Is ALL cooking ultra-processed food
video description
Date: 2025-05-10
Related videos
Comments and reviews: 20
kgoblin5084
Yeah, no the terminology & the scale are useless, because there is no actual underlying rule to classify a given food, it's all subjective nonsense by the people who put together the scale.
And I will also actually pick on the BMI thing for the same reason - no, you can't just handwave that a bad BMI ratio is usually associated with adiposity, & I will observe that it is NOT that much to ask to do a simple measure of adiposity/muscularity when measuring someones BMI. which has to happen en-masse to get the data for average BMI. It literally takes all of maybe 5 minutes more at most to right down whether a person appears to be fat/muscled/unsure after measuring their height & weight, & use that to determine a multiplier for the final score.
And while we're on the subject - I'm also going to poke at how all of these same types use the word 'chemical' - the actual definition of that word being ANY material substance. but the way these jokers use it means 'bad substances - made by technology instead of nature! '. Expect they never actually bother to define ANY objectively observable characteristics for how to identify a chemical vs. a 'natural substance', & they'll make case-by-case exceptions all the time to fit their current agenda.
Eg - 1 example, outside of food - Dr Squatch, the soap company, has commercials where they advertise they produce 'real soap - without chemicals - & the competition uses detergent! ' Except when you actually dig into it, SOAP is also a classification of chemical, & the main difference between it & detergent is detergent is more acidic (which right off the bat makes it better to wash your hair with. Detergents ALSO occur naturally in nature. and one of the key traditional ingredients to handmade soaps is lye. an incredibly caustic & toxic substance.
IMHO, technology is NOT the 'opposite' or negation of nature, technology is the intelligent application of observations to harness nature for the best benefit. Once you understand that, the bias these folks have becomes pretty clear - they are anti-technology, anti-progress, & thus ultimately anti-advancement-of-humanity - their 'sage advice' is really just lashing out at new, unfamiliar things, favoring old ways to do things without any attempt to understand the actual underlying mechanisms.
What we actually need to improve health is GOOD metrics, metrics that are objectively measurable, coherently defined, & not subject to the whims of the ideologically driven. The NOVA index, raw BMI as a measurement of public health, 'organic' foods, & rants about 'too many chemicals' are not that.
reply
Yeah, no the terminology & the scale are useless, because there is no actual underlying rule to classify a given food, it's all subjective nonsense by the people who put together the scale.
And I will also actually pick on the BMI thing for the same reason - no, you can't just handwave that a bad BMI ratio is usually associated with adiposity, & I will observe that it is NOT that much to ask to do a simple measure of adiposity/muscularity when measuring someones BMI. which has to happen en-masse to get the data for average BMI. It literally takes all of maybe 5 minutes more at most to right down whether a person appears to be fat/muscled/unsure after measuring their height & weight, & use that to determine a multiplier for the final score.
And while we're on the subject - I'm also going to poke at how all of these same types use the word 'chemical' - the actual definition of that word being ANY material substance. but the way these jokers use it means 'bad substances - made by technology instead of nature! '. Expect they never actually bother to define ANY objectively observable characteristics for how to identify a chemical vs. a 'natural substance', & they'll make case-by-case exceptions all the time to fit their current agenda.
Eg - 1 example, outside of food - Dr Squatch, the soap company, has commercials where they advertise they produce 'real soap - without chemicals - & the competition uses detergent! ' Except when you actually dig into it, SOAP is also a classification of chemical, & the main difference between it & detergent is detergent is more acidic (which right off the bat makes it better to wash your hair with. Detergents ALSO occur naturally in nature. and one of the key traditional ingredients to handmade soaps is lye. an incredibly caustic & toxic substance.
IMHO, technology is NOT the 'opposite' or negation of nature, technology is the intelligent application of observations to harness nature for the best benefit. Once you understand that, the bias these folks have becomes pretty clear - they are anti-technology, anti-progress, & thus ultimately anti-advancement-of-humanity - their 'sage advice' is really just lashing out at new, unfamiliar things, favoring old ways to do things without any attempt to understand the actual underlying mechanisms.
What we actually need to improve health is GOOD metrics, metrics that are objectively measurable, coherently defined, & not subject to the whims of the ideologically driven. The NOVA index, raw BMI as a measurement of public health, 'organic' foods, & rants about 'too many chemicals' are not that.
reply
Beryllahawk
I have to point out that long before RFK, some of our food information got screwed over by corporate greed. The food pyramid crap that I learned in school - grains at the bottom, yadda yadda - was ABSOLUTE LIES, bought and paid for by the cereal companies who stood to sell a helluva lot more Frosted Flakes or whatever. That's not a new thing at all. What RFK is doing now is at best misguided (and fueled by a horrifying lack of fact checking. but I really think that there's money involved here too. The people that make the delicious junk food would NOT appreciate getting taxed, nor would they be happy with selling less product. Most everything else going on with this administration is lining someone's pockets, it stands to reason that RFK is doing the same. (If not lining his own pockets, enabling some oligarch or another to reap the benefits)
And the reason why - not just the slashes to science funding, public media funding, healthcare funding. ALL of it, appears to be aiming at crafting a nicely packaged, neatly blindfolded class of virtual slaves for the fascists. People who have no rights - who don't even know what rights they SHOULD have - people who can't afford not to eat the cheapest, least healthy slop - people who can't say no, on every level. That's what the administration wants, because that's a slice of population that can be shoved into the worst sorts of labor situations, and voila! We brought manufacturing back! The erosion of trust in the media, the theft of wealth, and the blatant demolishing of citizenship and due process all work towards the same goal.
Yes, please make your voices heard: scream until we get rid of these guys!
reply
I have to point out that long before RFK, some of our food information got screwed over by corporate greed. The food pyramid crap that I learned in school - grains at the bottom, yadda yadda - was ABSOLUTE LIES, bought and paid for by the cereal companies who stood to sell a helluva lot more Frosted Flakes or whatever. That's not a new thing at all. What RFK is doing now is at best misguided (and fueled by a horrifying lack of fact checking. but I really think that there's money involved here too. The people that make the delicious junk food would NOT appreciate getting taxed, nor would they be happy with selling less product. Most everything else going on with this administration is lining someone's pockets, it stands to reason that RFK is doing the same. (If not lining his own pockets, enabling some oligarch or another to reap the benefits)
And the reason why - not just the slashes to science funding, public media funding, healthcare funding. ALL of it, appears to be aiming at crafting a nicely packaged, neatly blindfolded class of virtual slaves for the fascists. People who have no rights - who don't even know what rights they SHOULD have - people who can't afford not to eat the cheapest, least healthy slop - people who can't say no, on every level. That's what the administration wants, because that's a slice of population that can be shoved into the worst sorts of labor situations, and voila! We brought manufacturing back! The erosion of trust in the media, the theft of wealth, and the blatant demolishing of citizenship and due process all work towards the same goal.
Yes, please make your voices heard: scream until we get rid of these guys!
reply
xanthpuns
I don't use the processed categories. I use my own made up one I call the abd (Already Been Digested) categories. The way mine goes is there are 4 categories.
1st is totally undigested - this is basically food that does not give up it's nutrients easily. Stuff like salads, uncooked fruits and vegetables, uncooked meats or jerkied meats, but not eggs or milk since those are basically direct nutrient packages.
2nd would be ABC Already Been Chewed. Which would included cooked or prepared food. I. E. rice, cooked meats, cooked but not overly cooked vegetables, some types of bread and things of that nature.
3rd JASA Just Add Stomach Acid. These would be items that give up there nutrients with minimal actual work needed to digest. This would include eggs, milk, most cheeses, most breads, overly cooked vegetables, stewed meats and items of that nature.
Finally we have the 4th one WAIPY Why Ain't It Poop Yet
This would be items that are almost so easily digestible that no actual work is needed to reap there nutrients. This would include stuff like candy, orange juice, all sodas, most chips, most deserts, many frozen dinner parts such as the meats or carb sections, almost all sauces such as ketchup, gravy, many salad dressings so on an so forth.
But i am pretty sure no nutritionist will ever use my system.
reply
I don't use the processed categories. I use my own made up one I call the abd (Already Been Digested) categories. The way mine goes is there are 4 categories.
1st is totally undigested - this is basically food that does not give up it's nutrients easily. Stuff like salads, uncooked fruits and vegetables, uncooked meats or jerkied meats, but not eggs or milk since those are basically direct nutrient packages.
2nd would be ABC Already Been Chewed. Which would included cooked or prepared food. I. E. rice, cooked meats, cooked but not overly cooked vegetables, some types of bread and things of that nature.
3rd JASA Just Add Stomach Acid. These would be items that give up there nutrients with minimal actual work needed to digest. This would include eggs, milk, most cheeses, most breads, overly cooked vegetables, stewed meats and items of that nature.
Finally we have the 4th one WAIPY Why Ain't It Poop Yet
This would be items that are almost so easily digestible that no actual work is needed to reap there nutrients. This would include stuff like candy, orange juice, all sodas, most chips, most deserts, many frozen dinner parts such as the meats or carb sections, almost all sauces such as ketchup, gravy, many salad dressings so on an so forth.
But i am pretty sure no nutritionist will ever use my system.
reply
godalseif
Rfk ran as a Democrat for a reason. He falls for the same delusion that government can just solve peoples problems, it only the right people are in charge of everyone else. Enforcing their own beliefs with the force of law.
That was the primary issue us libertarians had with trumps unity ticket. Bringing in different ideologies certainly broadened the target audience but some of those people had the authoritarian mindset we were hoping to get away from. At the very least most policies so far have reduced the overall power of the fed but I agree rfk is on the wrong track traying to ban things and censor people who disagree, another bad habit of his former party. The real solution has to be cultural. No law will make people less fat without horrendous unintended consequences. But a general cultural push, encouraging health and discouraging unhealthy habits, that kindnof thing works wonders. Already in the last few years I've seen a massive shift towards health in the public discourse and seen tons of people in my life making a real effort to get better because of it, even people who only 5 years ago were pretending to be proud of their horribly unhealthy bodies.
reply
Rfk ran as a Democrat for a reason. He falls for the same delusion that government can just solve peoples problems, it only the right people are in charge of everyone else. Enforcing their own beliefs with the force of law.
That was the primary issue us libertarians had with trumps unity ticket. Bringing in different ideologies certainly broadened the target audience but some of those people had the authoritarian mindset we were hoping to get away from. At the very least most policies so far have reduced the overall power of the fed but I agree rfk is on the wrong track traying to ban things and censor people who disagree, another bad habit of his former party. The real solution has to be cultural. No law will make people less fat without horrendous unintended consequences. But a general cultural push, encouraging health and discouraging unhealthy habits, that kindnof thing works wonders. Already in the last few years I've seen a massive shift towards health in the public discourse and seen tons of people in my life making a real effort to get better because of it, even people who only 5 years ago were pretending to be proud of their horribly unhealthy bodies.
reply
the8thark
Great5 video apart from the complaining about the Trump administration.
You complaining about the Trump budget cuts is a lack of understanding of the real issue here. Budget figures on their own are a terrible way to determine the success of anything.
The best way to determine the success of something is to measure how many positive outcomes there were per dollar spent. Scientific research and other things need to become more effective and less bloated. Throwing more and more money at something often only leads to waste, bloat and less outcomes overall.
Budget cuts, in science are not a good or a bad thing. You need the context. It's how many outcomes per dollar spent that matters. Having the optimum amount of funding to increase the number of outcomes while still keeping the research affordable in the wider budget. We need to make scientific research more efficient, not more bloated and wasteful by throwing far too much money at it.
reply
Great5 video apart from the complaining about the Trump administration.
You complaining about the Trump budget cuts is a lack of understanding of the real issue here. Budget figures on their own are a terrible way to determine the success of anything.
The best way to determine the success of something is to measure how many positive outcomes there were per dollar spent. Scientific research and other things need to become more effective and less bloated. Throwing more and more money at something often only leads to waste, bloat and less outcomes overall.
Budget cuts, in science are not a good or a bad thing. You need the context. It's how many outcomes per dollar spent that matters. Having the optimum amount of funding to increase the number of outcomes while still keeping the research affordable in the wider budget. We need to make scientific research more efficient, not more bloated and wasteful by throwing far too much money at it.
reply
mxBug
I appreciate that you admit that you probably expressed bias in this video (18: 10, and would like to think that means you would not be offended by having it pointed out. I also appreciate that you admit that scientists have gotten a lot wrong about fatness (2: 42. However, I couldn't help but notice that saying that they used to treat fatness like a disease contrasts with the categorization of metabolic syndrome.
Yes, I know that disease and syndrome have different medical definitions, that metabolic syndrome is not (only) about fatness, and that studies on food supply and its effects on population-level health metrics are important.
I just wanted to point out the possibility that continuing to categorize fatness as part of a syndrome can continue to enable the long-standing regressive tradition of individually pathologizing fatness, which ultimately distracts from the larger picture and harms the populations that such studies attempt to help.
reply
I appreciate that you admit that you probably expressed bias in this video (18: 10, and would like to think that means you would not be offended by having it pointed out. I also appreciate that you admit that scientists have gotten a lot wrong about fatness (2: 42. However, I couldn't help but notice that saying that they used to treat fatness like a disease contrasts with the categorization of metabolic syndrome.
Yes, I know that disease and syndrome have different medical definitions, that metabolic syndrome is not (only) about fatness, and that studies on food supply and its effects on population-level health metrics are important.
I just wanted to point out the possibility that continuing to categorize fatness as part of a syndrome can continue to enable the long-standing regressive tradition of individually pathologizing fatness, which ultimately distracts from the larger picture and harms the populations that such studies attempt to help.
reply
hic_tus
let's assume a person is a sphere moving in vacuum.
oh btw, last night I was having a laugh because the takeaway breakfast given to our italian guests was kind of crappy, they left about 6 or 7 bags on the desk, and I'm like nah you can't give this stuff to italian people, c'mon (I'm italian. then I tried one of the orange juices in the packs and it tasted fake. I read the ingredients: frut based soft drink made from concentrate 50% (70% apple, 10% orange, sweetener and a long list of stabilizers and preservatives. I was like 70% apple sweetener how about you squeeze an orange to make orange juice what the heck is this lol. yep that's ultra processed food for you, ladies and gentlemen. actual fresh orange juice is about 2 quid for a 1L bottle at the supermaket. sad.
reply
let's assume a person is a sphere moving in vacuum.
oh btw, last night I was having a laugh because the takeaway breakfast given to our italian guests was kind of crappy, they left about 6 or 7 bags on the desk, and I'm like nah you can't give this stuff to italian people, c'mon (I'm italian. then I tried one of the orange juices in the packs and it tasted fake. I read the ingredients: frut based soft drink made from concentrate 50% (70% apple, 10% orange, sweetener and a long list of stabilizers and preservatives. I was like 70% apple sweetener how about you squeeze an orange to make orange juice what the heck is this lol. yep that's ultra processed food for you, ladies and gentlemen. actual fresh orange juice is about 2 quid for a 1L bottle at the supermaket. sad.
reply
evanbeckett6216
I really appreciated this video Adam, it made me question some of my ideas around healthy food. I’ve been thinking a lot about the changes to life we’ve seen in the 21st century, and the ways that was set up by factors in the past such as urban sprawl, car centric design, and white flight. With that being said, I might be a little biased in my thinking at the moment, but how much of the problem of ultra processed food comes from an overwhelming need for convenience vs cost and vs addiction. Seems like you posit here that cost is more likely a factor than addiction here, but personally I always find convenience to be a very large driver in how I pick my meals, more so than cost.
reply
I really appreciated this video Adam, it made me question some of my ideas around healthy food. I’ve been thinking a lot about the changes to life we’ve seen in the 21st century, and the ways that was set up by factors in the past such as urban sprawl, car centric design, and white flight. With that being said, I might be a little biased in my thinking at the moment, but how much of the problem of ultra processed food comes from an overwhelming need for convenience vs cost and vs addiction. Seems like you posit here that cost is more likely a factor than addiction here, but personally I always find convenience to be a very large driver in how I pick my meals, more so than cost.
reply
lelesf99
The Brazilian government recently implemented a new policy. If above a certain threshold (% of a base 2000 kcal diet) of sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, products must have a large label at the front of the package saying high in fat, high in sugar, etc. A few months after that, Coke and most other brands reduced the sugar content in their bottles, and now our regular Coke bottles have less than 50% of the sugar they once had. That is a tangible, good policy, I think. It is legitimately hard to find soda with the high in sugar label nowadays. The other day I bought a Coke with the label, probably an old can they had in stock, and found the taste awful, it was too sweet.
reply
The Brazilian government recently implemented a new policy. If above a certain threshold (% of a base 2000 kcal diet) of sugar, saturated fat, or sodium, products must have a large label at the front of the package saying high in fat, high in sugar, etc. A few months after that, Coke and most other brands reduced the sugar content in their bottles, and now our regular Coke bottles have less than 50% of the sugar they once had. That is a tangible, good policy, I think. It is legitimately hard to find soda with the high in sugar label nowadays. The other day I bought a Coke with the label, probably an old can they had in stock, and found the taste awful, it was too sweet.
reply
Green__one
It's amazing how you can take all the right points, and yet politically make all the wrong ones.
This is something that people on the left of the political spectrum have been screaming for for years, begging to have happen. But as soon as someone on the right does what the left has been asking for, then suddenly it is evil anti-science.
I will fully admit that this is not the right way of going about this. But don't try to pull the moral high ground of left versus right and blame the current administration for the anti-science bias in society that has generally been the purview of your preferred side.
reply
It's amazing how you can take all the right points, and yet politically make all the wrong ones.
This is something that people on the left of the political spectrum have been screaming for for years, begging to have happen. But as soon as someone on the right does what the left has been asking for, then suddenly it is evil anti-science.
I will fully admit that this is not the right way of going about this. But don't try to pull the moral high ground of left versus right and blame the current administration for the anti-science bias in society that has generally been the purview of your preferred side.
reply
AbishekWickramage
I'm living in Sri Lanka. I'm so afraid to hear from someone in other parts of world tax more, regulate blah blah. Because our economy is very struggling with those kind of bad decisions. It's not working like that. The way to make good world is not prohibiting bad things or taxing them, but promoting good things and educating people. We can give a tax benefit to foods that are rich in protein, natural or in some way it's a healthy. You & I so conscious with our diet not because government is taxing watching being eating videos, but educating these kind of people us what is the value of good diet.
reply
I'm living in Sri Lanka. I'm so afraid to hear from someone in other parts of world tax more, regulate blah blah. Because our economy is very struggling with those kind of bad decisions. It's not working like that. The way to make good world is not prohibiting bad things or taxing them, but promoting good things and educating people. We can give a tax benefit to foods that are rich in protein, natural or in some way it's a healthy. You & I so conscious with our diet not because government is taxing watching being eating videos, but educating these kind of people us what is the value of good diet.
reply
ThePotThickens
You seem to be implying that seed oils are toxic. As you talked about in this video, it’s not necessarily the ingredient. I would encourage you to dig into the literature on seed oils. I find the overwhelming conclusion is that they are almost always correlated with lower cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality. RFK himself, in trying to elevate beef tallow over seed oils pointed to the lower mortality in Japan. What he failed to recognize is that canola oil is the highest consumed oil in Japan. It’s not the ingredient. It’s how it is being consumed.
reply
You seem to be implying that seed oils are toxic. As you talked about in this video, it’s not necessarily the ingredient. I would encourage you to dig into the literature on seed oils. I find the overwhelming conclusion is that they are almost always correlated with lower cardiovascular disease and all cause mortality. RFK himself, in trying to elevate beef tallow over seed oils pointed to the lower mortality in Japan. What he failed to recognize is that canola oil is the highest consumed oil in Japan. It’s not the ingredient. It’s how it is being consumed.
reply
henrik. norberg
I'm lucky in that I grow up in a family where processed food was very rare in the 80s. We were very close to poor. So me and my siblings loved vegetables and homemade. It's so far reaching that my sister had to tell her kids not to get full on vegetables first in meals, so that they would manage to eat the rest like meat. Ar 52 I still bake my own bread, eat mostly vegetarian, very rarely eat anything with sugar. I eat fast food once every other month or so. You don't have to skip it all together, it's what you eat 9 out of 10 that counts.
reply
I'm lucky in that I grow up in a family where processed food was very rare in the 80s. We were very close to poor. So me and my siblings loved vegetables and homemade. It's so far reaching that my sister had to tell her kids not to get full on vegetables first in meals, so that they would manage to eat the rest like meat. Ar 52 I still bake my own bread, eat mostly vegetarian, very rarely eat anything with sugar. I eat fast food once every other month or so. You don't have to skip it all together, it's what you eat 9 out of 10 that counts.
reply
lucyfrye6723
That was fascinating. Especially how you made total sense that selecting the edible parts of a fruit tree, as in: not eating the wood, leaves and kernels, IS processing. I once made a much-hated comment on the Guardian site below an article where I pointed out that fake meat was highly processed. People did not like me pointing that out. So I have a little stake in this game of defining what processed MEANS. And you went even further: selecting the edible part of a fruit from a whole tree is already processing. And of course it is.
reply
That was fascinating. Especially how you made total sense that selecting the edible parts of a fruit tree, as in: not eating the wood, leaves and kernels, IS processing. I once made a much-hated comment on the Guardian site below an article where I pointed out that fake meat was highly processed. People did not like me pointing that out. So I have a little stake in this game of defining what processed MEANS. And you went even further: selecting the edible part of a fruit from a whole tree is already processing. And of course it is.
reply
wilhelmschmidt7240
Scale in production is a huge influence too. When a massive single facility produces a huge quantity for distribution everywhere, storage concerns increase as well as packaging needs. They have to be prepared for longer term market fluctuations, so having a product with extremely long shelf life is more significant. If we have smaller, more local sources they can produce more to order, react faster to immediate sales fluctuations and not have to overstock so heavily, reducing storage times and preservation needs.
reply
Scale in production is a huge influence too. When a massive single facility produces a huge quantity for distribution everywhere, storage concerns increase as well as packaging needs. They have to be prepared for longer term market fluctuations, so having a product with extremely long shelf life is more significant. If we have smaller, more local sources they can produce more to order, react faster to immediate sales fluctuations and not have to overstock so heavily, reducing storage times and preservation needs.
reply
tatianaes3354
RFK junior’s leadership is actually much better for the health of the nation, rather than the fascist (literally, by definition) merge between corporations and the government.
Finally, toxins are getting removed despite the industry-funded studies about how good the seed oils are, and how it does not make sense to get rid of the toxins because it will not help anyway (which is nonsense.
NIH is merged with the industry, so no wonder there was study how a horrible milk shake is all of a sudden good.
reply
RFK junior’s leadership is actually much better for the health of the nation, rather than the fascist (literally, by definition) merge between corporations and the government.
Finally, toxins are getting removed despite the industry-funded studies about how good the seed oils are, and how it does not make sense to get rid of the toxins because it will not help anyway (which is nonsense.
NIH is merged with the industry, so no wonder there was study how a horrible milk shake is all of a sudden good.
reply
petergerdes1094
If we want to help most people eat healthier it has to be as convenient and cheap to buy a home cooked meal from someone down the block as it is to buy fast food. We should be able to use an app like Uber to buy food in small batches from people cooking at home in our neighborhood.
Yes, food safety is important but it makes sense to have different rules for someone distributing tons of food and someone doing a barbeque in their backyard and making a few extra bucks selling extra portions.
reply
If we want to help most people eat healthier it has to be as convenient and cheap to buy a home cooked meal from someone down the block as it is to buy fast food. We should be able to use an app like Uber to buy food in small batches from people cooking at home in our neighborhood.
Yes, food safety is important but it makes sense to have different rules for someone distributing tons of food and someone doing a barbeque in their backyard and making a few extra bucks selling extra portions.
reply
Znatnhos
If vlog brothers has taught us anything, it's to respect the format.
Thank you for bringing these no-nonsense political pieces to us. I really respect and appreciate how you keep the tone neutral without pulling your punches. There is no doubt that science, and other institutions that benefit society at large (FDA, CFPB, etc, are under attack and we need to take action to prevent the deterioration of our great nation. These institutions are what make the US a desirable place to live. Love!
reply
If vlog brothers has taught us anything, it's to respect the format.
Thank you for bringing these no-nonsense political pieces to us. I really respect and appreciate how you keep the tone neutral without pulling your punches. There is no doubt that science, and other institutions that benefit society at large (FDA, CFPB, etc, are under attack and we need to take action to prevent the deterioration of our great nation. These institutions are what make the US a desirable place to live. Love!
reply
oblivionspartan
It's interesting that, someone like Adam, who is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Is so ideologically captured that he can't see the clear issues in his reasoning. He won't apply the same logic here to say, racial differences in behavior and intelligence. Also I don't recall him pushing back against the mutilation of children the last administration supported. I mean, we literally had a man who believes he was a woman in charge of our country's health. It's just interesting.
reply
It's interesting that, someone like Adam, who is clearly an intelligent and thoughtful person. Is so ideologically captured that he can't see the clear issues in his reasoning. He won't apply the same logic here to say, racial differences in behavior and intelligence. Also I don't recall him pushing back against the mutilation of children the last administration supported. I mean, we literally had a man who believes he was a woman in charge of our country's health. It's just interesting.
reply
petergerdes1094
The idea that being ultra-processed is inherently unhealthy denies us so many interesting possible healthy foods. Yes, there is a correlation because ultra-processing is a way to make really moorish unhealthy foods and those sell. But focusing on avoiding ultra-processed foods as the goal is like avoiding working out to keep your BMI down.
What we need is better information about what is healthy so the food scientists can get to work making that more appealing than junk.
reply
The idea that being ultra-processed is inherently unhealthy denies us so many interesting possible healthy foods. Yes, there is a correlation because ultra-processing is a way to make really moorish unhealthy foods and those sell. But focusing on avoiding ultra-processed foods as the goal is like avoiding working out to keep your BMI down.
What we need is better information about what is healthy so the food scientists can get to work making that more appealing than junk.
reply
Add a review, comment
Other channel videos
