The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
Some authors have criticised the concept of “ultra-processed foods” as poorly defined
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Modern plant-sourced diets may incorporate a range of ultra-processed foods (UPF), such as sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery, but also the ‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers that are produced with ingredients originating from plants and marketed as meat and dairy substitutes.
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand.
I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.
Impossible belongs to the ultra-processed food category.
No, it does not.
The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.
While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.
The Nova classification is the most widely used definition.
And?
Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that
The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.
It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.
Every 10 percentage points increase in plant-sourced non-UPF consumption was associated with a 7% lower risk of CVD (95% CI 0.91–0.95) and a 13% lower risk of CVD mortality (0.80–0.94). Conversely, plant-sourced UPF consumption was associated with a 5% increased risk (1.03–1.07) and a 12% higher mortality (1.05–1.20). The contribution of all UPF was linked to higher CVD risk and mortality, and no evidence for an association between contribution of all plant-sourced foods and CVD incidence and mortality was observed
Thanks for your teaching moment, but take a second to get up to speed and we can talk after that.
Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.
What is a stealth edit?
I fixed some formatting issues. Does that make the study I linked invalid?
I just told you why the study you linked is invalid for this conversation. Do you want me to quote the comment you just replied to so you can reread it?
I’m not going to continue providing you with valid studies so you can keep trying to disprove them to promote your agenda.
Isn’t that sealioning?
Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:
So?
Link a study showing that, it should be easy.
Link a study showing what?
Something proving your high-effort repost of another user’s comment.