>The more someone’s diet falls on the ultra-processed end of the spectrum and the less they eat of unprocessed foods, the higher the rate of health problems.
False, based publicly available data, even data pushed by the UPF cultists there is no correlation between UPF consumption and 'Life Expectancy at Birth', 'CVD Deaths per 100K', 'Heart Disease Deaths per 100K', 'Cancer Incidence Rate per 100K', 'Stroke deaths per 100k', '%age Population with High Blood Pressure ISCED standard', 'Mean Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHG)', or shockingly 'BMI'.
In fact, in some cases there is an anti correlation such as life expectancy, now it would be absurd to suggest UPFs increase longevity of course but the reality is richer countries eat more processed foods and richer countries live longer.
This is completely false and easily refuted. I don’t understand how you’re calling the processed foods research a “cult” while also making sweeping claims without any sources.
> Overall, direct associations were found between exposure to ultra-processed foods and 32 (71%) health parameters spanning mortality, cancer, and mental, respiratory, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, and metabolic health outcomes. Based on the pre-specified evidence classification criteria, convincing evidence (class I) supported direct associations between greater ultra-processed food exposure and higher risks of incident cardiovascular disease related mortality (risk ratio 1.50, 95% confidence interval 1.37 to 1.63; GRADE=very low) and type 2 diabetes (dose-response risk ratio 1.12, 1.11 to 1.13; moderate), as well as higher risks of prevalent anxiety outcomes (odds ratio 1.48, 1.37 to 1.59; low) and combined common mental disorder outcomes (odds ratio 1.53, 1.43 to 1.63; low). Highly suggestive (class II) evidence indicated that greater exposure to ultra-processed foods was directly associated with higher risks of incident all cause mortality (risk ratio 1.21, 1.15 to 1.27; low), heart disease related mortality (hazard ratio 1.66, 1.51 to 1.84; low), type 2 diabetes (odds ratio 1.40, 1.23 to 1.59; very low), and depressive outcomes (hazard ratio 1.22, 1.16 to 1.28; low), together with higher risks of prevalent adverse sleep related outcomes (odds ratio 1.41, 1.24 to 1.61; low), wheezing (risk ratio 1.40, 1.27 to 1.55; low), and obesity (odds ratio 1.55, 1.36 to 1.77; low).
I’m amazing how anti-science this conversation always becomes on HN, with those who don’t understand the research claiming to have the scientific upper hand.
Yet you cite nothing beyond country level data that you seem to be teasing the conclusion you want out of, when really you're just comparing income levels.
>"weird chemicals must be bad for you" "cultists"
Such a strange, profoundly unconvincing screed. Processed foods usually have high levels of salt, high levels of sugar, and usually an extremely high GI coupled with very low fibre. This is about as pro-science and demonstrated medically and scientifically that it makes your posts look absolutely insane.
Ah, you're doing your own research. Okay. Super convincing.
>You seem exasperated by HN's general reaction to UPF myths
Huh? Bizarre. You are seeing factions that don't exist, and maybe HN isn't for you if you can't see people having a discussion/debate without veering into this extremist polarized nonsense.
Can you tell me what I've said that is "alarmist nonsense"? Can't wait to be educated.
>No answer on the aspartame question?
This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with aspartame, so I've ignored your cheap trolling and distractions. You were soundly debunked, yet you keep on with this bizarre, hyper polarized nonsense. If this site had a block feature I would absolutely just block your worthless noise.
Politics has nothing to do with it, it's about data.
I'm right of centre and think RFK is a fruitcake, I have no idea how the guy above is aligned politically but I do know he doesn't know wtf he's talking about.
Here on HN there are actually multiple people, and I wasn't the one that replied earlier with a specific citation (versus your ridiculous claim of cooking your own numbers, which you should understand convinces absolutely no one).
But a general observation that the more processed a product is the more likely it is nutritionally garbage is pretty universally accepted and is generally valid, however vague and debatable the specific tiers might be.
>but here especially because you broadly accused HN of being anti-science on this subject
Do you imagine yourself to be the universal "HN"? I made no such claim. Nor is there some pro-UPF faction dominating HN that you seem to imagine. Seems to be a pretty mixed group, many legitimately curious and learning and coming at it from different perspectives and levels of knowledge.
Then there's you, spouting nonsense and looking for an argument while you muddy the waters.
Again, though, your shrieking about artificial sweeteners again just betrays that you're a hyper-polarized person just looking for an argument at whatever cost. Humorously I've defended and encouraged artificial sweeteners on this very site many times.
I didn't realise you weren't the guy from earlier, so fine.
I am not shrieking, I'm cool a cucumber. In general I try to avoid this subject because of how divisive it is and because the loudest voice in the room is the one decrying the subject despite all evidence to the contrary.
It is absolutely reddit-tier to say "grass isn't actually green because these two people say so" only in this case the grass is behind an abstraction that requires a bit of minor gathering and analysis, yes my own analysis counts for nothing I am aware, but I encourage everyone to do it themselves, the data are free and ubiquitous.
Do I see myself as HN? no, but evidently the original guy sees himself pushing back against the tide of uninformed HNites without realising what that actually implies.
Not nonsense, not debunked, not shrieking.
Muddying the waters? maybe but I'm fed up of this fucking stupid shit popping up every other week on here and having sandal-clad neo hippies and anti-science right-wing fruitcakes sperging out.
Poverty reduction has largely been the result of China’s mixed economy not unbridled capitalism. Guided markets have played a role there - but that’s because they were guided. We don’t have to accept the authoritarianism or any of other effect of markets, simply because markets have played a role in some of the positive outcomes of the past. In fact for the last 50 years in the global north, roughly the same timeframe, productivity has continued to grow but most of that growth has accrued to the wealthiest and relatively little of that benefit has been seen by the median worker.
To say it’s identical is an overstatement, but markets have been part of China’s policy, and part of the policies many other formerly impoverished counties. Without government policy intelligently choosing how to utilize markets (which is what happened in most of these formerly impoverished countries like the “Asian tigers”), markets alone could not have have brought the gains that they did. Markets have many downsides to them as well. Additionally non-government, non-market factors like unionization contributed to the rise out of poverty as well. And in the global north, “markets” have been fairly ineffective at raising the standard of living for the median worker. They have been effective at enriching the already rich however, contributing to wealth power-concentration and de-democratization.
no it is an identical plot on the graph, not an overstatement at all.
The standard of living for the median worker has improved significantly in forty years let alone two hundred, lifestyle inflation is definitely rapid as you would expect with progress, wage growth has outpaced inflation for everyone but public sector workers.
Bad as things may seem now, we are all richer than ever before.
Productivity has grown. But that has more or less stopped going to the median worker since mid-70s (post inflation). This is known as the pay-productivity gap. There has been some increase, but most of the gains have gone to the wealthiest. Our issue today isn’t productivity. It’s redistributing the gains from the wealthy minority who have received the lion’s share to the rest.
And you mention being richer. We also have an unfolding climate crisis, authoritarianism, mass surveillance, and the real possibility of imminent nuclear war (brewing now with China). All these things are the result of a wealthy minority controlling policy for their own interests. And the wealthy minority has gotten there through the same market mechanisms that exploit workers and concentrate wealth. Are we better off when we are much closer to our own self destruction? It’s this wealthy minority that has brought us here. Their relative power continues to grow.
In fact, many of the gains in wealth we have seen are not the result of markets but either savvy government policy or the result of people pushing back on the power of the ruling class. Markets have good and bad sides. It’s best to take off our rose colored glasses and see markets for their good and bad.
well it started out with perl6 as a breaking change major upgrade to perl5
the perl community fractured into those that wanted to avoid a breaking change (since they feared the kind of pain that Python 2 => 3 would later encounter) and those that wanted to evolve the language with things like a Type system and Object Oriented coding as standard
the fracture became a chasm when it became obvious that perl6 was taking years and that there was no migration path from perl5 to perl6 - users began to explore options and often Python was top of the list
this was exacerbated by the use of perl6 as the name ... later (much later) the name was changed to raku ... but by then the perl language was a shadow of its once dominant self and CPAN (the perl module library) lost a lot of folks doing maintenance and improvements so that began to bitrot
fear lead to anger, anger lead to hate
[btw raku is now very nice with all these features and still the great feel of classic perl and has a small but active and friendly community]
Is there a canonical "perl 6" now? LIke I can't go to perl.org and download one, or at least the "latest stable version" is listed in the 5.x range still.
Or is "perl 6" not even a thing to ask about, and "raku" is what was to be "perl 6" became?
he-he, sometimes, but mostly because it shows there are real people behind who have emotions. Agree on rust (put rails or others here) having too much of it sometimes
it's funny watching cooks and amateur chefs come to the same conclusion that professionals reached over one hundred years ago, I assume nobody asked, but with steak for example you use resting in a controlled environment to ride the temperature up to chosen doneness, nobody has ever (to my knowledge) thought it to do with preserving juices.
False, based publicly available data, even data pushed by the UPF cultists there is no correlation between UPF consumption and 'Life Expectancy at Birth', 'CVD Deaths per 100K', 'Heart Disease Deaths per 100K', 'Cancer Incidence Rate per 100K', 'Stroke deaths per 100k', '%age Population with High Blood Pressure ISCED standard', 'Mean Systolic Blood Pressure (mmHG)', or shockingly 'BMI'.
In fact, in some cases there is an anti correlation such as life expectancy, now it would be absurd to suggest UPFs increase longevity of course but the reality is richer countries eat more processed foods and richer countries live longer.