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.
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.