Post

Increasing your daily consumption of ultraprocessed foods by 10% — basically the equivalent of a small bag of potato chips — may raise your risk of dementia even if you normally eat a healthy plant-rich diet, according to a new study. https://cnn.it/4n0zNR6

44 reposts154 likes

'Such “predigested” foods, which are often full of sugar, salt and fat, may lack critical nutrients needed for a healthy body and brain, experts say.' Which nutrients? Which experts?

The study's key finding shows a correlation with a correlation, based on people's self-reports about what and how they eat. Doing these types of studies is extremely challenging, no question. But the huge uncertainties baked into them should be stated clearly.

I grew up eating a lot of whole grains and fresh vegetables. If I'd grown up eating frozen meals and snacks from the shop I'd be pretty fucking furious too if the commentariat and the political class all decided to start fear mongering about it

without providing clear and specific information about what to do differently? Or actually changing anything that would make this possible. Funding science that looks at specific food production processes that reduce nutrients? Or specific additives that cause problems?

Subsidising fresh produce? Legislating the length of the working week so people actually have time to cook? Cheap, nutritious, city-run canteens? Free school lunches?Requiring functional kitchens in all rentals? Nope just generalised fear-mongering and blaming individuals.

WTF is this meal? Who eats guac with fries and a salad for lunch and what part of this meal is "processed"? Those are fresh cut potatoes fried up, not at all processed. CNN sucking more than it did under Chris Licht is crazy, but it's true.

They define what they consider ultra processed in the article and that picture…. Is not close to there definition. I don’t exactly eat healthy… but can’t think of a single thing I eat that would come close to meeting that ultra processed definition.

It's almost always just code for convenience foods that are cheap and enjoyed by poorer people. Somehow it's always hamburgers and French fries attracting that label, and not beef wellington or fancy croissants.

I was just doing a section with my students on unhealthy foods. "HAMBURGERS!" they shouted in unison. "Is beef unhealthy?" "No." "How about bread?" "No, bread is okay." "What about lettuce, tomatoes, onions?" "Umm..." We finally came to the consensus that fast-food is bad. I had McD's for lunch.

As far as I know, no research on "ultra-processed food" has ever fully adhered to the Nova classification system, even that done by the group who proposed the classification. In every instance, the researchers move some foods out of their defined group to better fit their ... vibes.

I think there are a few specialty infant formulas where the proteins are broken down the way they would be in the first stages of digestion? really important for infants who lack the enzymes to do it themselves that’s about all I can think of though

Technically, cooking food accomplishes a lot of the same things that stomach acid is there to do. It's why cooked foods are safer and more nutritious. Lots of processing techniques for plants are also basically mimicking the sort of processing an herbivore's digestive system is meant to do.

It's a useless definition that can mean whatever they want. Literally, it has no fixed meaning or scientific merit.

That's not quite true. It's a term that was created for the purpose of studying growing obesity rates in Brazil. For broad categorization, it does the job. It's not a term that was ever meant to be used by individuals trying to make healthy food choices. Nor is it a useful term for individuals.

the study says it uses the Nova classification, which by itself is a legitimate scale when you only care about "degrees of processing" and nothing else. But it's obviously absurd to use it with health implications in mind. It's not like an industrial cauldron makes a dish less healthy than a stove.

There's no real definition. It's a meaningless scare word that's just meant to be deployed when convenient, just like when people say you shouldn't eat food with "chemicals" in it and other phrases like that.

You are say there think reading crisis is healthy for you. Let's me break out to you. Ideally you should never eat crisps. They are junk. Yes i fucking love them too, but I'm not fooling myself. They should be a rare treat.

Did I say they were healthy? I said that it makes sense to tell people to avoid fried or salted food. The term ultra-processed is vague and does not relate to either fried or salted. They don't even seem to know what they mean by ultra-processed if crisps are their best example.

Is it vague, really? Is it any more vague than saying high fat or low sugar? Simple guide.... read the ingredient list, if there's something only someone with chemistry degree can read and understand do not buy it. Upfs have multiple such additives

Can't say I'm a huge fan of the "you should only eat a carefully balanced nutritional non-flavoured beige slurry because it's more important to live an extra two years than to enjoy any aspect of being alive" genre of health news.

To paraphrase a wiser woman than I'll ever be, life should not be about becoming a pretty corpse, but to arrive to your own funeral with chocolate in one hand and wine in the other plunging into your coffin with a heartfelt "Whooyeah!"

Furthering that companies should probably be held more accountable for putting this shit in our food than individual people for the responsibility of "better dieting"

Note what the lead researcher said: “Our study showed that UPF consumption *was associated with* worse attention and higher dementia risk in middle-aged and older adults,” said lead author Barbara Cardoso "Associated with" isn't even close to the same thing as "may lead to" Bad headline.

I'd bet a shiny Roosevelt dime that consumption of UPF is also correlated with other behaviors like consumption of alcohol, lack of exercise, or smoking. "May lead to" is a gross misinterpretation of results. A study showed per capita consumption of ice cream *correlated* with higher murder rates.

More fearmongering by mainstream media. This is just their latest concerted campaign aimed at distracting people from the oppression of endless austerity and the closeted fascist control of our society. They want us worried about minor health risks and not worried that our entire lives are shit.

Have been around dementia patients for 20 years—I’ve seen my share of people who were athletic, educated, engaged in life long learning and had amazingly good diets get dementia.

Hey news people, dud it occur to you to check if "ultraprocessed" foods is a legitimate category first? Because it isn't, and it's not scientifically defined. Kind of important context, no?

It's so cool how if you do 50 different studies with 10 different definitions of ultraprocessed, they all "contribute" to each other.

This is so stupid. Does this article explain how busy humans are supposed to find the time and money to eat healthier without work-from-home and subsidizing grocery bills??? My family has worked hard to eliminate palm oil and single-use plastic. We work from home, and our costs still *tripled*.😡

One whole study? Golly whillikers, I'm going to stop eating this small bag of potato chips right now! Seriously, I remember when you guys used to be journalists.

I don’t see how slicing, chilling and frying a potato is “ultra processed” Turning them into something like Pringles is ultra processing. I an currently eating potato chips with yogurt .

You know what really reduces the risk of dementia? The shingles vaccine. Maybe we should focus on the tools we have and that work with very little side effects instead of feeling bad for eating potato chips.

I’m ready for some dementia. If only something so simple could make me care less. Also make me not care about click bait headlines.

I can't imagine eating "ultraprocessed" (not a word) foods every day. Ugh. I may have it once a week when I dine out, but it's usually not then either.

Even if you buy that definition, figure out how it applies to their example food: potato chips! Slicing a potato is "disassembling (the word they probably wanted instead of dissembling) it into molecules?" What?

Just depends on how its prepared. Ground up peanuts and salt? Fine. Hummus made at home? Fine. Industrial grade preparation, unnecessarily added sugars, oils, gums, and emulsifiers? Not fine. A glance at an ingredient label will tell you enough to make enough of a guess at how the food was prepared.

This is all just vibes tho? Sugars, oils, gums and emulsifiers is a massive group of ingredients and I'd be willing to bet that many of them have health benefits. Science that focussed on ones of concern so we could learn if they actually are a problem and exclude them - that would be worthwhile.

All articles like this do is make people feel either smug and heartless because they are making good choices so why aren't other people, or guilty and hopeless because avoiding everything made in a factory is *impossible* for most people.

God forbid people enjoy their snacks. And this study is bullshit - people can't recall what they had for breakfast mode days, much less what they ate further back than that!

Even if this 10% number is true, and I am not saying it is, I'm now immediately skeptical of all the sanctioned reports boosting Kennedy's "just eat healthy food and work out with Kid Rock" brand of health information.

CNN bound & determined to out dμmb Fo卐 News… it’s still not going to get you any of their dμmbs,… bsky.app/profile/cnn....

CNN@cnn.com

Increasing your daily consumption of ultraprocessed foods by 10% — basically the equivalent of a small bag of potato chips — may raise your risk of dementia even if you normally eat a healthy plant-rich diet, according to a new study. https://cnn.it/4n0zNR6

This is so dumb. "Ultra processed" is a research term that is not meant to be a useful definition for consumers trying to make healthy food choices. It's a meaningless term when you try to use it in this way.

"Ultraprocessed food" is a meaningless buzzword used by Captain Brainworms and other MAHA scammers. You will immediately issue a public retraction and accurately portray this "study" as the fraud it is.

What in this picture is "ultraprocessed"? Like, French Fries sure as hell aren't healthy but I wouldn't called sliced potatoes fried in peanut or vegetable oils "ultraprocessed". Junk food and instant meals loaded with things like preservatives, sulfites and fillers? Ok, sure.

Yeah this weird classist pseudoscientific panic sold newspapers for a brief period in the UK, it's still nonsense Report Post > Misleading > Other Misleading Content

Reading this article — basically journalistic malpractice — may raise your risk of dementia even if you have the critical thinking skills to identify it as such, according to a new study

Also worth pointing out that potatoes come from a naturally poisionous Solanum plant and become poisionous themselves if you let them go green. It is only through human intervention that potatoes do not just kill us.

Everything you eat in life has a tiny health risk associated with it, ultimately a lot of those risks just aren't worth worrying about though. Like your balls are full of microplastics anyway, if anything's gonna get you it's gonna be that and not the hash browns.

Kropotkin gathered his evidence in Siberia watching indigenous communities. Mutual aid wasn't idealism. It was fieldwork.

I don’t get how potatoes fried quickly in fat are “ultra processed.” Chemically cured sausages or Spam or Mac ‘n’ cheese from a box or spray cheese are ultraproceessed. Not french fries.

All cured meats are "chemically cured," even in the era of celery nitrates pretending otherwise. I think I'll have a hot dog before seeing if there's any relevant data from Hawai’i re Spam.

Literally every food is processed. If you eat a raw carrot from your garden, the seed itself was processed in some way. Wash the carrot? Processed. Cook the carrot? Ultraprocessed.

That's not the definition of ultra processed. I agree that the definition of ultra processed is debatable and needs more explication and research but no one thinks cooking = ultra processed.

Hmmmm. Could there be some sort of external factors that would lead to choosing "ultraprocessed foods" over "healthier" options? Like food deserts or income inequality. Things that would make it a symptom of a failing society rather than a personal moral failing like your framing suggests.