this post was submitted on 14 Nov 2025
373 points (92.3% liked)
Greentext
7355 readers
845 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
~~Transformed~~ Ultra-processed food is less healthy than things cooked in butter.
neither are unhealthy
Sorry I used the wrong word in my comment. It's corrected.
I get what you mean, I'm just arguing that there is too much focus on "health marketing", instead of important things like macros and regulating known carcinogens.
If I eat a mcdouble and a diet coke, I'm eating much healthier than if I ate a whole rotissery chicken with potato wedges and a glass of apple juice. Calories and reducing sugar intake are the most important things.
This is highly misleading on many levels, and I strongly urge you to re-evaluate your position on an appropriate diet. For example, nutrition is a biological process that has very little to do with a calorie, which is a measurement of heat energy.
Yes, but you can only compare the comparable. If you eat the same amount of calories from ultra-processed food and from unprocessed or minimally processed food, the ultra-processed will cause more health problems than the unprocessed food (for example, you'll gain more body fat, but there are other problems).
Ultra-processed food is unhealthy.
"same amount of calories"
I think this is too big of an assumption. Ultra processed foods are generally less filling and easier to digest. Eating 1000 calories of cereal or potato chips is easy. Eating 5 chicken breasts at once borderline impossible for most people. Whole foods tend to make is harder to overeat. There are exceptions ofc, like nuts, but i think the general trend holds.
That makes it even worse. You have more health problems per calorie with ultra-processed food (it's a scientific fact) and you generally eat more calories with ultra-processed food. We should fight, as a society, the prevalence of industrial interests in food.
I believe you're basing that off of pseudoscience.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
What processes contribute to fat cells stocking lipids, and/or the replication of fat cells, and how do they relate to "ultraprocessed food"?
Which aspects of "ultraprocessed food" affect these processes, and which are harmless part of human food that has existed for thousands of years? Which aspects also affect "natural foods", such as pesticides and artifical hormones? Are there any studies supporting your hypothesis that aren't merely correlations based on socioeconomic biases?
Here's one pathway, and I'm sure there are more:
Ultra-processed food are high in carbohydrates, refined sugars, and industrially processed oils. When consumed, they are quickly and easily absorbed by the body causing a rapid increase in blood glucose, easily proven by a CGM. The body responds by producing insulin. High insulin levels contribute to fat cells stocking lipids and also the replication of fat cells.
There are almost no whole foods that exist which contain all three major macronutrients, but this is not uncommon in UPFs. Personally, I would just avoid UPFs entirely.
If you want to know more, you can read for example, this recent study.