they are trying to argue that, because the science isn’t 100% settled, we should reject it all outright.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
That’s not even close to what I’m arguing - you’re layering in your perception of me as an “opponent” and making things up about me and what I’ve said.
I’m arguing that the phrase “ultra processed foods” is so broad and poorly defined as to be useless and unscientific.
It’s like saying “Animals are dangerous.” While it may be true it’s unhelpful. Tell me which animals are dangerous. Tell me when and how they are dangerous.
And I’m saying that’s an argument from ignorance. Just because a definition isn’t 100% agreed upon by the scientific community doesn’t mean it’s completely useless. It’s much more like arguing “the science isn’t settled on global warming, therefore it’s all a hoax”. But science is never settled, it’s always our best approximation to the truth.
Read carefully. I’m not saying there is no definition. I’m saying the definition is shit.
Tell me - by what mechanism are ultra-processed foods unhealthy?
You can’t. Nobody can. Because the category of “ultra-processed foods” is ridiculously broad and even covers both plant and animal based products.
The entire approach to trying to define “ultra-processed foods” is working backwards from “things we think are unhealthy for myriad reasons”.
In short - it’s a marketing term they’re trying to create a scientific definition for. It’s a stupid idea.
It is clear to me you didn’t click any of my sources and have no interest in this subject. Cheers.
It’s clear to me that you want me to say what you want me to say rather than what I am saying.