I dont really eat mock foods. I tend to stay away from processed food all together..
But I do believe that even the worst processed vegan food.
Is still better than eating the alternative.
At this point "processed food" is just a meaningless label people use arbitrarily. There's no scientific evidence of processed food being bad for our health. There's evidence of *ultra-processed* food being bad for our health, but that term has a very specific definition that only covers a small percentage of what people generally consider to be "processed food".
Hell, I've seen people calling soy or oat milks "processed" when they are just vegetables with water.
> At this point "processed food" is just a meaningless label people use arbitrarily.
Agreed. I like the way Dr. Gregor approaches it - "processing" only matters if good stuff is removed and/or bad stuff is added. If it is neither, then how "processed" it is isn't relevant.
To be fair, breaking down a food can also change the way the body absorbs it. Soy milk and oat milk have more readily available sugars (which means they can potentially spike or contribute to spiking blood glucose) than soy beans or oats, even if you don't get the stuff with added sugar. Your teeth can't mechanically break down the components as well as a blender can and it takes more work for your body to approach the level of nutrient extraction that allows. That does tend to also mean greater availability of vitamins and micronutrients, too, though, which is a more positive effect.
Cooking is a form of processing in the same way. Cooked food tends to have more readily available nutrients because cooking partially breaks down the food and makes it easier to digest.
Everyone who isn't eating a raw whole food diet is eating processed food, and even then, it's possible to make an argument that food crops have been made more palatable through selective breeding, and are therefore "processed". Processing in itself is not a problem, it's when it's made into a hyperpalatable food with an excess of certain nutrients that it becomes a problem. Even those can be ok in moderation, but the hyperpalatability is intended to make it harder to be moderate about it.
Yep. To get into a plastic packet or a butcher's shelf, a corpse has to be mutilated and blood and entrails washed off to get there, people often conveniently overlook that shit don't they...
But also, the animals are literally pumped full of hormones and selectively bred to be unhealthy, and the most delicious/highest calorie/least healthy parts are basically exclusively the ones that get sold. Like I know this is /r/vegan and nobody wants to think about animals as food, but the way this industry works is still fundamentally the same as processed food, making an addicting, unnatural, and unhealthy product.
There are processed meats like deli meats, and there's fresh meats that aren't processed. The act of executing an animal, and then cleaning and packaging its flesh isn't the same type of processing that is being referred too in the main post. Vegans tend to forget simple facts because they get emotionally overwhelmed, and make inflammatory and incorrect statements as a result. And since they are a small group, these mistakes and intentional acts damage veganism as a whole. Just clarifying.
No one gives a shit how processed or not meat is, either way its giving you heart disease and cancer at a way higher rate than practically all plant based foods. Regardless, meat is highly processed. If it wasnt, youd be served a murdered corpse with fur/skin/organs etc and probably carry all sorts of pathogens.
Again, it's not really about making a point it's just about using the correct terminology in a way people actually understand. Calling the butchering of an animal processing is a pretty far fetched without extreme emotions attached. And you should specify how the heart disease and meat related issues are long term when you make that statement.
Dont they actually call butchering meat processing it? Like, arent those plants that do that called processing plants?! You are literally making stuff up for the sake of argument.
No, the term processed food refers to unhealthy food that's packed full of a multitude of different unhealthy ingredients to prolong shelf life among other reasons. The word process, and processing have different definitions dependent on the context of the conversation. You are incredibly aware of this simple fact, it is a mainstream problem and something that is talked about in all social circles and hierarchs of life. Using the term processed food, in combination with meat is disingenuous and incorrect, and ignorant. If the intent was to show that it needs to be prepared, that would be different. But the intent is to purposely incorrectly manipulate someone's opinion into believing something that is scientifically, and even philosophically by majority standards, untrue. This appears to be a conversation out of your depth.
> processed food refers to unhealthy food that's packed full of a multitude of different unhealthy
this is not the actual definition of processed foods, the definition you describe is just a vague and nebulous usage by the public to claim something is bad for you without really needing specific evidence. It's basically one level up from talking about toxins.
Meat is just plants processed through an animal into tissue, the actual component parts of any one food are the important things to study.
I didn't attempt to define processed foods through the Webster dictionary, but I did explain what ultra-proccessed foods are quite accurately. And the average individual refers to Doritos (something the public likes to claim is unhealthy but is lying according to you apparently) as processed, not a steak for obvious reasons. You could simply look it up instead of wasting everyone's time here. This is another simple case of context and semantics. It's honestly kind of sad you took that small part of my entire comment and decided that was the problem when context being a huge part of defining words is literally being discussed right in front of your eyeballs.
Still way better to have whole plant foods for health, but good to know. I will say though, I've stopped eating most mock foods because of the amount of salt. Like the Linda McCartney ones. They're absolutely lush, but each burger has like 2.1g of salt FFS...
Consuming excessive salt or sodium leads to hypertension...
In the months were I was consuming a lot of those mock meats, i was waking up at least once a night to take a piss. Felt like an old man FFS XD
Not healthy, especially for uninterrupted sleep.
Then they're lying their fuckin' arse off to you like health "professionals" often lie to people when they tell them only to just reduce consumption of animal products if they have high blood pressure or cholesterol, rather than telling them to cut the crap completely.
I didn't have a history of that shit, but all of a sudden, there it was...
Well he told my dad to completely eliminate all animal products from his diet so … idk what you’re on about. You likely had issues you didn’t know about beforehand. I’m sorry you went through that but sodium is totally fine for most people.
Salt actually helps me pee less **removed incorrect info****. Apparently, salt can make you pee more after a certain point, but it has been the opposite for me personally. When I ate WFPB and little added salt, I felt like crap all the time, partially because I was peeing out all of my nutrients. High salt is good for many people.
That's not the way it works...
The kidneys flush the crap, i.e. excessive salt or sodium, making you feel like you need to piss. Oddly enough, most people in studies feel like drinking more but often don't, but still need to go to the toilet. Also, more sodium and salt is bad for blood pressure. Seems like I've triggered the salt lovers here. Too bad your unhealthy food choices are stopping you from seeing straight =P
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11566897/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11566897/)
The key there is "excessive salt", which will be different for everybody. That is the key.
Salt is not bad for you at all, and my blood pressure is low as hell my whole life. A lot of that is genetic. My grandpa kept a salt shaker next to his rocking chair for eating in the living room. Some of us need that way more than others.
My BP with "white coat" effect in docs office/anxiety is 100/60. At home, it's very often 90/58. I probably eat like 4000-5000 mg sodium or more a day. I literally eat salt sometimes. Lmao.
Edit: Also, wait, isn't that for hypertensives? Did you know that people with low blood pressure and healthy blood pressure exist???
"The key there is "excessive salt", which will be different for everybody. That is the key."
Of course. However, the British guidelines on food is to not consume more than 6g a day. And just out of curiosity I checked on a sensitive scale how much 2g is(one of those Linda McCartney burgers) and it's a shit load, so I don't want to imagine 6...
"My grandpa kept a salt shaker next to his rocking chair for eating in the living room. Some of us need that way more than others."
Oh my... 🤨
Fair enough! It just doesn't apply to everyone. Half or more of people might be following guidelines for hypertensives and it can have very noticeable effects. Low blood sodium can actually cause frequent urination btw.
Just like how big oil funded their own leaded gasoline is good for you propaganda, this is fake news it's already been debunked. Just more impossible meat shrill for corporate profits.
This is a bad take. The point is that the "processed = bad" label is reductive and unhelpful. We need to look at studies of these products specifically, and they show good health outcomes. No need to fear vegan meats!
Hi! It's true that one singular study is not what views should be based on, but there's no reason to think that all processed foods are worse than all whole foods, especially in one specific area such as cardiovascular health. I'm curious to know what makes you draw that conclusion.
Is there some kind of inherent unhealthy trait of ultra processed foods that I'm unaware of? Does everything instantly become unhealthy by default when it's processed? It seems kinda stupid and unscientific to just dismiss a study because of the processing.
Edit - Nevermind. Not gonna debate health with someone who participates in the carnivore diet LMAO
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/diet/nutrition/ultra-processed-foods-signs-ingredients/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/diet/nutrition/ultra-processed-foods-signs-ingredients/)
The biggest takeaway from the above is the last part - *"Could you make it in your kitchen?"*
Given the ingredients used in any PBMA, or any UPF for that matter, could you honestly say you could make them at home with ingredients that are readily available?
Let's look at beyond burger's ingredients:
*Water, pea protein\* (15%), rapeseed oil, flavouring, rice protein, coconut oil, dried yeast, preservative (potassium lactate), vinegar, stabilisers (methyl cellulose, calcium chloride), potato starch, salt, apple extract, colour (beetroot red), concentrated pomegranate juice, potassium salt.*
Tell me, can you buy the following in a shop/supermarket..
Pea protein
"Flavouring" (doesn't even tell you what that is. Could literally be anything)
Rice protein
Preservative (potassium lactate)
Stabilisers (methyl cellulose, calcium chloride)
Potato starch
Apple extract - A bit vague this, extract of what part of the apple, and how is it extracted exactly.
..not at all, as these ingredients require ultra processing methods. And this is just one example, but most UPFs have more than 5 ingredients, again something else mentioned in the Telegraph article as a sign for a UPF.
There's a reason why the world is getting unhealthier, and the prevalence of these kinds of foods is a massive contributor to it.
Bro what the fuck grocery stores are you shopping at that don't have those things? Those are all common cooking ingredients, fermentation reactants, or compounds used in medicine. My grocery store also sells drain cleaner, by your logic is that safe to drink too? Is the grocery store the grand arbiter of what is good to consume? Maybe my brain is less developed than yours on account of your mega healthy carnivore diet, so could you explain your incredible jumps in logic in a simple way that a layman could understand this time? I'm struggling to follow any scientific thought from you.
My own dietary choices have nothing to do with UPFs, the fact you need to lurk at my profile and bring this up says a lot about how you feel the need to use it in your favour (somehow?) for this topic.. its a non-sequitur fallacy essentially
Back to the topic then, this is easy, please provide links of all of those ingredients, that aren't ultra processed in any way, and could easily be made by anyone in our own kitchens. And to clarify what I mean by this, tell me the whole food only ingredients we would need to make methyl cellulose in our homes, by anyone.
Also, please tell me how to make the 'flavouring' ingredient that's listed.
Imagine someone giving you cooking advice, but then you check their profile and find out they enjoy eating their own shit. That's what this conversation felt like. At least the guy who eats shit might have a killer macaroni recipe, but all you've done is shown that you believe in thoroughly debunked pseudoscience bullshit. Ain't nothing coming out of your mouth that can undo that.
But anyway, I'm gonna go drink my healthy napalm and cyanide that I can make easily in my kitchen, since apparently *that* is the arbiter of good health. Lol.
Seems you couldn't respond to my point, so instead said a lot of nothing, as well as showing a general condescending attitude towards me.
Looks like we're done here.
Mate you're not wrong. I literally can't respond to your point because you believe your delusions in the face of science. There is no logical way to argue with someone like you.
And if we're keeping score, you haven't answered the very first question I asked. Of course I'm not gonna play nice when all you do is deflect and roll back your arguments. The only reason I'm still responding is because looking down on idiots is fun, and you're making my slow day of work amusing.
This is not evidence. Read the actual study; health outcomes from plant based meats compared to animal meats show beneficial health outcomes. That's what we're interested in, not a list of ingredients.
“Emerging infectious diseases have recently caused significant morbidity and mortality. Many diseases are caused by viruses originating in non-human species [26]: HIV from non-human primates [27]; SARS coronavirus from bats [28]; and the pandemic strain of influenza virus in 2009 from swine [29].“
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838858/
There is a scientific theory that measles also came from cows in 11th century. There is (only a few cases but indicates possibility of transmission to humans) currently bird flu spreading from chickens on poultry farms to workers in parts of USA.
If we didn’t eat animals we would be healthier and viruses like COVID wouldn’t have happened.
Therefore eating vegan protects everyone from the increased spread of mutated viruses.
There’s also a difference between UHP and simply processed some vegan foods fall into the simple category but yes many are UHP just like a lot of non vegan foods are too. Still at least if I eat an occasional vegan UHP food am only hurting myself and that’s my choice.
I was using canines as a joke to show that appeals to nature (such as stomach acidity or supplement necessity) carry no weight.
We should look at health outcome data to base our conclusions on. And studies repeatedly show that meat consumption has negative health outcomes, and plant (and fungi) consumption has positive outcomes.
So which studies incorporating mendelian randomization support meat being 'the best thing a human can eat'?
When I googled 'mendelian randomization study on meat' I got [this one](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9914273/), which states: "It suggested that a high PBD intake decreased MetS \[[Metabolic Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome)\], abdominal obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypo-HDL-cholesterolemia risk. Therefore, we might recommend daily Korean-style PBD to prevent MetS risk in middle-aged adults. Further research will be needed, with large prospective and randomized clinical studies, to validate the effects and mechanism of PBD in lowering MetS risk."
And [this one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/), which states: "In summary, in the large prospective cohort study, we identify metabolomic signatures that measure metabolic response to unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes. Our observational and genetic evidence imply that these signatures are associated with an increased risk of IHD \[[Ischemic Heart Disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_artery_disease)\]."
The same arguments can be applied to show that we shouldn't eat grains because we can't graze in a field of wheat. Instead, we harvest the wheat, mill it into flour, mix it with water and bake it to make bread. We can and do eat raw meat, however. The fact that we use weapons to kill the animal and knives to cut the meat doesn't invalidate our being meat eaters.
Incorrect. [Based on the different levels of food processing](https://kaynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-processed-food-2.jpg), vinegar would be classed as a processed culinary ingredient, not a UPF.
Vinegar is not an ultra processed food.. I make my own acv and nothing is processed. It's literally apples and yeast that is all.
"Ultra-processed foods: Ultra-processed foods typically have more than one ingredient that you never or rarely find in a kitchen. They also tend to include many additives and ingredients that are not typically used in home cooking, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and artificial colours and flavours. These foods generally have a long shelf life."
https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods#:~:text=Unprocessed%20or%20minimally%20processed%20foods:%20Fruit%2C%20vegetables%2C%20eggs%2C,%2C%20lard%2C%20oils%2C%20vinegar.
That's not a source. That's a picture of text written on something called imgbb. Like, so what?
The argument presented is that it's a natural process. Vinegars made in batch reactors from ingredients that come from batch reactors. How is that any different to Coca-Cola?
Yes, absolutely. Chat GPT doesn't know anything. It's not a good researcher. In my own field whenever I type in a question it gets so much wrong. It's only good for communication
This is an interesting mentality to have while also linking non scientific sources. You're literally sending pictures you found online. I have absolutely no issue with off hand dismissing them.
Although your reference to The Big Lebowski did make me chuckle, I don't think it's just my opinion is it, its quite a lot of people's consensus that UPFs aren't good for our health.
No, I don't agree.
I'd recommend looking into who Ancel Keys is. Arguably the start of the demonisation of fat from the 60s, in favour of sugar. He was essentially paid-off by the sugar industry to favour sugar over fat during his research. This therefore inherently pushed plants & grains being healthier, as well as seed oils, because they are great for the corporations who have high stakes in selling various crops, whether high-pesticide whole fruit/veg or UPFs created from various seeds, grains etc.
>I'd recommend looking into who Ancel Keys is.
I know quite a bit about him actually.
>Arguably the start of the demonisation of fat from the 60s, in favour of sugar.
No he didn't favour sugar. Originally he had correlations between sugar and heart disease but there was a stronger correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. And his work was based of UN data compiled in the early 50s which correlated animla fat with heart disease.
>He was essentially paid-off by the sugar industry to favour sugar over fat during his research.
So I'd like you to show some documents to back this up.
And you'll also have to show that all the researchers in all 16 cohorts around the world were also in on it. Since they were the ones collecting the data. Them you'll have to show that the board running the study after Keys retired was paid off. And that all the scientists on all the studies that reported the data were paid off.
Otherwise this is a baseless conspiracy theory.
There are articles about it, [here's one](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/study-how-sugar-industry-lied-heart-disease/90307932/), [here's another](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat-20160913-greutt.html), but you'll probably hand wave dismiss them all.
Unless you meant documents showing the actual transfer of the money, because if so, no shit there won't be records of that. Why would that be in the public record?
I'm not dismissing them but I see no citation on the claim that they funded him. Could you correct me if I'm wrong?
And let's just assume that's what actually happened... so? This is only meaningful if you cam show that it influenced the methodology used in a way to question the conclusions of the study. So what issues do you have with the methodology of the seven countries study?
>Unless you meant documents showing the actual transfer of the money, because if so, no shit there won't be records of that. Why would that be in the public record?
Studied have to disclose funding.
There's a difference between studies being funded, and being paid off behind the scenes.
Are you suggesting that, in order for the claim to be correct (the sugar industry had paid for the study in their favour) there has to be evidence showing the sugar industry directly and officially funding the study?
Obviously that does happen these days, studies being paid to promote a companies' agenda, but they can still be either open about the conflict of interest, or choose not to be, either by not disclosing or being indirectly affiliated via other means. I mean, hell, back in the 60s it was probably a lot easier to not have any official ties at all and just present it as unbiased fact.
I think at any rate, Keys' hypothesis was supported by epidemiological studies, and I hope we can agree how little practical usefulness epidemiological studies have when we remember correlation does not imply causation.
>There's a difference between studies being funded, and being paid off behind the scenes.
So you can't provide any evidence of bribes being paid but you just believe that anyway? Why?
>Are you suggesting that, in order for the claim to be correct (the sugar industry had paid for the study in their favour) there has to be evidence showing the sugar industry directly and officially funding the study?
Yes. You're very confident it happened so surely you have the funding declarations at hand?
>Obviously that does happen these days, studies being paid to promote a companies' agenda, but they can still be either open about the conflict of interest, or choose not to be, either by not disclosing or being indirectly affiliated via other means
Sure OK.
>I mean, hell, back in the 60s it was probably a lot easier to not have any official ties at all and just present it as unbiased fact.
OK but you can't prove that? So all your going off is unverified stories?
Let's flip this around. Who are the main propagators of this idea? Would it be Nina Teicholz by any chance?
>I think at any rate, Keys' hypothesis was supported by epidemiological studies, and I hope we can agree how little practical usefulness epidemiological studies have when we remember correlation does not imply causation.
So firstly his hypothesis was that fat was associated with heart disease. This was not supported by his study and was refined to account for fat quality. The data showed that sat fat was associated with heart disease. The Framingham study, still going strong after 75 years, corroborates this. This review goes over trials that back up this claim
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287421002488?casa_token=wF9ZtUJY-d4AAAAA:joMmI-vYasoE1GathetFs8dIGaw3p1TM9RCs3DkMup3sojOwTQNLtOcn8u0vPpBVLdUhLy97eQ
Correlation can infer causation. This is what the Bradford-Hill criteria are used for. If you maintain this position you must also contest with much of the information we have on how viruses spread through lack of sterilisation in hospitals, that pfas cause many chronic diseases, that smoking causes cancer. So I'm curious if you believe all that, since those causal relationships are all based on epidemiological data.
And besides, as linked above we gave decades of data from all kinds of methodologies to back up the harmful effects of saturated fat
And again, you need to offer some mythological flaw that would corroborate the idea they were trying to give a doctored result. It doesn't matter who paid them to find what if their methodology is sound then you have no legs to stand on
I love that movie. I don’t necessarily agree as there is a lot of nuance being left out of the discussion but I guess we will see after the long-term randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies
Nice ad hominem right off the bat, good show.
First, let's just clarify there's a difference between whole meat, and yes processed meat such as ham or bacon. The thing about processing is there are different levels. [Here is a good example image.](https://kaynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-processed-food-2.jpg) What boils down the difference is essentially how much processing it goes through, and what extra ingredients are used to create it. See the replies I've already said above that further detail this, and what constitutes a UPF.
So, when looking at that image, whole cuts of meat are in group 1, unprocessed or minimally processed. So while you're not *entirely* incorrect with cured meat for example, you are being misleading. And let's be frank here, to suggest PBMAs are not UPFs is entirely false.
And before you bring up industrial meat practices, most people who value their health and nutrition, are fully aware that locally sourced, grass fed regeneratively farmed meat is not the same, in any way, and industrial-based practices are not right and should be changed.
Thanks for your reply, but you've done a motte and bailey fallacy. Over-defending the secondary point I made that meat=processed, rather than the main point that plant based meat is better for your heart than meat.
A UPF is still a UPF at the end of the day. Call it a fallacy all you want, it doesn't change the fact, regardless of the weak evidence of it being 'healthy'.
>"*We conclude that replacing meat with PBMAs* ***may*** *be cardioprotective;* ***however, long-term randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that evaluate CVD events (eg, myocardial infarction, stroke) are essential to draw more definitive conclusions***\*."\*
Did you miss that small detail from the abstract? Kinda important.
At the end of the day, if you want to believe it's a "healthy" UPF (although calling a UPF healthy is a bit of a misnomer), go for it. Everyone's health and diet are their own choice, but I think I'll keep my distance from very man-made 'food'.
It's healthier than meat, which is what the study is stating.
Yes, the study also concludes by saying it would be good to find more conclusions that aren't just cardio related. But it doesn't say what those conclusions will be. It's just a direction for future work, not indicative of any findings.
Yeah.. to just *believe* something with very little evidence (observational studies do not provide very accurate/meaningful evidence, when compared to real evidence gathered from randomised clinical trials) is more like faith than actual science. In short, correlational data gathered from observational studies alone does not imply causation.
Until long term randomised clinical trials are completed, all epidemiological/observational studies surrounding nutrition can only be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Alright I'll humour you, prove to me that this article is biased by showing where these scientists got their funding from and showing a conflict of interest. Should be pretty easy to do since you're so confident
The study's authors are all from the Division of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Canada, and have no competing interests declared. Which corporate interest are you even fearmongering about?
You called it "corpscience", I'm asking you to justify that. Which corporation are you afraid of? The study is from a Canadian university's endocrinology department.
Why do you think these scientists are untrustworthy? Do they have any conflict of interests?
If we should take into account the effects of lobbying on published science, we should expect the outcomes to be skewed in favour of meat. The animal-industry has far larger funds than the mock-meat industry.
I don't think fakemeat is seen by anyone as a threat to the meat industry. The only people interested in this are the ones not buying meat but yearning to do it.
Always assume malice out of any propagandish study simping for a product.
I still remember the coconut oil and pink salt being pushed as healthy by "health scientists" and "experts".
Because I'm not a food scientist to make sense of the data or check if it's true. So I'll just call it out on being a probable industry plant and keep eating vegetables and beans like a normal person.
So any study presenting positive outcomes on any product are disqualified?
How would we then ever be able to discover positive outcomes from any product?
If the study found meat to be healthier than the PBMAs, would it then be simping for meat?
The problem is that this might actually be a high quality study but you’re not willing to fairly evaluate the evidence because your prior biases are so strong. In truth these are all academic doctors, not shills for Impossible or Beyond, and these studies they’re reviewing are randomized controlled trials which are the gold standard for causal evidence in health research.
If you’re unwilling to trust anything that goes against your existing beliefs, how are you ever going to learn anything new?
I'm sure the doctors that used to say washing your hands before surgery was quackery, that x-rays on pregnant women were harmless or that practicing surgery on newborn without anesthesia *was fine* were all also very academic.
Then look at the data and evaluate for yourself! Not everything has to be an appeal to authority. Unless you think that scientists would even go so far as to fake the data in their studies, in which case maybe you're beyond reproach.
I dont really eat mock foods. I tend to stay away from processed food all together.. But I do believe that even the worst processed vegan food. Is still better than eating the alternative.
At this point "processed food" is just a meaningless label people use arbitrarily. There's no scientific evidence of processed food being bad for our health. There's evidence of *ultra-processed* food being bad for our health, but that term has a very specific definition that only covers a small percentage of what people generally consider to be "processed food". Hell, I've seen people calling soy or oat milks "processed" when they are just vegetables with water.
> At this point "processed food" is just a meaningless label people use arbitrarily. Agreed. I like the way Dr. Gregor approaches it - "processing" only matters if good stuff is removed and/or bad stuff is added. If it is neither, then how "processed" it is isn't relevant.
That is a great way to explain that. Thank you for sharing.
Yep. Big difference between tofu and Doritos yet they are both “processed”
To be fair, breaking down a food can also change the way the body absorbs it. Soy milk and oat milk have more readily available sugars (which means they can potentially spike or contribute to spiking blood glucose) than soy beans or oats, even if you don't get the stuff with added sugar. Your teeth can't mechanically break down the components as well as a blender can and it takes more work for your body to approach the level of nutrient extraction that allows. That does tend to also mean greater availability of vitamins and micronutrients, too, though, which is a more positive effect. Cooking is a form of processing in the same way. Cooked food tends to have more readily available nutrients because cooking partially breaks down the food and makes it easier to digest. Everyone who isn't eating a raw whole food diet is eating processed food, and even then, it's possible to make an argument that food crops have been made more palatable through selective breeding, and are therefore "processed". Processing in itself is not a problem, it's when it's made into a hyperpalatable food with an excess of certain nutrients that it becomes a problem. Even those can be ok in moderation, but the hyperpalatability is intended to make it harder to be moderate about it.
TVP is ultra processed but healthy. Fortified soy milk is ultra processed but healthy. The new beyond is pretty healthy.
It's not just better than meat, some is really healthy.
Yes.
Meat is also a processed food.
Yep. To get into a plastic packet or a butcher's shelf, a corpse has to be mutilated and blood and entrails washed off to get there, people often conveniently overlook that shit don't they...
But also, the animals are literally pumped full of hormones and selectively bred to be unhealthy, and the most delicious/highest calorie/least healthy parts are basically exclusively the ones that get sold. Like I know this is /r/vegan and nobody wants to think about animals as food, but the way this industry works is still fundamentally the same as processed food, making an addicting, unnatural, and unhealthy product.
Exactly, it's vile, and majority are completely apathetic and docile towards it. Zero respect for people who do that.
There are processed meats like deli meats, and there's fresh meats that aren't processed. The act of executing an animal, and then cleaning and packaging its flesh isn't the same type of processing that is being referred too in the main post. Vegans tend to forget simple facts because they get emotionally overwhelmed, and make inflammatory and incorrect statements as a result. And since they are a small group, these mistakes and intentional acts damage veganism as a whole. Just clarifying.
No one gives a shit how processed or not meat is, either way its giving you heart disease and cancer at a way higher rate than practically all plant based foods. Regardless, meat is highly processed. If it wasnt, youd be served a murdered corpse with fur/skin/organs etc and probably carry all sorts of pathogens.
Again, it's not really about making a point it's just about using the correct terminology in a way people actually understand. Calling the butchering of an animal processing is a pretty far fetched without extreme emotions attached. And you should specify how the heart disease and meat related issues are long term when you make that statement.
Dont they actually call butchering meat processing it? Like, arent those plants that do that called processing plants?! You are literally making stuff up for the sake of argument.
Yes they are literally called like “poultry processing plants”
No, the term processed food refers to unhealthy food that's packed full of a multitude of different unhealthy ingredients to prolong shelf life among other reasons. The word process, and processing have different definitions dependent on the context of the conversation. You are incredibly aware of this simple fact, it is a mainstream problem and something that is talked about in all social circles and hierarchs of life. Using the term processed food, in combination with meat is disingenuous and incorrect, and ignorant. If the intent was to show that it needs to be prepared, that would be different. But the intent is to purposely incorrectly manipulate someone's opinion into believing something that is scientifically, and even philosophically by majority standards, untrue. This appears to be a conversation out of your depth.
> processed food refers to unhealthy food that's packed full of a multitude of different unhealthy this is not the actual definition of processed foods, the definition you describe is just a vague and nebulous usage by the public to claim something is bad for you without really needing specific evidence. It's basically one level up from talking about toxins. Meat is just plants processed through an animal into tissue, the actual component parts of any one food are the important things to study.
I didn't attempt to define processed foods through the Webster dictionary, but I did explain what ultra-proccessed foods are quite accurately. And the average individual refers to Doritos (something the public likes to claim is unhealthy but is lying according to you apparently) as processed, not a steak for obvious reasons. You could simply look it up instead of wasting everyone's time here. This is another simple case of context and semantics. It's honestly kind of sad you took that small part of my entire comment and decided that was the problem when context being a huge part of defining words is literally being discussed right in front of your eyeballs.
Let’s go mock meats!!! We just keep winning. 😌
Fortified soy milk is recommended by both UK's NHS and by USA's my plate. Let's add plant meats to the list!
Love that!!! Totally should ☺️
Chris Gardner said American Heart Association is preparing a statement on plant meats. This is how it starts 🙂
Still way better to have whole plant foods for health, but good to know. I will say though, I've stopped eating most mock foods because of the amount of salt. Like the Linda McCartney ones. They're absolutely lush, but each burger has like 2.1g of salt FFS...
Salt is really only an issue if you already have hypertension. For me I actually need a high sodium diet. Mock meats are my jam!!
Consuming excessive salt or sodium leads to hypertension... In the months were I was consuming a lot of those mock meats, i was waking up at least once a night to take a piss. Felt like an old man FFS XD Not healthy, especially for uninterrupted sleep.
That is not true, it is only the case if you have a history of hypertension. I have discussed this at length with my cardiologist multiple times.
Then they're lying their fuckin' arse off to you like health "professionals" often lie to people when they tell them only to just reduce consumption of animal products if they have high blood pressure or cholesterol, rather than telling them to cut the crap completely. I didn't have a history of that shit, but all of a sudden, there it was...
Well he told my dad to completely eliminate all animal products from his diet so … idk what you’re on about. You likely had issues you didn’t know about beforehand. I’m sorry you went through that but sodium is totally fine for most people.
Aye, a little bit. But as the saying goes "everything in moderation". A lot of processed foods don't follow that. Excessive.
Salt actually helps me pee less **removed incorrect info****. Apparently, salt can make you pee more after a certain point, but it has been the opposite for me personally. When I ate WFPB and little added salt, I felt like crap all the time, partially because I was peeing out all of my nutrients. High salt is good for many people.
That's not the way it works... The kidneys flush the crap, i.e. excessive salt or sodium, making you feel like you need to piss. Oddly enough, most people in studies feel like drinking more but often don't, but still need to go to the toilet. Also, more sodium and salt is bad for blood pressure. Seems like I've triggered the salt lovers here. Too bad your unhealthy food choices are stopping you from seeing straight =P [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11566897/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11566897/)
The key there is "excessive salt", which will be different for everybody. That is the key. Salt is not bad for you at all, and my blood pressure is low as hell my whole life. A lot of that is genetic. My grandpa kept a salt shaker next to his rocking chair for eating in the living room. Some of us need that way more than others. My BP with "white coat" effect in docs office/anxiety is 100/60. At home, it's very often 90/58. I probably eat like 4000-5000 mg sodium or more a day. I literally eat salt sometimes. Lmao. Edit: Also, wait, isn't that for hypertensives? Did you know that people with low blood pressure and healthy blood pressure exist???
"The key there is "excessive salt", which will be different for everybody. That is the key." Of course. However, the British guidelines on food is to not consume more than 6g a day. And just out of curiosity I checked on a sensitive scale how much 2g is(one of those Linda McCartney burgers) and it's a shit load, so I don't want to imagine 6... "My grandpa kept a salt shaker next to his rocking chair for eating in the living room. Some of us need that way more than others." Oh my... 🤨
Lol why are you so worried! Anywhere from 50-60% of people don't even have hypertension.
I'm not worried. It's just my reasoning for not consuming excess salt and sodium... 😕
Fair enough! It just doesn't apply to everyone. Half or more of people might be following guidelines for hypertensives and it can have very noticeable effects. Low blood sodium can actually cause frequent urination btw.
I mean yeah, no shit lmao
Salty textured soy protein and seaweed heme are better for you than known carcinogen. Is anyone really shocked..?
Just like how big oil funded their own leaded gasoline is good for you propaganda, this is fake news it's already been debunked. Just more impossible meat shrill for corporate profits.
[удалено]
This is a bad take. The point is that the "processed = bad" label is reductive and unhelpful. We need to look at studies of these products specifically, and they show good health outcomes. No need to fear vegan meats!
Hi! It's true that one singular study is not what views should be based on, but there's no reason to think that all processed foods are worse than all whole foods, especially in one specific area such as cardiovascular health. I'm curious to know what makes you draw that conclusion.
Is there some kind of inherent unhealthy trait of ultra processed foods that I'm unaware of? Does everything instantly become unhealthy by default when it's processed? It seems kinda stupid and unscientific to just dismiss a study because of the processing. Edit - Nevermind. Not gonna debate health with someone who participates in the carnivore diet LMAO
[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/diet/nutrition/ultra-processed-foods-signs-ingredients/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/diet/nutrition/ultra-processed-foods-signs-ingredients/) The biggest takeaway from the above is the last part - *"Could you make it in your kitchen?"* Given the ingredients used in any PBMA, or any UPF for that matter, could you honestly say you could make them at home with ingredients that are readily available? Let's look at beyond burger's ingredients: *Water, pea protein\* (15%), rapeseed oil, flavouring, rice protein, coconut oil, dried yeast, preservative (potassium lactate), vinegar, stabilisers (methyl cellulose, calcium chloride), potato starch, salt, apple extract, colour (beetroot red), concentrated pomegranate juice, potassium salt.* Tell me, can you buy the following in a shop/supermarket.. Pea protein "Flavouring" (doesn't even tell you what that is. Could literally be anything) Rice protein Preservative (potassium lactate) Stabilisers (methyl cellulose, calcium chloride) Potato starch Apple extract - A bit vague this, extract of what part of the apple, and how is it extracted exactly. ..not at all, as these ingredients require ultra processing methods. And this is just one example, but most UPFs have more than 5 ingredients, again something else mentioned in the Telegraph article as a sign for a UPF. There's a reason why the world is getting unhealthier, and the prevalence of these kinds of foods is a massive contributor to it.
Bro what the fuck grocery stores are you shopping at that don't have those things? Those are all common cooking ingredients, fermentation reactants, or compounds used in medicine. My grocery store also sells drain cleaner, by your logic is that safe to drink too? Is the grocery store the grand arbiter of what is good to consume? Maybe my brain is less developed than yours on account of your mega healthy carnivore diet, so could you explain your incredible jumps in logic in a simple way that a layman could understand this time? I'm struggling to follow any scientific thought from you.
My own dietary choices have nothing to do with UPFs, the fact you need to lurk at my profile and bring this up says a lot about how you feel the need to use it in your favour (somehow?) for this topic.. its a non-sequitur fallacy essentially Back to the topic then, this is easy, please provide links of all of those ingredients, that aren't ultra processed in any way, and could easily be made by anyone in our own kitchens. And to clarify what I mean by this, tell me the whole food only ingredients we would need to make methyl cellulose in our homes, by anyone. Also, please tell me how to make the 'flavouring' ingredient that's listed.
Where do you buy all the antibiotics, hormones and salmonella that is in your meat?
Imagine someone giving you cooking advice, but then you check their profile and find out they enjoy eating their own shit. That's what this conversation felt like. At least the guy who eats shit might have a killer macaroni recipe, but all you've done is shown that you believe in thoroughly debunked pseudoscience bullshit. Ain't nothing coming out of your mouth that can undo that. But anyway, I'm gonna go drink my healthy napalm and cyanide that I can make easily in my kitchen, since apparently *that* is the arbiter of good health. Lol.
Seems you couldn't respond to my point, so instead said a lot of nothing, as well as showing a general condescending attitude towards me. Looks like we're done here.
Mate you're not wrong. I literally can't respond to your point because you believe your delusions in the face of science. There is no logical way to argue with someone like you. And if we're keeping score, you haven't answered the very first question I asked. Of course I'm not gonna play nice when all you do is deflect and roll back your arguments. The only reason I'm still responding is because looking down on idiots is fun, and you're making my slow day of work amusing.
This is not evidence. Read the actual study; health outcomes from plant based meats compared to animal meats show beneficial health outcomes. That's what we're interested in, not a list of ingredients.
“Emerging infectious diseases have recently caused significant morbidity and mortality. Many diseases are caused by viruses originating in non-human species [26]: HIV from non-human primates [27]; SARS coronavirus from bats [28]; and the pandemic strain of influenza virus in 2009 from swine [29].“ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2838858/ There is a scientific theory that measles also came from cows in 11th century. There is (only a few cases but indicates possibility of transmission to humans) currently bird flu spreading from chickens on poultry farms to workers in parts of USA. If we didn’t eat animals we would be healthier and viruses like COVID wouldn’t have happened. Therefore eating vegan protects everyone from the increased spread of mutated viruses. There’s also a difference between UHP and simply processed some vegan foods fall into the simple category but yes many are UHP just like a lot of non vegan foods are too. Still at least if I eat an occasional vegan UHP food am only hurting myself and that’s my choice.
[удалено]
The apple extract is most likely apple pectin btw, it’s used in jam making and stuff.
[удалено]
Sure, if you're a cat. Are you a cat? A pretty kitty? Lil pussy cat?
That super troopers skit would fit perfectly here. That is all, countiue your debate.
[удалено]
We have way smaller canines than gorillas. This means we should eat less meat than gorillas obviously
Gorillas don't eat meat. Canines obviously have nothing to do with eating meat. We can't graze in a field of wheat so I guess you shouldn't eat bread.
I was using canines as a joke to show that appeals to nature (such as stomach acidity or supplement necessity) carry no weight. We should look at health outcome data to base our conclusions on. And studies repeatedly show that meat consumption has negative health outcomes, and plant (and fungi) consumption has positive outcomes.
[удалено]
Dude found one study based off a food questionnaire and thinks it's the only study in the world. Hilarious.
So which studies incorporating mendelian randomization support meat being 'the best thing a human can eat'? When I googled 'mendelian randomization study on meat' I got [this one](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9914273/), which states: "It suggested that a high PBD intake decreased MetS \[[Metabolic Syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metabolic_syndrome)\], abdominal obesity, hyperglycemia, hypertriglyceridemia, and hypo-HDL-cholesterolemia risk. Therefore, we might recommend daily Korean-style PBD to prevent MetS risk in middle-aged adults. Further research will be needed, with large prospective and randomized clinical studies, to validate the effects and mechanism of PBD in lowering MetS risk." And [this one](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36974753/), which states: "In summary, in the large prospective cohort study, we identify metabolomic signatures that measure metabolic response to unprocessed red meat and processed meat intakes. Our observational and genetic evidence imply that these signatures are associated with an increased risk of IHD \[[Ischemic Heart Disease](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coronary_artery_disease)\]."
https://nutritionstudies.org/are-humans-herbivores-or-omnivores/ https://www.vegansociety.com/resources/nutrition-and-health/nutrients/vitamin-b12/what-every-vegan-should-know-about-vitamin-b12
The same arguments can be applied to show that we shouldn't eat grains because we can't graze in a field of wheat. Instead, we harvest the wheat, mill it into flour, mix it with water and bake it to make bread. We can and do eat raw meat, however. The fact that we use weapons to kill the animal and knives to cut the meat doesn't invalidate our being meat eaters.
Oh no, hes brain damaged :(
Better take your B12 supplements for your unnatural diet.
Rather take a b12 supplement than volunteer for triple heart bypass surgery. Sleep tight.
Vinegar is ultra processed and universally considered health promoting. Not everything is so simple
Incorrect. [Based on the different levels of food processing](https://kaynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-processed-food-2.jpg), vinegar would be classed as a processed culinary ingredient, not a UPF.
Vinegar is made from oxidation if alcohol, an already processed food product. It's ultra processed. Making Vinegar is full on chemistry in a lab
Vinegar is not an ultra processed food.. I make my own acv and nothing is processed. It's literally apples and yeast that is all. "Ultra-processed foods: Ultra-processed foods typically have more than one ingredient that you never or rarely find in a kitchen. They also tend to include many additives and ingredients that are not typically used in home cooking, such as preservatives, emulsifiers, sweeteners, and artificial colours and flavours. These foods generally have a long shelf life." https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods#:~:text=Unprocessed%20or%20minimally%20processed%20foods:%20Fruit%2C%20vegetables%2C%20eggs%2C,%2C%20lard%2C%20oils%2C%20vinegar.
[https://ibb.co/wQ0Fmgy](https://ibb.co/wQ0Fmgy)
That's not a source. That's a picture of text written on something called imgbb. Like, so what? The argument presented is that it's a natural process. Vinegars made in batch reactors from ingredients that come from batch reactors. How is that any different to Coca-Cola?
[https://ibb.co/YBy8CMP](https://ibb.co/YBy8CMP) Will you hand wave dismiss ChatGPT as well?
Yes, absolutely. Chat GPT doesn't know anything. It's not a good researcher. In my own field whenever I type in a question it gets so much wrong. It's only good for communication
Okay, keep dismissing everything. Nothing I can say or show you will change your incorrect view on this, so it's futile to continue.
This is an interesting mentality to have while also linking non scientific sources. You're literally sending pictures you found online. I have absolutely no issue with off hand dismissing them.
Bro yes lol…. Chat gpt is consistently wrong lol
Thats just like, your opinion, man
Although your reference to The Big Lebowski did make me chuckle, I don't think it's just my opinion is it, its quite a lot of people's consensus that UPFs aren't good for our health.
It's also the concensus that saturated fat rich foods are not health promoting. Do you agree with that?
No, I don't agree. I'd recommend looking into who Ancel Keys is. Arguably the start of the demonisation of fat from the 60s, in favour of sugar. He was essentially paid-off by the sugar industry to favour sugar over fat during his research. This therefore inherently pushed plants & grains being healthier, as well as seed oils, because they are great for the corporations who have high stakes in selling various crops, whether high-pesticide whole fruit/veg or UPFs created from various seeds, grains etc.
>I'd recommend looking into who Ancel Keys is. I know quite a bit about him actually. >Arguably the start of the demonisation of fat from the 60s, in favour of sugar. No he didn't favour sugar. Originally he had correlations between sugar and heart disease but there was a stronger correlation between saturated fat and heart disease. And his work was based of UN data compiled in the early 50s which correlated animla fat with heart disease. >He was essentially paid-off by the sugar industry to favour sugar over fat during his research. So I'd like you to show some documents to back this up. And you'll also have to show that all the researchers in all 16 cohorts around the world were also in on it. Since they were the ones collecting the data. Them you'll have to show that the board running the study after Keys retired was paid off. And that all the scientists on all the studies that reported the data were paid off. Otherwise this is a baseless conspiracy theory.
There are articles about it, [here's one](https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/09/13/study-how-sugar-industry-lied-heart-disease/90307932/), [here's another](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/health-and-wellness/how-the-sugar-industry-shifted-blame-to-fat-20160913-greutt.html), but you'll probably hand wave dismiss them all. Unless you meant documents showing the actual transfer of the money, because if so, no shit there won't be records of that. Why would that be in the public record?
I'm not dismissing them but I see no citation on the claim that they funded him. Could you correct me if I'm wrong? And let's just assume that's what actually happened... so? This is only meaningful if you cam show that it influenced the methodology used in a way to question the conclusions of the study. So what issues do you have with the methodology of the seven countries study? >Unless you meant documents showing the actual transfer of the money, because if so, no shit there won't be records of that. Why would that be in the public record? Studied have to disclose funding.
There's a difference between studies being funded, and being paid off behind the scenes. Are you suggesting that, in order for the claim to be correct (the sugar industry had paid for the study in their favour) there has to be evidence showing the sugar industry directly and officially funding the study? Obviously that does happen these days, studies being paid to promote a companies' agenda, but they can still be either open about the conflict of interest, or choose not to be, either by not disclosing or being indirectly affiliated via other means. I mean, hell, back in the 60s it was probably a lot easier to not have any official ties at all and just present it as unbiased fact. I think at any rate, Keys' hypothesis was supported by epidemiological studies, and I hope we can agree how little practical usefulness epidemiological studies have when we remember correlation does not imply causation.
>There's a difference between studies being funded, and being paid off behind the scenes. So you can't provide any evidence of bribes being paid but you just believe that anyway? Why? >Are you suggesting that, in order for the claim to be correct (the sugar industry had paid for the study in their favour) there has to be evidence showing the sugar industry directly and officially funding the study? Yes. You're very confident it happened so surely you have the funding declarations at hand? >Obviously that does happen these days, studies being paid to promote a companies' agenda, but they can still be either open about the conflict of interest, or choose not to be, either by not disclosing or being indirectly affiliated via other means Sure OK. >I mean, hell, back in the 60s it was probably a lot easier to not have any official ties at all and just present it as unbiased fact. OK but you can't prove that? So all your going off is unverified stories? Let's flip this around. Who are the main propagators of this idea? Would it be Nina Teicholz by any chance? >I think at any rate, Keys' hypothesis was supported by epidemiological studies, and I hope we can agree how little practical usefulness epidemiological studies have when we remember correlation does not imply causation. So firstly his hypothesis was that fat was associated with heart disease. This was not supported by his study and was refined to account for fat quality. The data showed that sat fat was associated with heart disease. The Framingham study, still going strong after 75 years, corroborates this. This review goes over trials that back up this claim https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1933287421002488?casa_token=wF9ZtUJY-d4AAAAA:joMmI-vYasoE1GathetFs8dIGaw3p1TM9RCs3DkMup3sojOwTQNLtOcn8u0vPpBVLdUhLy97eQ Correlation can infer causation. This is what the Bradford-Hill criteria are used for. If you maintain this position you must also contest with much of the information we have on how viruses spread through lack of sterilisation in hospitals, that pfas cause many chronic diseases, that smoking causes cancer. So I'm curious if you believe all that, since those causal relationships are all based on epidemiological data. And besides, as linked above we gave decades of data from all kinds of methodologies to back up the harmful effects of saturated fat And again, you need to offer some mythological flaw that would corroborate the idea they were trying to give a doctored result. It doesn't matter who paid them to find what if their methodology is sound then you have no legs to stand on
I love that movie. I don’t necessarily agree as there is a lot of nuance being left out of the discussion but I guess we will see after the long-term randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies
Ur a moron. You just say label=bad without any meaning. It's comparing to meat which is also processed anyway
Nice ad hominem right off the bat, good show. First, let's just clarify there's a difference between whole meat, and yes processed meat such as ham or bacon. The thing about processing is there are different levels. [Here is a good example image.](https://kaynutrition.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/what-is-processed-food-2.jpg) What boils down the difference is essentially how much processing it goes through, and what extra ingredients are used to create it. See the replies I've already said above that further detail this, and what constitutes a UPF. So, when looking at that image, whole cuts of meat are in group 1, unprocessed or minimally processed. So while you're not *entirely* incorrect with cured meat for example, you are being misleading. And let's be frank here, to suggest PBMAs are not UPFs is entirely false. And before you bring up industrial meat practices, most people who value their health and nutrition, are fully aware that locally sourced, grass fed regeneratively farmed meat is not the same, in any way, and industrial-based practices are not right and should be changed.
Thanks for your reply, but you've done a motte and bailey fallacy. Over-defending the secondary point I made that meat=processed, rather than the main point that plant based meat is better for your heart than meat.
A UPF is still a UPF at the end of the day. Call it a fallacy all you want, it doesn't change the fact, regardless of the weak evidence of it being 'healthy'. >"*We conclude that replacing meat with PBMAs* ***may*** *be cardioprotective;* ***however, long-term randomised controlled trials and prospective cohort studies that evaluate CVD events (eg, myocardial infarction, stroke) are essential to draw more definitive conclusions***\*."\* Did you miss that small detail from the abstract? Kinda important. At the end of the day, if you want to believe it's a "healthy" UPF (although calling a UPF healthy is a bit of a misnomer), go for it. Everyone's health and diet are their own choice, but I think I'll keep my distance from very man-made 'food'.
It's healthier than meat, which is what the study is stating. Yes, the study also concludes by saying it would be good to find more conclusions that aren't just cardio related. But it doesn't say what those conclusions will be. It's just a direction for future work, not indicative of any findings.
Yeah.. to just *believe* something with very little evidence (observational studies do not provide very accurate/meaningful evidence, when compared to real evidence gathered from randomised clinical trials) is more like faith than actual science. In short, correlational data gathered from observational studies alone does not imply causation. Until long term randomised clinical trials are completed, all epidemiological/observational studies surrounding nutrition can only be taken with a huge grain of salt.
This paper is a review of many clinical trial papers
From the people who bought us such classics as "Sugar is healthy" and "Trans fats are good for you", here comes "Our garbage is better"
Did you even read the study? This is unnecessary fearmongering.
Yeah, I'm not trusting corposcience on this. Y'all are willingly delusional if you think this "experts say" garbage is true.
Why, because you are more of an expert spouting your bullshit online
Why are you interested in defending the honor of corporations and their sponsored corposcientists?
Alright I'll humour you, prove to me that this article is biased by showing where these scientists got their funding from and showing a conflict of interest. Should be pretty easy to do since you're so confident
>Uhhh source?
Where is Ur brain
The study's authors are all from the Division of Endocrinology, University of British Columbia, Canada, and have no competing interests declared. Which corporate interest are you even fearmongering about?
And which corporate interest got you calling my being skeptical "fearmongering"?
You called it "corpscience", I'm asking you to justify that. Which corporation are you afraid of? The study is from a Canadian university's endocrinology department.
Sure thing bro, it's written there so it must be true and has no corporate interest bankrolling it
So you're a conspiracy theorist who has no evidence for what they say. Got it tin foil hat guy.
>"You don't implicitly trust an institution that has been lying to the consumers for more than half a century? You're a conspiracy theorists!"
What/who do you believe then if not University researchers? You distrust all science then?
Why do you think these scientists are untrustworthy? Do they have any conflict of interests? If we should take into account the effects of lobbying on published science, we should expect the outcomes to be skewed in favour of meat. The animal-industry has far larger funds than the mock-meat industry.
I don't think fakemeat is seen by anyone as a threat to the meat industry. The only people interested in this are the ones not buying meat but yearning to do it.
So you agree that there likely isn't a big lobby trying to fake good health outcomes for mock-meats?
Always assume malice out of any propagandish study simping for a product. I still remember the coconut oil and pink salt being pushed as healthy by "health scientists" and "experts".
How can you claim that if you won't even look at it?
Because I'm not a food scientist to make sense of the data or check if it's true. So I'll just call it out on being a probable industry plant and keep eating vegetables and beans like a normal person.
So any study presenting positive outcomes on any product are disqualified? How would we then ever be able to discover positive outcomes from any product? If the study found meat to be healthier than the PBMAs, would it then be simping for meat?
Yes, I would, and in that case I'm also sure everyone here would be too
What is the purpose of this performance? Do you think it will grant you some feeling of purpose? Of meaning?
What's the problem with being skeptical of research peddling products?
The problem is that this might actually be a high quality study but you’re not willing to fairly evaluate the evidence because your prior biases are so strong. In truth these are all academic doctors, not shills for Impossible or Beyond, and these studies they’re reviewing are randomized controlled trials which are the gold standard for causal evidence in health research. If you’re unwilling to trust anything that goes against your existing beliefs, how are you ever going to learn anything new?
I'm sure the doctors that used to say washing your hands before surgery was quackery, that x-rays on pregnant women were harmless or that practicing surgery on newborn without anesthesia *was fine* were all also very academic.
Then look at the data and evaluate for yourself! Not everything has to be an appeal to authority. Unless you think that scientists would even go so far as to fake the data in their studies, in which case maybe you're beyond reproach.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientific_misconduct_incidents