> But the reality is that 99% of processing is directed at making foods hyper-palatable, calorically dense, and easy to digest. Because that's what consumers crave.
Yes, people want unhealthy foods.
You can buy a perfectly organic, fully unprocessed meal from Panda Express. Its called rice stir-fry, and as long as you hold back the soy sauce its "unprocessed".
---------------
A friend of mine went vegetarian for better health. He ended up eating potato chips and gaining weight. Yes, there's a general "vegetables are usually better for you than meat", but, there's no guarantee that following such vague advice helps anyone.
You need to think harder, and eat smarter than that if you want a better diet. This "unprocessed vs ultraprocessed" designation is too vague, too unhelpful. It will just cause people to eat Panda Express all day every day.
Butter, sesame/vegetable oil and white rice are all processed foods. An unprocessed version would consist of brown rice, eggs, and the chopped veggies. Which would be an improvement on 95% of the typical meals Americans consume.
I do get your point though. There's an aspect of Goodhart's law here. When we come up with some sort of diet management heuristic, over time our personal habits and eventually the market will find exploits. We'll look for the most unhealthy/tasty food that complies with the ostensible rules of the diet.
The article is clearly using NOVA's definition of unprocessed vs ultraprocessed. Under NOVA's definition of unprocessed: butter, vegetable oil are "Group 2" (ingredients) while white rice is "Group 1" (unprocessed / minimally processed).
--------
As such, fresh Stir Fry from a restaurant with white rice, oil, and butter is Group2.
Group3 and Group4 are the "problematic" (allegedly) groups of high-processing.
Anyway, it's perfectly healthy to eat meat; vegetarianism isn't healthier. What's healthier is being deliberate and thinking about the food you consume.
(For reference, I became vegetarian because I ha concerns about factory farming's environmental impact and slowly just started to dislike the idea of having to sacrifice another animal for my benefit when it became clear to me that not doing so isn't actually that difficult.)
*Vaidya is the title for an Ayurvedic doctor.
I have not read his Aghora series. That could be esoterica or even a spoof, who knows. I have only read his Ayurveda book. Doubt that that book is wrong, since my family has some background in Ayurveda as users for two generations or more. Also read his bio on his site - says he was gold medals winner in his Ayurveda degree exams from the Pune university he studied at. I know of that school. Unlikely to be fake info, could easily be verified.
that Sri Ramakrishna got throat cancer by wish of some female guru as punishment for wanting to learn Tantra out of turn
Abbottabad is hottest place in Asia (it’s Jacobabad near where my mom grew up)
Wajid Ali Shah died soon after he was sent to Calcutta by British
Confuses Shamse Tabrez and Shamsuddin Sabzawari (RA)
I completely agree with this. There's nothing inherent to processing food that makes it less healthy. In fact it could potentially make it even more healthy, e.g. adding fiber or protein to a starch. Heck, even just like at the original processing technique. Cooked vegetables are more nutritious than raw vegetables.
But the reality is that 99% of processing is directed at making foods hyper-palatable, calorically dense, and easy to digest. Because that's what consumers crave. If someone's investing the capital necessary to process foods, it would not be smart to do it such a way to make their product less appealing.
So the reality is that avoiding processed foods in favor of whole foods winds up being a pretty good heuristic. The only real exception I can think of are products marketed explicitly as health food, and even a lot of times they're not actually that healthy.