AIBU to think that the anti UPF books and diets around at the moment are just a new version of Clean Eating?

[TeaforTheWins]

Demonising all foods that have emulsifiers in and making us think that a “upf” free diet is realistic, to me, is madness. I eat well, I cook meals from scratch most of the time but of course I have “UPF” in my diet. A sandwich in my packed lunch made from supermarket bread, the odd tin of soup, biscuits with my tea, fruit yoghurts, a sandwich on the train, a supermarket croissant on a Sunday morning etc.
Am i not getting something? Or is this just another way to make women hate our bodies, hate ourselves for not having the time to be baking bread at home, and part with our hard earned money to buy artisan chocolate rather than the kit kat that we actually want.
I’ve read Ultra Processed People and I’ve listened to the podcasts, but I can’t see how this is at all realistic for working parents to live up to.

The message I got from Ultra Processed People was that consumers need more information from manufacturers so they can make informed decisions. I don't remember the author saying that all UPF should be banned, more that if we know what it's doing to our bodies, we can make better decisions, just like with alcohol and other things we know we shouldn't have too much of.

Foods that are marketed as being healthy, when they are anything but, don't help anyone.

I think there is a balance. To me, UPF info has made me more aware and I definitely read labels more; of course 100% non UPF diet is unrealistic. But for example, I often buy rotisserie chicken. A Costco rotisserie chicken has a whole bunch of ingredients that at least half shouldn’t be found in food. On the other hand, a wholefoods chicken has only chicken, water and salt. In this instance, I’ll go for a whole foods chicken and still achieve the convenience. The UPF information helps me make these choices. Are they often more expensive- sure. But it’s a choice do I want to pay more for ‘better’ product or do I want to deal with gastric and what not issues in the future.

Or is this just another way to make women hate our bodies, hate ourselves

That’s exactly what it is.

Or is this just another way to make women hate our bodies, hate ourselves

This. And I’ve also read that it’s feminism issue since it’s mainly women who cook. Just another stick to beat overworked women with.

I am enjoying learning about UPFs and I have hated my body for decades. This is making me feel more empowered to make better choices - the fact is, when I eat a very low UPF diet, I feel better. I think it's also starting a helpful discussion about "foods" we are sold, the processes they've been through and whether we should even consider them food at all.
Just my take on it.

Its up to you and you can live how you want, but I'm a working parent (full time), married to another working parent (also full time) and we manage it. I love food and I want me and my family to eat well.

In terms of bread, we batch cook bread, slice it and freeze it. Very easy to take it out of the freezer and use it as you need it. I made a batch of home made pesto today. It took 5 minutes and all ingredients, including the pine nuts, were from Lidl.

And once I understood what was really in that KitKat I found that I didn't want it after all.

I agree with you. ‘Eating clean’ tarted up and given a new name.

A diet that is completely UPF-free may be fairly unrealistic for most people and their eating preferences, but a diet that it is low in UPF is realistic. It's not necessary to go to complete extremes.

I genuinely don't understand how it is helpful to equate a slice of wholemeal bread (with gasp emulsifiers) to a Rustlers microwave burger.

I'm also very sceptical about how they state some of their statistics, such as X% of our calories coming from UPFs, when obviously things like spinach or an apple are going to be a very low proportion of your calories just by their nature, even if you're consistently getting 5-10 fruit and veg a day.

yanbu
totally unhelpful nonsense designed to stir confusion and guilt.

processing makes food safe and efficient processes mean less waste and costs.

eat food. not too much. mostly plants.

I don’t think UPF exists for any other reason than to make money. People or companies can sell raw ingredients, vegetables etc for a price, but if they take them and process them and stretch them further they make much more profit. They are tasty and convenient. Also books such as ultra processed people and all the news articles that go with it are also designed to make money, I don’t actually believe the authors of such books care about the majority of people, they just do it for profit also, and of course one tactic is to make us hate ourselves a bit and buy into the latest fad, we have all done it, we’ve still got a bloody unused spiraliser in the cupboard 😂.

There are so many things we consume that are bad for us, but they are there and we do, so no need to feel bad, we are born, we live with all the things available to us in our time period and then we die. Future generations do the same all while looking back and thinking, fuck me, they used to eat that crap, then will do the same themselves with whatever their thing is, they then will buy the book the tv doctor is selling, or the good looking fitness guy with curly hair is selling, try to follow their unrealistic regime, then we go back to being normal, a mixture of different foods, some processed and some not. If convenience foods are easy for you just use them and don’t worry about it.

I found ultra processed people was more critical of the systems at play than individuals, which I think is helpful.
It was critiquing food policy, governments, manufacturers etc.

Of course, pointing out that UPF is harmful in large quantities will make people want to cut it out, but the message was more on a population level, mass UPF is bad, than "you're a bad wife/mother if you give any UPF to your family".

Controversial take but I think we need to be able to read things, take what's useful from them & move on and not take everything to heart so much. it's new science, will probably be different advice in 20 years, but it is an interesting & thought provoking idea that can lead to mindful food choices. it doesn't need to be a black & white thing.

And it's also another way to make women feel bad about how they parent too

It’s another branch of orthorexia.

So being given factual information about what we eat is now 'designed to stir confusion and guilt'? Does that apply to all the other things we are told but prefer not to hear?

I try to reduce UPF and I think it's important to put pressure on companies to reduce unnecessary ingredients. I went to the US in May and I can see why they have such an obesity problem. You cannot find even bread that doesn't have corn syrup as the second ingredient.

But I find the cult of upf here a bit much. The obsession over Chris van Tulleken is odd. Some groups are slamming people for a drop of citric acid in tinned tomatoes. This isn't the same as eating a Twinkie!

Undoubtedly a high UPF diet is probably not optimal for good health. But I agree it is another stick to beat mostly women with and there is now a whole industry around this too. A lot of people making a lot of money by instilling fear around food. Zoe’s gut shots and supplements are stupidly expensive and I am not convinced needed for a healthy diet.

Agree it's another stick to beat women with. It's also another stick to beat the disadvantaged with, eating low/no UPF (or eating clean or eating organic or eating super foods or whatever else the current fad is) is a privilege. It takes money to be discerning and making the "right" choices comes at a financial cost.

This is a reasonably balanced discussion about UPFs: https://inews.co.uk/news/science/ultra-processed-foods-how-dangerous-upfs-definitive-guide-worried-2577945

Nutritional epidemiology — the science of how what we eat affects our health — is a mess because over the years it has been corrupted by all sorts of special interests. This includes the processed food industry, but it also includes "natural food" grifters and people who are opposed to almost anything to do with capitalism (the original UPF research paper reads in places like something that Jeremy Corbyn might have written).

I do kind of agree with you in that it's just another thing working mothers are now made to feel guilty about.

I've not read or watched anything about it in any particular depth but the hype around it did cause me to rethink some of the 'quick' stuff we got but as a family with a restricted menu to accommodate coeliac disease we didn't eat a huge amount of fast food or ultra processed stuff anyway due to wheat being a common cheap ingredient in them.

ultimately though I don't think it is actually that hard to cut most of the worst stuff out with not much effort, it's cost that's the problem. You can buy good quality bread next to the cheap sliced stuff in supermarkets.

I read the Chris Van Tulleken book. He keeps saying he wasn't recommending a completely UPF free lifestyle but then he went on about the benefits of not eating UPF! I still found it interesting though.

The issue is, UPF is cheap and accessible and easy. If you're an exhausted parent on a low income, what are you going to do? The conditions that we live in and work in have created the necessity for convenience foods.

Back in January, the majority of what I ate was processed to some degree: ready meals (only cooked from fresh a couple of times a month) with some fresh veg added if you’re lucky, and an awful lot of snack foods, cakes and chocolate.

Since then I have progressively changed towards unprocessed and minimally processed food, and reduced the amount of carbs I’m eating. The processed/unprocessed ratio has probably flipped from 80/20 to 10/90.

And my appetite is transformed, from being constantly hungry to being able to comfortably practise time restricted eating and intermittent fasting. I don’t snack or graze - I just eat meals. With rare exceptions, I eat a maximum of two meals a day. WITHOUT feeling hungry the vast majority of the time, which I always used to, even though I was eating larger quantities and more often. And everything I eat is utterly delicious - but not compulsive, like a lot of UPFs are.

Now, how much of the difference in my appetite is down to eating less UPF’s and how much is down to the carbs, I don’t know. Some people point the finger at processed carbs and seed oils driving unnatural hunger, others emphasise insulin (so it’s all about the carbs).

But I do know that I am a heck of a lot healthier and happier eating like this. I’ve lost over 4 stone and got off all my diabetes medications. I’m not UPF free - life’s too short for that. But life will be (I’m convinced) longer, and much more enjoyable on a low UPF diet.

Yes this!

My Dg died 20 years ago age 86. She’s been addicted to M and S chunky chicken since about the age of 45. UPF didn’t seem to harm her.

It would have been the same with home made cakes though.

I disagree that UPF is a fad for rich people. I dont eat a British diet, so I grew up low UPF. Most people from non Western cultures eat that way. Its not a fad for us. Much of what Tim Spector says we have been doing all our lives.

It doesn't take money and it doesn't always take time.