GrantMoyer
a year ago
Note that the Nova definition of "ultra-processed foods" includes foods such as tofu and many unsweetened soymilks, along with foods like potato chips and Oreos.
So the article discusses multiple studies which find increased consumption plant origin ultra-processed foods is associated with an increased risk of disease and mortality. Seperately, another study found vegetarians and vegans eat a higher proportion of ultra-processed foods than the general population.
Does the subset of ultra-processed foods of which vegetarians and vegans eat more significantly overlap with the subset which increases risk of disease and death? We don't know; that's not in the data and the article doesn't discuss any articles linking vegetarian and vegan diets to higher risk of disease and death. What if vegetarians and vegans eat a ton more tofu and soymilk but less potato chips and Oreos?
The article sort of adresses this, but not very directly. Also, vegetarian and vegan diets are more of a footnote in the article; it's more about ultra-proccessed foods in typical diets. And the actual article title better reflects the focus, so I wonder why the post changed it so significantly.
abdullahkhalids
a year ago
In the supplementary information of the study, there is a Table that breaks down the 22 food groups [1]. You can look at it yourself, but below are the consumptions for the "unhealthy" categories. Seems like Vegans eat more salty snacks and less sweet/fatty food.
| | Meat-Eaters | Vegetarians | Vegans |
|----------------------------------|---------------|---------------|--------------|
| Salty snacks and crackers (g/d) | 3.69 ± 0.06 | 5.28 ± 0.34 | 10.50 ± 0.48 |
| Sweet and fatty foods 6 (g/d) | 125.00 ± 0.52 | 122.00 ± 2.86 | 73.90 ± 4.00 |
| Sugary drinks (mL/d) | 23.40 ± 0.48 | 27.10 ± 2.65 | 22.40 ± 3.71 |
| Sugar-free drinks (x103 mL/d) | 1.08 ± 4.16 | 1.14 ± 22.70 | 1.05 ± 31.70 |
GrantMoyer
a year ago
Sure, and the study even finds vegetarian and vegan diets have a higher proportion of "healthy" foods overall. But as far as I've found, neither that study nor the other linked articles investigate which of these specific groups of foods are linked to increased risk of disease and death (regardless of how obvious it may seem for some of the groups), only ultra-processed foods in general, which is a very broad category.
adrian_b
a year ago
While the concern about "ultra-processed foods" is very valid, I am annoyed that all the articles that I have seen about this subject fail to distinguish between two very different kinds of processing:
1. Processing methods whose purpose is to separate components of the food sources. These range from simple processing like peeling and paring vegetables or filleting and boning meat, to processing that requires more complex industrial installations, like for oil extraction or for making meal/flour out of seeds or for dehydrating vegetables.
2. Processing methods that either mix multiple food ingredients or transform them in various ways, e.g. by heating or whipping.
The processing methods from the first class are both necessary and inoffensive when they are implemented carefully, to avoid modifications and contamination in the food components that are separated. For instance, for oil extraction from oily seeds or oily fruits, valid separation methods are cold pressing or extraction with supercritical carbon dioxide.
Such separation methods are necessary because they enable the cooking of food with optimal nutrient composition and because they greatly reduce the costs for the transport and storage of the food ingredients. This is why the most important of them, like seed milling and edible oil extraction, have been used for many millennia.
On the other hand, the processing methods of the second class, when done industrially instead of being done at home, are almost universally harmful and only the food products that use them are rightfully called "ultra-processed foods".
The reason why such processing methods of the second class are almost always harmful when done industrially, is the conflict of interests between the food vendor, who wants to obtain a maximum profit, and the food consumer who wants a healthy food. These goals are not compatible.
For any vegan who is not doing hard physical work, to enable the consumption of 3000 kcal per day or more, some method for the extraction of pure proteins, either done industrially or at home, is absolutely necessary. So, for example, a protein powder is not an "ultra-processed food", unless it is mixed with undesirable additives, like sweeteners, flavors or colorants (which happens far too frequently, so a buyer must be careful to check the composition).
The easiest and the best way to avoid "ultra-processed foods" is to buy raw food ingredients and cook them at home. Using modern techniques, like cooking in a microwave oven or by using other specialized appliances, it has become possible to cook the food in a very small fraction of the time required when cooking using traditional methods.
Until some years ago, I or another family member was cooking the main dishes for an entire week during a weekend day, because that required many hours, so in the other days the food was only reheated. Now, I can afford to cook most or all of the food for a meal only immediately before eating, because that takes only about a half of hour, of which only about a half of the time is active, e.g. used for peeling/paring vegetables or washing dishes, while the rest is spent in waiting for the food to be cooked in an oven, when I can do other things meanwhile.