It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.
Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me.
Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.
Your comment kind of illustrates his point though, there's a complete lack of mechanistic empiricism[0] in the discussion of nutrition. What is the metric for 'eas[iness] to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.'? I agree with the premise, but it is ill-defined.
e.g. consider: A baked potato, with salt and butter vs. an equivalent weight of potato chips. They are essentially identical post-mastication, except one is 'junk food' and 'ultra-processed' and the other is quintessential home cooking. What system do I use to rank them if they are in fact not identical?
[0] What (or combination of whats) at a structural/chemical level in a food causes the harm, and by what biochemical/psychological/psychosomatic pathway(s) does said harm occur?
Re: mechanistic empiricism, I don't know if you're doing this, but it seems that some people have this mindset that if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for you, then I have to assume it is not harmful by default, even if it's a thing that is relatively novel.
I find myself leaning heavily in the other direction these days. If it's not something that has a long history and (I'm not already dying anyway), I'll pass. If I lose out on some benefits because of that, so be it.
>if you can't tell me specifically how X is bad for youthen I have to assume it is not harmful by default
Speaking for myself, its a matter of how my brain works. Setting aside rational considerations like cost-benefit analysis or Bayesian likelihoods: if there isn't a generalizable logic to 'what (is harmful)' and 'how (it is)' I just get a 404.
It's not that I don't (or do) believe potatoes chips are harmful it's that the e.g. statement 'ultra-processed foods are bad for you' is literally devoid of meaning. Might as well be baby-speak.
As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh.
[0]not even getting into the reliability of e.g. a paper's conclusions
> As such, any attempt to incorporate that information[0] into my decision making process goes nowhere: I can't categorize a food as to it's degree of ultra processed-ness nor can I assess whether another foods/foods/etc might cause harm like UPF's are purported to do. Ergo: no basis for a behavioral modification, no new pros or cons to weigh.
So I guess my question is what are your defaults? What is your unmodified behavior?
There is a package on the shelf, you only know what it says on the box, what you've seen on commercials, and maybe you've seen/heard of other people eating its contents. What's the decision tree for this scenario?
I generally choose the tastiest option that works towards what I 'know'[0] about nutrition based on what I've already eaten for the day and what I am planning on eating later. Considerations like 'processedness' or 'organicness' don't enter into it (for the above reasons). Considerations like price and shelf life do, but only casually.
What I 'know' can be more or less completely summed as:
I need to eat ~2500 calories per day, +/- 100 calories being 1/35th of a lb or so
I should eat ~1g/kg to 1g/lb lean body mass in protein to avoid losing muscle mass
I need to eat/drink enough salts/electrolytes to replace what is lost through perspiration
I need to eat enough of various micronutrients (e.g. Vitamin C) to avoid specific deficiencies.
[0]My understanding of what has been meaningfully proven/characterized with a 'to me' significant impact/effect.
As far as diet is concerned, I'm very much in the camp of you do what works best for you. However, if you choose to give advice to a wide audience (rather than saying what works for you), I think one should have some idea of why their advice is good.
Anecdotally I think there's something to this, when all I have to eat is lacking in micro nutrients I tend to be hungrier. When I'm eating lots of very nutrient dense things, even when less calories, I feel satisfied.
It's not always about a certain boogeyman inside it, but whether it makes it easy to overeat and whether it pays its rent in nutritional content.
Consider potato chips. Even if they have zero saturated fat, the issue most people have with them is that they are hyperpalatable and low nutritional value compared to their calorie density. Combine fat and salt and certain textures, and we can't stop ourselves. Trying to blame a macronutrient like carbs doesn't make much sense to me.
Add in bad ingredients like saturated fat and the problem becomes multifaceted, but it's not necessary for individual ingredients to be bad for us for a food to have its downsides.