I get what you mean, I’m just arguing that there is too much focus on “health marketing”, instead of important things like macros and regulating known carcinogens.
If I eat a mcdouble and a diet coke, I’m eating much healthier than if I ate a whole rotissery chicken with potato wedges and a glass of apple juice. Calories and reducing sugar intake are the most important things.
Yes, but you can only compare the comparable. If you eat the same amount of calories from ultra-processed food and from unprocessed or minimally processed food, the ultra-processed will cause more health problems than the unprocessed food (for example, you’ll gain more body fat, but there are other problems).
I think this is too big of an assumption. Ultra processed foods are generally less filling and easier to digest. Eating 1000 calories of cereal or potato chips is easy. Eating 5 chicken breasts at once borderline impossible for most people. Whole foods tend to make is harder to overeat. There are exceptions ofc, like nuts, but i think the general trend holds.
An ultra-processed food (UPF) is a grouping of processed food characterized by relatively involved methods of production. There is no simple definition of UPF, but they are generally understood to be an industrial creation derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds.[1][2] The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings.[3] UPFs have often undergone processes such as moulding/extruding, hydrogenation, or frying.[4]
If I eat a mcdouble and a diet coke, I’m eating much healthier than if I ate a whole rotissery chicken with potato wedges and a glass of apple juice. Calories and reducing sugar intake are the most important things.
This is highly misleading on many levels, and I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position on an appropriate diet. For example, nutrition is a biological process that has very little to do with a calorie, which is a measurement of heat energy.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Sorry I used the wrong word in my comment. It’s corrected.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
I get what you mean, I’m just arguing that there is too much focus on “health marketing”, instead of important things like macros and regulating known carcinogens.
If I eat a mcdouble and a diet coke, I’m eating much healthier than if I ate a whole rotissery chicken with potato wedges and a glass of apple juice. Calories and reducing sugar intake are the most important things.
zloubida@sh.itjust.works 7 months ago
Yes, but you can only compare the comparable. If you eat the same amount of calories from ultra-processed food and from unprocessed or minimally processed food, the ultra-processed will cause more health problems than the unprocessed food (for example, you’ll gain more body fat, but there are other problems).
Dagrothus@reddthat.com 7 months ago
“same amount of calories”
I think this is too big of an assumption. Ultra processed foods are generally less filling and easier to digest. Eating 1000 calories of cereal or potato chips is easy. Eating 5 chicken breasts at once borderline impossible for most people. Whole foods tend to make is harder to overeat. There are exceptions ofc, like nuts, but i think the general trend holds.
mushroomman_toad@lemmy.dbzer0.com 7 months ago
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
What processes contribute to fat cells stocking lipids, and/or the replication of fat cells, and how do they relate to “ultraprocessed food”?
xep@discuss.online 7 months ago
This is highly misleading on many levels, and I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position on an appropriate diet. For example, nutrition is a biological process that has very little to do with a calorie, which is a measurement of heat energy.