There's gotta be a word for when people say baseline obvious shit like eat healthy and exercise before going off the deep end with pseudoscience bullshit. It's like they go, "I'm normal, but also [thing a nornal person wouldn't say.]"

I appreciate the type of person that corrects a typo when quoting someone. It requires being in a very narrow band on the spectrum.

It's also very difficult statistically to remove the co-morbidity factors:

populations that eat more "processed" foods !especially in the US! are poor, in toxic environs, stressed, over-policed, incarcerated, discriminated, unstable housing healthcare employment, using "coping" mechanisms, in a food desert, multigenerational defecit of various "health skills", no "free" time for cooking and exercise, etc etc etc

If they had healthcare, housing and union jobs ... stats wouldn't be near so bad for them

"Processed foods" has the same energy to me as when people say food is bad because it has "chemicals" in it.

When following a recipe I start with ingredients and I end up with a prepared meal that I processed. We need to identify and specify the processes that causes problems in food instead of giving that food a label that could be applied to any meal you create.

Tangent.

This is why I hate when people feel they have to call themselves 'Socialists' in political arguments. Instead of dealing with the actual issues, you end up talking about what Trotsky had for lunch at the Fist International.

No, this is crap.

"Scientists can't agree therefore it's not true" has been bogus through smoking and lung cancer, fossil fuels and climate change, and now ultra-processed food (UPF) and all-causes mortality and obesity.

A good rule of thumb is that if you made it in your home from real ingredients it's probably much healthier than if some company did food science on it until it human testers said "yeah I'd love more of that one". It's not a coincidence, it's not even malice, it's just they're selecting for overeating.

The malice is when the food industry tries to get you to believe that their products are healthy, that there's nothing to see or be concerned about with UPF, and the malice is also when they're lobbying and suing governments the world over that tell you to avoid UPF.

Yeah, unpasteurised milk and other crap is bonkers anti-science nonsense, but so is dismissing the correlation between larger quantities of ultra-processed food and all-causes mortality. It's real. Don't spread their lies that it's not.

It's fun when you see the morons figure out that if they boil their unpasteurized milk, the risk of consumption goes down... absolutely zero awareness.

Cooking is a process. Hell, cleaning, peeling, and slicing are all processes. Clearly there's a level of processing that's OK. But they never actually talk specifics, so it's impossible to tell where they draw the line. Is canned food okay? Salted nuts? Cheese? Discussions about UPF are different; those people usually define what they're talking about. But the MAHA people are incoherent.

Yeah I always felt that "Proccessed" foods have a bad reputation for no good reason. The fact that something might have enough sugar, salt and so on to kill a cow is what makes it unhealthy not the fact that it was "processed".