• swim@slrpnk.net
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    No, it does not.

    The definition by The Global Panel on Agrigulture and Food Systems for Nutrition of “Ultra-Processed Foods” is contingient on those foods being depleted in dietary fiber, protein, various micronutrients, and other bioactive compounds.

    While the oreos you’re using in other examples would probably fit that definition, the alternative meats we’re discussing don’t, as they are “processed” to include those constituents.

      • swim@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        3 months ago

        And?

        Your wikipedia links don’t make an assertion. The one on UPF does remind you, though, that

        Some authors have criticised the concept of “ultra-processed foods” as poorly defined

        The crux of this learning moment for you shouldn’t be about definitions, but the relative “healthiness” of vegan food products.

        It’s clear you began with a preference to paint with a broad brush these meat substitute products as “junk food,” and you have the opportunity to recognize they aren’t as obviously unhealthy as you first thought.

          • swim@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Oh honey, your stealth edit shows that you don’t understand. I’ll explain it to you: the study you keep linking doesn’t differentiate between those foods in that “range of ultra-processed foods (UPF),” so that means data coming from “sugar-sweetened beverages, snacks, confectionery” is getting all mixed in with the data of the “‘plant-sourced’ sausages, nuggets, and burgers,” which unfortunately renders the conclusions of the study rather meaningless when we’re talking about the CVD outcomes of just one of the data sets.

          • swim@slrpnk.net
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Low-effort repost of your specious use of a study with nebulous conclusions for this conversation; I’ll quote the user above:

            that category contains “soft drinks, sweet or savoury packaged snacks, confectionery; packaged breads and buns; reconstituted meat products and pre-prepared frozen or shelf-stable dishes.” This gives you no information on Impossible burgers’ impact on cardiovascular disease, it only gives you a trend among people who eat all of the above. I would suspect the reality is Impossible meat contributes to CVD slightly more than straight-up vegetables and significantly less than red meat.