Re:U.S. Kids Are Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories from '...
by CarelessExpert on Tuesday August 10, 2021 @04:40PM
(#28134160)
>
I assume when people talk about “ultra-processed” they’re talking about foods which 90% would agree are bad for you
So then we should just call it what it is: junk food.
"ultra-processed" is no better than "gmo", i.e. a completely meaningless label designed to scare people because of spooky "technology", as opposed to actual information people can use to make informed decisions.
> Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.
LOL... damn, okay, I admit it, I didn't read all the way to the end before commenting. I'm leaving this here as it's a good reminder for myself to slow down...
Re:U.S. Kids Are Getting Nearly 70% of Their Calories from '...
by AfterShave on Wednesday August 11, 2021 @10:28AM
(#28142423)
Just as an aside. Is it really "added sugar" in candy where the entire point is that it's mainly made out of sugar?
I wonder whether kids are really getting fat off of even hot dogs, mac and cheese, steak and cheese subs, and corn. Or if it’s the added sugar and refined carbs - candy, soda, white bread, “snacks”. People say that kids’ diet in the 60s was the former, and they were fine.
Honestly “ultra-processed” can be misleading because it isn’t the processing which is bad, it’s the amount of fat and carbs vs. protein, fiber, water, and other nutrients. Maybe we could call it “junk” food but that’s even more ambiguous.