, they puree / and removal of fibers, cooking of *EVERYTHING*
huge growing body of evidence that fiber (specifically non-enzyme-digestable fibers ---aka Resistant Starches and Prebiotics) has a slew of healfh benefits because while it does not feed YOU --- it feeeds your bacteria in the small intestine -- which coincidentally make the food your small intestines cells SOLELY use for energy (Butyrate), among other useful Short Chain Fatty Acids the body needs. Also, it helps feeling Satiated.
Nevermind the additional growing body of evidence to certain gut/intestine bacteria populations having a significant role in health, energy, and oddly --- food allergies.
In that case, it's a marketing scam and shouldn't be allowed to be marketed as nitrite free.
e.g. proof that certain ideas are just plain wrong.
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.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
As a matter of fact, I do. You're supposed to sweat those, not fry them.
The question is, do YOU?
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.
No, but it's marketed as one.
Your average kid playing sports does not need anything other than good food and water.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Uncured != nitrite free.
"Go look on a milk carton sometime. They'll have "No rBST" and then a legal disclaimer."
The legal disclaimer of "no significant difference between cows treated with rBST and those that aren't" is due to a decision made by the FDA. Actual science, court cases, and basic statistics later proved that rBST does indeed have a significant difference thus nullifying the FDA's claim. The FDA, however, has not rescinded its position on rBST not because the FDA is a scientific organization but rather a political one. As a result of this and other braindead decisions at the FDA, I don't trust anything they have to say. No one else should either.
"companies moved to corn syrup from sugar because it was less expensive"
The reason it is less expensive is government food subsidies drastically lower the price per bushel of corn. Corn syrup and HFCS are cheaper to make. Drop the subsidies and sugar will be cheaper. And the switch to GMO corn happened because the subsidies for a bushel of GMO corn were far greater than traditional corn even if producing a bushel of GMO corn actually costs twice as much as a bushel of traditional corn. Farmers are always looking for ways to cut costs, so the switch was an easy decision to make for most of them.
Of course, these are taxpayer dollars lining the pockets of a handful of companies like Monsanto. Taxpayers should be rioting over the massively increased per bushel costs of food production being subsidized. However, they don't understand basic farming terminology nor where their tax dollars are being funneled to and so they don't realize that they should be rioting.
"It really takes a hell of a lot of effort to mess up fruits and vegetables."
Look up Flavr Savr. It was a disaster but that doesn't mean that people and companies aren't trying extremely hard to mess up fruits and veggies.
Monsanto and other companies are going after rice in India and other countries that depend on rice for basic living and where fruits and veggies are a rather small part of the average diet. Throw in dumb ideas like genetic kill switches in seeds and the human race is working as fast as possible toward terminating itself.
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.
How do they define "processed" food? Cooking is a process. Cutting is a process. Harvesting is a process. Eating is a process! There needs to be more resolution into the types of processes in order to provide meaningful data.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
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.
They have to claim both and then say "except those naturally occurring..."
Like they imply in the source article, if you are putting unsweetened organic oat bran cereal in the same category as chicken nuggets, the only conclusion we can draw is that junk food is bad for us. Anyone who's been keeping up knew that decades ago.
I tried eating no processed foods once for a year.
But then I died of starvation.
So what constitutes an unnatural source? You can get them out of a hole in the ground, and I didn't put 'em there.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
There is a new study that says the Gingivalis might be a cause of Alzheimer's.
https://science.slashdot.org/s...
Not sure if that runs in your family, but it's worth checking and trying to fix it.
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.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Lots of people on Slashdot don't understand percentages.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
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.
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.
And the FDA lets manufacturers call things normally heavy in cream "creamier" when they replace the cream with junk like carrageenan.
Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Why do you think repeating yourself is interesting?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
In addition, a lobby for US sugar producers caused high tariffs on foreign sugar, so American producers wouldn't have to compete with cheap cane from the Caribbean and Brazil. To some extent, the tariff backfired on them, as food manufacturers switched from cane sugar to corn syrup when the cane sugar prices went up.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Numerous scientific studies demonstrate the longevity and health benefits of fatty fish consumption.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Some enzymes in food help break down the food before the body breaks down the enzymes. Bromelain and papain are the obvious examples.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Increasing food sensitivities of children have been blamed on just about anything that's changed over the last century and some things that haven't changed. Although there are some tantalizing clues, we basically just don't know yet.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
No, it's called sweating.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Edible plastics are any food that can be molded or formed and will retain its shape. Ice cream, chocolate, mashed potatoes, gelatin, etc are all edible plastics.
Some of the chemicals that make up soy aren't good for you. Some is OK, but don't make soy your primary protein source. Fermented soy products have lower amounts of the bad stuff.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
If you're at frying temperature, it's sauteing. Low and slow is sweating.
That's an area where the evidence is pointing all over the place and makes me feel that there's something big that hasn't been worked out.
Why does gut biodiversity go up on a fibre free carnivore diet? I have no clue, but it's what happens and the effects on a range of immune and psych problems can be dramatic. Why is the effect of increased gut biodiversity different with different dietary regimens? I have no clue, but it's what happens.
Too complex for my meager brain.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
What about stress or being single? I would guess there is a correlation between processed foods and those. They are also known risk factors for all cause mortality.
In this type of study, the list of confounders they have or have not controlled for is more important than the result itself.
Sugar.
Vegetable "oil", which is really a chemical nightmare.
No fiber.
Sugar.
Sugar.
CNN snuck doctored slides into the microscopes, fake news!
Table-ized A.I.
Thanks -- so frying implies temperatures higher than water's boiling point. I'd never worked out the difference between "fry" and "saute" until now.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com