What is your definition of processed food? Are potatoes processed because they are cleaned? Is chicken breast processed because the chicken is plucked? Is vinegar processed because it has undergone a chemical transformation via fermentation? Are potato chips processed because they are sliced potatoes fried in oil? Are fried plantains processed because they are sliced plantains fried in oil?
I do not mean to come across as antagonistic, I just haven't been able to find a line that everyone agrees with and felt it was useful to demonstrate that by asking a bunch of questions.
> What is your definition of processed food? Are potatoes processed because they are cleaned? Is chicken breast processed because the chicken is plucked? Is vinegar processed because it has undergone a chemical transformation via fermentation? Are potato chips processed because they are sliced potatoes fried in oil? Are fried plantains processed because they are sliced plantains fried in oil?
In practice, for the vast majority, it doesn't matter where the line is drawn.
Simply moving your diet as close as possible to unprocessed food (read: minimal steps between organism and ingestion) is the goal.
Nobody seems to agree, but the best I've been able to find is that every step counts and the level of invasiveness does too. So a plucked chicken is one thing, but a plucked, chlorine rinsed, freeze dried, ground up, centrifuged, glued, rehydrated, salted, etc. is another
FWIW: I avoid added sugar (sweeteners), empty calories.
eg Pre-made spaghetti sauce has sugar, so I make my own. Can of costco tomato sauce, garlic, italian herbs, garlic, oil, garlic, pinch of salt & pepper. Then I add some garlic.
eg I use plain greek yogurt in my smoothies. Flavored yogurt means added sugar. I can add my own flavors.
In my house, we make a distinction between "snacks" (food in-between meals) and "treats". I mosdef crave potato chips, doughnuts, cake, candy, etc. To better moderate, I don't keep any of those "empty" calories at home.
YMMV. IIRC, type-2 diabetics use artificial sweeteners. I'm not a doctor and can't guess what's best for anyone else.
My personal definition is that if you can stack the food you buy, it has been processed. It’s a subjective definition, and there might be dozens of counterexamples, but it feels true to me.
>"Han Wavel is a world which consists
largely of fabulous ultraluxury hotels
and casinos, all of which have been
formed by the natural erosion of wind
and rain. The chances of this
happening are more or less one to infinity against. Little is known of how
this came about because none of the
geophysicists, probability statisticians,
meteoranalysts or bizzarrologists who
are so keen to research it can afford to
stay there."
I suspect this might be because diet marketing before AI was one of the most fraught with misinformation subjects you could run across. This is because the "sale" of the idea has an effect on every salesman, so all of the salesmen are trying to sell every thing at once,since that's also selling their thing, and ground truth gets stampeded. Now when you combine diet marketing and AI, you get a multiplier. Both in the sellers and the buyers, since the desire to believe is stacked.
You could try the thing that made it click for me, long after x86 was dominant.
Show them a CPU running on Logisim (or the like, such as the newer Digital) and show how when you plug a program into a ROM, it turns into wires lighting up and flipping gates/activating data lines/read registers etc.
As an adult, I was fortunate enough to catch "Jack vs. the Ninja" on a hotel TV while on a trip. I was absolutely entranced, and tracked down the rest of the show. "Breathtaking" is a good description.
I just want to hear about how other people have felt while taking the medicine. I don't care about aggregate statistics very much. Honestly what research do you read and for what purpose? All social science is basically junk and most medical research is about people whose bodies and lifestyles are very different than mine.
You must have more faith in research papers than I do. Every single one I've actually used has had significant flaws that are glossed over by what isn't being shown or said.
Maybe you're misunderstanding the point of research. Research groups set constraints not only for practical reasons, but so that the novelty in their papers isn't bogged down by edge cases. It seems absurd to just wholesale reject the usefulness of all research papers just on account of your own failure to properly make use of them.
The problem is when the constraints exclude methods that are comparable performance while otherwise being superior options for the problem they are solving. I've found this to be extremely common.
Maybe you're misunderstanding just how different most research papers actually are when you implement them and see all the limitations they have, especially when they compare themselves to general techniques that work better but they claim to surpass.
It's naive to accept what a paper does as fact from a video, you have to get it to work and try it out to really know. Anyone who has worked with research papers knows this from experience.
I do not mean to come across as antagonistic, I just haven't been able to find a line that everyone agrees with and felt it was useful to demonstrate that by asking a bunch of questions.