Remix.run Logo
jaggederest 4 days ago

So even beyond the factors in the article (calorie density and hyper-palatability) there's other contributing factors in processed food. First of all, the processing itself introduces several factors: mechanical and heat energy changing the structure (but not composition) of the food, usually into smaller particle sizes; and the potential introduction of new contaminants - one that has been discussed before is lithium grease[1].

The other thing that processed food does, partially discussed in the article, is sit on shelves much longer. I wonder whether we've detected the acute effects of spoilage (e.g. food-borne illness) but missed some chronic effect.

[1]: https://slimemoldtimemold.com/2024/07/27/lithium-hypothesis-...

natdempk 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

The Slime Mold Time Mold article is maybe an interesting starting point, but really not great analysis... see this thorough rebuttal around the Lithium stuff that has not been responded to: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-proba...

TBH a lot of the discourse around this annoys me because it ignores sort of fundamental obvious stuff like food/snacks got way tastier, access to unhealthier food is higher, we live a way more sedentary lifestyle, takeout got more affordable, studies show that people overall consume more calories from unhealthier sources, you can go to the grocery store and see you should basically avoid much of the food there, food spikes your glucose higher, more artificial ingredients, switch from fat to sugar, more processed ingredients, etc. and yet everyone says "well it can't just be that" because XYZ specific study of some quality and timeframe took one of those axis in some degree of isolation and showed that _maybe_ it's not that specific thing only. Kind of a missing the forest for the common sense trees aspect. Obviously we don't understand the whole picture of obesity, but there's a degree of denial around common sense health stuff that's really weird in the kind of "rationalists try to figure out obesity" writing. I really think we should work more from a place of "you don't see people who do moderately intense exercise regularly and eat healthily being overweight/obese" as a baseline...

julianeon 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

This is a great point and one that I think would change many minds.

If you say "more calories" or "hyperpalatable", many people will think "I can control that with portion control - I just won't binge them."

But if you say "it changes the physical form of the food" or "it has contaminants in it," it's clear that no amount of portion control can fix that.

Dylan16807 3 days ago | parent [-]

Well that depends on what the form change does. Most form changes are just fine.

And whether portion control can fix contamination depends on what the contaminant is. A lot of things are only potentially harmful above a certain level.

jaggederest 3 days ago | parent [-]

> Well that depends on what the form change does. Most form changes are just fine.

Agreed, I just think that e.g. mastication probably has more subtle effects than just breaking up food, so I wonder about peanut butter vs peanuts kind of effects on the human body.

> A lot of things are only potentially harmful above a certain level.

I question this. I think the more we see trace effects, the more we realize that there are things in the built environment that are problematic in parts per billions and parts per millions that we wouldn't have ever thought that from acute exposure testing. I think a lot of our current understanding of GRAS and friends is pretty badly flawed - obviously a lot of substances aren't doing massive harm, but there's a lot that's suspect still.