@sinnerman That article is much better, thanks for sharing it! I'd never thought of ultraprocessing as predigestion before.
For a time, Kevin Hall, a nutrition and metabolism scientist at the National Institutes of Health, was also skeptical that ultra-processed foods were harmful.
To test the idea, he designed a study that compared what happened when men and women were recruited to live in a lab and fed different diets. In one phase of the study, the participants ate mostly ultra-processed foods for two weeks. Their daily meals consisted of things like honey nut oat cereal, flavored yogurt, blueberry muffins, canned ravioli, steak strips, mashed potatoes from a packet, baked potato chips, goldfish crackers, diet lemonade and low-fat chocolate milk.
In a second phase of the study, the participants were fed a diet of mostly homemade, unprocessed foods for two weeks that was matched for nutrients like salt, sugar, fat, and fiber. Their meals consisted of foods such as Greek yogurt with walnuts and fruit, spinach salad with grilled chicken, apple slices, bulgur and fresh vinaigrette, and beef tender roast with rice pilaf, steamed vegetables, balsamic vinaigrette, pecans and orange slices.
In both cases, the participants were allowed to eat as much or as little of the foods and snacks as they wanted.
“If it was really about the nutrients — and not about the processing — then there shouldn’t be any major difference in calorie intake between these two diets,” said Hall. “I thought that was going to be the result of the study.”
But, he added, “I was hugely wrong.”
When people ate the ultra-processed diet, they consumed substantially more calories — about 500 more calories a day compared to when they ate the mostly unprocessed diet. The result: They gained weight and body fat.
The researchers also noticed a difference in how quickly the participants consumed their food. They ate the ultra-processed meals significantly faster, at a rate of about 50 calories per minute, compared to just 30 calories per minute on the unprocessed diet.
To say that this makes processed foods bad for you however is kinda ridiculous imo. Might as well tell people to only eat raw things because it has the least calories / most filling.
Bad food is bad for you, eating junk food is known to be a giant waste of calories and how it's prepared doesn't make it better or worse.
Outside of increased calories I have not seen any evidence that food being more "processed" is actually bad for you.
I'm not sure when this movement against junk food became a movement against processed foods but it's moving in the wrong direction. Plenty of shitty junk foods can have very little processing involved. And I'm convinced it's exactly those "low processed" junk food providers that are pushing all this bullshit.
With respect, I think you're ignoring the facts. How it's prepared absolutely makes a difference in how it tastes, how easy it is to eat, etc. and there is a resulting effect on how much people eat.
Freshly grilled chicken and frozen chicken patties are both chicken. But the chicken patty is ground, pre-seasoned, pre-cooked, etc. This makes it easier to get ready and easier to eat than a fresh chicken breast.
The poison is in the dose, as they say. 500 calorie surplus every day is a pound a week of weight gain.
And as dieticians have shown us over and over again, you can eat shitty food and be healthy, you just have to eat an appropriate amount of it. There are diets based on cookies and snack cakes, if you eat at your maintenance and cover a few basics with supplements, you can easily thrive on them.
I bought a bunch of expensive microwave meals on sale (6 or so that were originally $6 each, but bogo’d, so $3 each) for times I have to drop what I’m doing and be busy or gone for an extended period. Nice ones like beef and broccoli, mashed potatoes and Salisbury steak, umami bowls. Imagine my chagrin when they ranged from 350-600 calories each, and nutrients were so minimal, they didn’t list a percentage of rda, but added sugar, sodium content and carb count were of the chart and besides for fat content, were the only things memorably listed.
Meanwhile… After being rebuffed by the UAW, Trump will be appearing at Drake Enterprises (a non-union auto parts manufacturer) tomorrow in Clinton Township, Michigan, in effort to, as Drake spokesman said, “expand name recognition for Drake Enterprises.”
The workers at Drake are not union members or on strike.
Easier to track worker productivity (this is actually wrong, is significantly easier to track productivity done remotely, but management has lost out on traditional visual cues for productivity)
These corporations either own the real-estate, so having them empty greatly reduces the value, or are tied into long term leases they can’t get out of.
Mandating a RTO is also an easier way to offload staff without doing layoffs, as many will just leave.
It’s easier for people in positions of upper management to “build work culture” and “team development”
None of this are valid to you, but I imagine this type of thinking makes sense to management
#4 is difficult to quantify, so it's probably the one they feel the strongest about. I also frequently hear from people who prefer working in an office (they exist) that if you need someone, you can just walk over to their desk and ask them for help rather than trying to get a hold of them via IM. In my experience, that person is at lunch or in a conference room somewhere, so you're leaving an IM for them anyway.
I can't see this as anything other than a losing scenario for just... sensibility and maturity in general. Neither DeSantis nor Hannity are serious people, and there's simply no way this debate isn't just chum for the rabid fanatics who enjoy their malevolent circus act.
Ranked choice voting is what we need at all levels of government. But Republicans will never allow this, especially at the President level because they know it will lead to them never being elected again. And ratification of any possible amendment to the Constitution at this point in our history is so unlikely it’s probably easier to just attempt a coup again and continue the attacks on voting rights.
Perhaps in fifty years, if the US lasts that long.
news
Active
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.