Immediately backing off to "I know it when I see it" really doesn't help your case that UPF is the right way to categorize unhealthy foods

▲

drum55 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It’s basically a wildcard, “ultra processed food” is a classification of nothing and everything. There’s nothing inherently bad about processing food, lots of food is terrible for you but that’s unrelated entirely.

▲

wouldbecouldbe 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

There is 2 ways to have that discussion:

1. Ultra processed food is a media hype -> totally dismiss it

2. Ultra processed food is often used without proper classification and would be more useful to have well defined sub categories

	▲	pessimizer an hour ago \| parent [-]
		These are both absolutely the wrong ways to look at it. > 1. Ultra processed food is a media hype -> totally dismiss it Don't let the media decide what you think, whether you want to go against them or you want to support them. Your faith or distrust in some media organization or segment has no effect on the truth value of some statement being made. They are adding commentary. > 2. Ultra processed food is often used without proper classification and would be more useful to have well defined sub categories Don't come up with words and then struggle to define them, or worse, argue with people about their definitions. Language is a tool. Discuss actual things, and use words to label those actual things. If they do not offer a definition for "ulta-processed food," do not help them. It is not up to you to come up with categories of food to fit the case they are making about "ultra-processed food." It is up to them to associate their health theories with the food they are trying to classify within them, both statistically and with guesses about the mechanisms. Don't feel like because one can have a discussion that it makes sense to have one. If I make up a word, you shouldn't waste time debating its meaning, you should just ask me to give you a clear definition of how I'm using it.