Dana Bash on CNN calling the BS out

  • porous_grey_matter@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    22 hours ago

    Here is a good, scientifically informed overview of one popular ultra processed food categorization system and why it excludes good foods and includes poor ones: https://www.eatrightpro.org/news-center/practice-trends/examining-the-nova-food-classification-system-and-healthfulness-of-ultra-processed-foods

    The same kind of thing applies to the other popular systems for defining it. It’s just not a good scientific category, we already know about all the components it’s a mediocre shorthand for.

    • Log in | Sign up@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      14 hours ago

      They concede that the actual scientists found that

      ultra-processed foods are associated with increased incidences of chronic diseases such as obesity, heart disease and Type 2 diabetes

      And dismissed it all because there’s not a randomised controlled trail for ultra processed vs home cooked from ingredients foods, but their counterpoint to that, their main gotcha from that article, is it a randomised controlled trial? Does it measure obesity, heart disease and type 2 diabetes? No! Let’s see what it tests:

      To answer this question, researchers in an USDA-funded study published in The Journal of Nutrition planned a seven-day, 2,000-calorie daily diet that was based on the recommendations in the Dietary Guidelines but with more than 80% of the foods coming from Nova’s ultra-processed food category. The results showed that this planned diet achieved a Healthy Eating Index (HEI) score of 86 out of 100 points. The HEI measures the diet quality and evaluates to what extent Americans are following the Dietary Guidelines. For reference, the current HEI for Americans is 59 on average, meaning many Americans are consuming a diet below what is considered desirable.

      So if you use one set of guidelines to make a diet plan (no one actually eats it) and you deliberately pick foods that are processed but reasonably healthy according to those very same guidelines, you achieve a great score on what basis? Long term health outcomes? No. Short term health outcomes? No. What basis? Oh, the very same guidelines you used to cherry pick the foods? Why isn’t it 100%?! What an absurdly vacuous claim.

      In their enlightenment and dismissing all the science, they’ve replaced it by calculating some points of disagreement with some older healthy eating advice? That’s IT!?!

      You have swallowed a bunch of pseudoscience. You’re as bad as RFK.

      It’s a fucking industry funded pseudoscience pseudoprogessional pseudoeducation body. Did you even think about where they’re coming from?

      https://www.eatrightpro.org/about-us/who-we-are/advertising-and-sponsorship/meet-our-sponsors

      Some highlights for you:

      Danone North America
      Eli Lilly and Company (weight loss drugs)
      Gatorade Sports Science Institute
      National Confectioners Association
      National Dairy Council
      National Honey Board
      National Cattlemen’s Beef Association
      Nestle Health Sciences
      Quebec Maple Syrup Producers
      Sodexo
      Splenda®
      Wonderful Pistachios

      No wonder they’re dismissing all the science associating ultra processed food with all-causes mortality with a single diet plan!

      Why on earth do you fall for this crap?