Ultra processed Foods

(Pete A) #1

Sad.

(Bob M) #2

Yikes.

#3

Oh my.
Interesting read, I don’t agree with everything as I know it’s false for me. And surely for many… Pork is very satiating for me, procession level hardly matters. I do can eat something nice easier when satiated (but I can’t eat when full. I am FULL, nothing fits, not even a half glass of water… maybe it’s the other fullness feeling but normal overeaters can’t easily eat after they reach that either. or it’s a third one or people define it totally differently, who knows. I only feel what I feel) but that’s another matter. (I can eat a TON after satiation, sure - well it depends - but not after I feel full.)
And copious amount of salt makes a food inedible if you ask me… Additives are good at that too. I had a favorite traditional chocolate brand (we didn’t have Western stuff when I was a kid) but they kept changing the recipes, first it got darker and richer, fine but after a while it got more and more weird due to addictives and I had to stop eating it even on high-carb. It tastes awful, it has an overpowering non-chocolate flavor from the additives). But people have various tastes I know and maybe they got used to that from the first time Mom gave them the first ultraprocessed treat as a baby… shudder
I probably have some good instincts too. And my upbringing wasn’t as bad as some other people’s though the food definitely wasn’t great. But could have been waaaaaaaaaaaay worse in various ways.
Poor kids (and adults), I feel that since many years :frowning: Food is powerful and attacking vulnerable babies with the very wrong ones… Ouch. It’s not good for pets either. It’s one form of abuse even if it’s not intentional (I mostly mean the parents, food industry probably knows what it is doing. I mean, some tiny companies may not but food industry in general… of course it does).

When people realize this, how they handle that? I already feel super bad about my food addiction (well it was worse this week and I had other problems but still)…

(Geoffrey) #4

So many lies in that article but then again that’s why they are referred to as the Clown News Network.

“Her research also shows about 14% of adults are clinically addicted to food, predominantly ultraprocessed foods with higher levels of sugar, salt, fat and additives.”
14%???:flushed:. Balderdash! It’s more like a 100%. That’s the problem we have with the obesity epidemic in America.

“The Institute of Food Technologists, an association of food professionals and technologists, does not agree with the research on ultraprocessed food addiction.
‘While there is growing concern that some foods may be addictive for certain sub-populations including children, there is currently no scientific consensus to support that concern,’ said IFT’s chief science and technology officer, Bryan Hitchcock, in an email.”
No scientific consensus to support that concern? Really??? Could it be because they are paid off to only provide positive results? Or maybe because all of the science goes into studying how to make the food even more addictive. :rage:

“Food addiction is also not recognized by the World Health Organization’s International Classification of Diseases and is a subject of debate in the scientific community, according to the International Food and Beverage Alliance, an industry association.”
Well, of course the “Food and Beverage Alliance” aren’t going to cut their own throats and I’m sure they help control the WHO. Can you say Agenda?

“As soon as a person says, ‘I can’t safely eat that candy,” the eating disorder therapist says, ‘That’s just the eating disorder talking, all foods are fine, and nothing is off-limits.’”
The absolute biggest lie of them all. :joy:

I feel for the fellow in the article because I can relate to him and his addiction. I was in the exact same boat. I hid food, I would spend every extra penny I could get my hands on to buy junk. Then I had to have elaborate plans to hide the empty packaging and sneak it out of the house. I could gorge myself on crackers, chips and candy even after I ate a decent meal. It never ended. I still find empty packages of food that I stashed when I’m cleaning out a closet or the garage. I was a disgusting glutton.
Granted, 100% of the population isn’t as bad as I was but the majority is addicted to the processed foods and that is all done in the name of more and more profits. It’s criminal in my opinion.
I read recently that by the time a child is six years old they have already eaten as much sugar as a person born before the 1920’s

(Alec) #5

Standard nutritionist and dietician conventional wisdom. It is utter bull■■■■. But they are all bought and paid for by the food industry and more worryingly, the pharma industry. They want people to be sick… that’s their path to riches. So they manage the education of the people who are perceived as experts to ensure their pockets continue to be lined.

It is outrageous and scandalous, and being done in plain sight.

(Joey) #6

Perhaps this means that only 14% have actually been to a clinic yet … the other 86% have insurance plans with high deductibles? :thinking:

(Geoffrey) #7

Excellent point.
No sense in muddying up the statistics with accurate facts.

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #8

722a9d804a582bafc5400c4416c35750
722a9d804a582bafc5400c4416c35750.gif720×224 59.9 KB

(Bob M) #9

I read this part and I couldn’t figure out what I was reading. If it’s interpreted one way, it’s like saying that “while it’s true that you’re an alcoholic, that’s the disease talking, and you can have a drink”. It was so ludicrous, I thought I must be misinterpreting it.

But maybe I was reading it correctly.

(Alec) #10

You are reading it correctly: this is standard dietician dogma. They are taught that there is no food that you can’t eat. They do not recognise the parallels with alcohol as they believe that there is no food that is addictive. They can’t think that because that then puts some of their sponsors offside. So nothing is off limits.

It is all bought and paid for nonsense.

(Joey) #11

At least we have the best nutritional guidance $$$ can buy.

(Geoffrey) #12

That exactly how I understood it to read.

(KM) #13

I think if you tease it apart, the last paragraphs of the article aren’t really suggesting this is the therapy the original patient is following, though, it’s a description for anorexic therapy.

"However, if that person also has a food addiction, the approach (no food off limits) may cause them to quit treatment, she said. “Their experience with eating that cupcake would be more like, ‘I feel really triggered and worried that if I did this at home, I would be through the whole box of cupcakes by now.

Today, Odwazny is in recovery and is studying to become a certified alcohol and drug counselor in the Chicago area.

“My wife is also in the program, so we both know our food plans. My wife and I have our meals together — there’s no sneaking, there’s no hiding. I don’t binge, but there are also certain foods that I don’t eat,” he said."

#14

I got a degree in food tech and engineering. Never used it. Terrible bastardization of food until it can’t even be called food anymore. Messes up body to the point of total metabolic confusion. Instead I became a single mom and started a home daycare. And I fed those little ones plain old food. I think I made the right decision.

#15

It is. Mainstream media is more corrupt today than ever before, and it has been for the past decades. They are nothing but a mouthpiece for corrupt government and big organizations with money on the line. They repeatedly prove that they are truly the only misinformation artists out there while they project their own actions onto anyone that disagrees with their stories.

When someone continuously proves that they are corrupt and compromised every day, why on earth would anyone rely on a single word they share? I stopped watching all the MSM channels and would never go to them for reliable information or facts. They have destroyed our trust. This article is just another one to add to the growing mountain of misleading information they provide.

I now follow all their links to see where the evidence leads and most of the time they just lead to another opinion article or false story. Rarely to any real data, and when it does it’s compromised data with extensive conflicts of interest. But when I find the real data and the real science that is not manipulated, I get a much different picture than what they are claiming. They rely on the fact that most people will not do that these days. That’s how they can control what people believe. Control what the masses believe and you have unchecked power over anything you want.

We all need to be more diligent with what mainstream media is feeding, and we even need to question the things that we previously agreed with them on. Sometimes we believe something so deeply because they fed it to us for so long. Like being afraid to eat fat or salt. If they lied about so much in nutrition, what else have they lied about that we have yet to realize?

(Joey) #16

Fully agree that skepticism is our friend when it comes to common nutritional guidance.

There’s definitely lying involved - and money always seems to help fuel that.

But I imagine there’s also a good number of well-intended “guessers” … like academics (and even some bureaucrats) who really don’t have relevant, properly conducted science to inform their views. And under pressure to give some kind of guidance to the masses take what seems to them to be a reasonable guess at what the science would say if only it were available.

The genuinely sad part of this scenario is that, once the data casts doubt on their guesses, it becomes quite an act of professional bravery to admit that a change in view is warranted… and so they get stuck in their poor guesses.

Perhaps to the extent they know eventually better, by knowingly clinging to their original ill-informed pronouncements they evolve into liars after all? :thinking:

(Alec) #17

In this instance, I am not blaming the media (although in many many ways they have an awful lot to answer for). This article is simply a journo finding an interesting person with an interesting problem, and then calling up a few “experts”, getting their opinion on the problem, and then reporting what these experts said. This is what a lot of journos do, and there is nothing fundamentally wrong with this style of journalism.

The media itself nor the journalist is making claims, they are merely reporting what generally perceived “experts” (the folks with the qualifications and titles) are saying.

Therefore my conclusion is that the problem is not the media (in this case), it is the people being quoted: the “experts”. And why do these people think what they think? They have been edjumacated. By whom? And with what agenda?

Having read through the article again, I am struck by how similar this bloke is to me. I would look pretty much exactly like that if I was not carnivore. He has found a psychological solution to his addictions. I found a physical/dietary one.

#18

The problem arises when journos cherry pick which experts to highlight and purposefully exclude those who could provide a different view. In that sense they most certainly are making claims and being a mouthpiece for advertisers and government agencies that push them.

(Alec) #19

Very fair point, and here we get to deal with whether this is simply ignorance on the part of the journo (likely in the instance IMHO), or whether bias or exclusion is a deliberate editorial policy. In the areas we talk about there a VERY few recognised “experts” with alternative views… they are very hard to come by. We know who they are because we live in that world called low carb. Yes, it is gaining more traction, but it is not yet mainstream. Keto is still viewed as an odd dietary choice and carnivore is hardly acknowledged as an eating approach.

So, in this case, I am voting for this journo not really knowing who to approach for alternative views. Remember that if they do go for alternative views, they are likely to start with the more mainstream vegan.

(KM) #20

I had a little exchange with my SIL the other day … she’s an amazing hostess and always puts out all sort of mostly “healthy” noshables. I put it in quotes because she’s a big fan of fruit, which is much better than, say, cupcakes. I said something along the lines of how the strawberries were fabulous and so I’d have to watch myself, and got a kind mini-lecture about the need for treating oneself with love and balance, All Things In Moderation. I realized this was her best, wisest and kindest advice, and just smiled and nodded, but it hit home with me, how pervasive that attitude that Everything is fine in moderation has become, that setting personal limits below what society (or advertisers) find optimal has somehow become synonymous with deprivation or self harm.