Submitted by giuliomagnifico t3_z2vby0 in science
It's kind of one of these things where they throw a word out and don't really think how broad a term they're using.
Cocoa cola is processed. Steel cut oats are also processed. So is chicken breast and broccoli florets
Thank you for saying what I attempted with greater eloquence.
I'm just mad that someone out there coined the term "organic food" and people accept it without much question.
I should damn well hope your food is organic.
Would you like some silicon puffs?
Found my new Kickstarter
A zero calorie inorganic snack
It would, however, be non-gmo!
[removed]
Someone linked to the processed feed used. It's just sugar.
[removed]
Someone is going to use this study to promote eating more corn or wheat.
"Whole grain food protects against disease!"
Well whole grains are better than bleached breads and Oatmeal is an excellent meal to have at least twice a week or more.
Whole gran corn or wheat is not bad for you as long as you're minding your macros
Diets rich in whole grains are associated with reduced incidence of type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, and colorectal cancer
Randomized controlled trials of increasing whole-grain intakes have demonstrated their potential to improve glycemic control, body weight, the lipid profile, and other cardiometabolic risk factors in adults with diabetes (2).
CONCLUSIONS
Consuming whole-grain foods over 2 weeks improved measures of glycemia in free-living adults with type 2 diabetes compared with an equivalent amount of whole-grain foods that were finely milled. Dietary advice should promote the consumption of minimally processed whole grains.
https://diabetesjournals.org/care/article/43/8/1717/35554/Whole-Grain-Processing-and-Glycemic-Control-in
Whole grains and risk of T2D: Dose–Response Meta-analysis
Each additional 50 grams WG consumption per day was associated with a 23% reduced risk of T2D.
60 grams WG intake per day would give the highest benefit to prevent T2D ...
In conclusion, a high intake of WG was associated with a lower risk of T2D. Randomized controlled trials are needed to confirm our results.
Consumption of whole grains and risk of type 2 diabetes: A comprehensive systematic review and dose–response meta‐analysis of prospective cohort studies
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/fsn3.2811
Cereal grains and legumes in the prevention of coronary heart disease and stroke: a review of the literature
Abstract
A number of reviewers have examined studies investigating the relationship between coronary heart disease and stroke prior to 2000. Since then, several key studies have been published. Five studies have examined the relationship between wholegrain consumption, coronary heart disease (CHD) and cardiovascular (CVD) disease and found protection for either or both diseases.
The researchers concluded that a relationship between wholegrain intake and CHD is seen with at least a 20% and perhaps a 40% reduction in risk for those who eat wholegrain food habitually vs those who eat them rarely.
Notwithstanding the fact that fibre is an important component of wholegrains, many studies have not shown an independent effect of fibre alone on CHD events. Thus in terms of CHD prevention, fibre is best obtained from wholegrain sources.
Wholegrain products have strong antioxidant activity and contain phytoestrogens, but there is insufficient evidence to determine whether this is beneficial in CHD prevention...
Promotion of carbohydrate foods should be focused on wholegrain cereals because these have proven to be associated with health benefits.
Recommendation: Carbohydrate-rich foods should be wholegrain and if they are not, then the lowest GI product available should be consumed. Glycemic index is largely irrelevant for foods that contain small amounts of carbohydrate per serve (such as most vegetables).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16670693/
Association of whole grains intake and the risk of digestive tract cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Open Access
Published: 03 June 2020
Abstract
Background
Several epidemiological studies have investigated the association between whole grains intake and digestive tract cancer risk; however, the results are still controversial. The purpose of this meta-analysis was to assess the association.
Methods
Studies published before March 2020 were searched in database and other sources. The risk ratio (RR) with the 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled using fix or random-effects models.
Results
This meta-analysis included 34 articles reporting 35 studies, 18 studies of colorectal cancer, 11 studies of gastric cancer and 6 studies of esophagus cancer, involving 2,663,278 participants and 28,921 cases.
Comparing the highest-intake participants with the lowest-intake participants for whole grains, we found that the intake of whole grains were inversely related to colorectal cancer (RR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.84–0.93, P < 0.001), gastric cancer (RR = 0.64, 95% CI: 0.53–0.79, P < 0.001), esophagus cancer (RR = 0.54, 95% CI: 0.44–0.67, P < 0.001), respectively.
Conclusion
This meta-analysis provides further evidence that whole grains intake was associated with a reduced risk of digestive tract cancer. Our result supports the dietary guidelines that increase whole grains intake to reduce the risk of digestive tract cancer.
https://nutritionj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12937-020-00556-6
Right? I've had this general notion that half the posts in r/science are attempts at social engineering. This post makes no sense since grain-based diets are by nature processed because human bodies can't digest most grains without processing. It's like an effort to redefine terms so people won't connect grain-based with processed even though it literally has to be processed to be grain-based.
Agreed. Sometime an honest criticism elicits knee jerk reactions if the group disapproves. Does processed connote a process or an added ingredient, and if a process does that differentiate between a mechanical grinding and a smoking/curing process.
[removed]
Think before opening your mouth once.
[removed]
Check out this article on the different kinds of processed foods.
It's the ultra processed foods we got to be concerned about. Group 4
https://www.verywellhealth.com/defining-ultra-processed-foods-is-debated-5509462
I was reading a package of ramen the other day and its first ingredient was pure gluten.
gluten is delicious
….and…..? Gluten is just the naturally occurring protein in certain grains. It’s nutrient rich and protein packed. There’s nothing bad about it whatsoever, in moderation of course like everything else, unless you have Celiac’s. Too bad the word alone has been demonized due to fad diets.
[deleted]
Psychosomatic? And why now? Again, it’s certainly “on trend.” 10+ years ago were people saying the same? Definitely not downplaying real symptoms but just because patients come in mentioning a symptom doesn’t mean it’s always what they think it is. There’s so much mis/overdiagnosis or self diagnosis happening now. And a LOT can affect the digestive system. Stress, anxiety, alcohol, meds, hydration, hormones, activity levels, fiber/lack there of, family history, plus a lot more. Also, maybe different types of the same food or how it’s prepared makes a difference to someone (as it does for me and my lab tested allergies) A gastroenterologist and allergists would be the best to consult to dig deeper.
[deleted]
> Quaker instant oatmeal is “processed” food but is actually quite good for you
Source?
My cardiologist
Does your cardiologist happen to wear a wideawake hat and bear an uncanny resemblance to William Penn?
Not sure of your reference but he is former head of cardiology for Bethesda who retired from the military medical field and became head of cardiology for University of Arizona where I met him and chose him as my Cardiologist when an aneurysm was discovered on my Ascending Abdominal Aorta. And Oatmeal is considered one of the best foods for lowering cholesterol (not really an issue for me) and for maintaining plasticity of inner walls of arteries and veins by aiding on the prevention of hardening and plaque. So thank you but I'll stick with his medical experience.
He likely didn't recommend Quaker oatmeal. Instant oats are nearly as bad as wheat flour from a glycemic perspective. He was probably recommending a gruel of steel-cut oats with a tiny dab of butter and a pinch of salt for palatability. No self-respecting doctor would recommend Quaker oats, they're just about the worst possible way to consume oats, health-wise.
I'd rather die of heart disease than routinely eat steel cut oats. I'll eat chicken breast, broccoli, and rice every day of the week but I abhor steel cut oats.
First off, you’re in /r/science. If you want to make claims, be ready to cite them without getting snarky with people, particularly if you aren’t actually educated on the topic.
Second, the cholesterol-lowering effect sometimes seen in research involving oatmeal is from soluble fiber. Guess how many grams of soluble fiber are in each 20g-carbohydrate packet of Quaker instant oatmeal? I’ll give you a hint: it’s less than 2g and more than 0g. This is a minuscule amount.
> and for maintaining plasticity of inner walls of arteries and veins by aiding on the prevention of hardening and plaque
Cardiovascular disease is the number one cause of death in the developed world. If this statement was true, Quaker would be preaching it 24/7 on every advertising channel they could get their hands on. Alas, they are not.
Well I have other sources of necessary nutrients, vitamins, minerals, but you do know that Oats, Rye, Flax are still much better than Wheat and definitely better than Corn, but that doesn't stop Wheat and Corn from being grown in greater quantities world wide than any of the healthier grains. Anyway I'll stick with my Cardiologist and my Oncologist at Ironwood Cancer Research Center because they've been correct through all of my treatments thus far to cure my Lymphoma faster than the first quacks at Banner (Who I will never go to again) who I got stuck with, and that was 7 years ago.
> Anyway I’ll stick with my Cardiologist and my Oncologist at Ironwood Cancer Research Center because they’ve been correct through all of my treatments thus far to cure my Lymphoma faster than the first quacks at Banner (Who I will never go to again) who I got stuck with, and that was 7 years ago.
Cool. I don’t care. You making conclusive claims in a subreddit that requires you to cite claims.
[removed]
[removed]
For information this is what's in AIN93G.
Who would imagine 40% HFCS, 20% milk protein, 10% sugar isn't great diet for mammals ...
Ah the half sugar diet. That’s an accurate reflection of processed foods.
Coca Cola Co be like
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/401/347/312.jpg
[removed]
And this is what is in the "irradiated chow diet" (PDF)
>Wheat, Barley, lupins, soya meal, fish meal, mixed vegetable oils, canola oil, salt, calcium carbonate, dicalcium phosaste, magnesium oxide, and a vitamin and trace mineral premix
[removed]
[removed]
Mouse Mediterranean Diet?
Ah, so not entirely grain-based after all.
[removed]
Carbs, protein, fat, supplements.
> We first examined feeding behavior and multiple physiological parameters in naive wild-type (WT) C57BL6 female mice placed on either a chow or an AIN93G diet for 4 weeks.
There is no such thing as a “C57BL6” mouse, unless you have a time machine and are going back to Jackson in the 1950’s and grabbing some of the initial black-6 population. Otherwise, you are using some other substrain that needs to be denoted so we know how to evaluate their outcomes.
https://www.jax.org/news-and-insights/jax-blog/2016/june/there-is-no-such-thing-as-a-b6-mouse
Source: Jackson Lab, the global supplier of genetically defined mice, including the strain incorrectly denoted on this paper, and the substrain they actually did use
Question, does this specify the substrain?
>Wild-type (WT) C57BL6 mice were purchased from Australian BioResources (Moss Vale, NSW, Australia). Ifngr1−/− mice on C57BL/6 background were bred in the Centenary Institute.
Edit:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5173119/
I was looking into it further...this is one example I found (of many) of actual geneticists expressing it the same way as these folks. It seems like a pretty standard way to write it. Especially when a cursory search of Jackson's catalog seems to indicate that their Ifngr1-/- mice are all C57BL/6J. It doesn't seem to be that ambiguous based on what I was able to gather. Is there more reason to suggest they should have specified?
(To me, questions of whether these were the best test subjects seem more pertinent than potential ambiguity in terminology)
> I was looking into it further…this is one example I found (of many) of actual geneticists expressing it the same way as these folks. It seems like a pretty standard way to write it.
Depends on what you mean by standard, I guess. However, in either case it is incorrect, and I gave you an article literally published by Jax, which is the ultimate authority on both these animals and their nomenclature, saying as much.
It’s pretty standard for academics and practitioners to refer to lactate as “lactic acid”, and to think of it as a waste product, and yet both of these notions are totally incorrect.
> Especially when a cursory search of Jackson’s catalog seems to indicate that their Ifngr1-/- mice are all C57BL/6J.
You’re a little confused on the terminology here, which is understandable because these databases assume proficiency in it. Ifngr1 is a gene, not a strain (interferon gamma receptor 1). The “-/-“ refers to a double-knockout. Jax produces 6J-background mice with a huge number of knockouts/knockins/mutations, they supply over 8,000 strains and most are built on 6J. If you search the database for the string “ifngr1” you will see many substrains with that string in their denotation. The correct notation for ifngr1 double knockouts is probably B6.129S7-Ifngr^(1tm1Agt)/J, where “J” refers to the colony maintainer (in this case, Jackson Laboratories), the post-hyphen string refers to the gene of interest, and “tm” denotes the targeted mutation of that gene. B6.129S is a 129 substrain commonly used when producing congenic strains.
But, again, I don’t actually know if that’s the correct strain because they didn’t actually give the right notation.
> To me, questions of whether these were the best test subjects seem more pertinent than potential ambiguity in terminology
They’re the same question, and that’s my point. People don’t get that the ambiguity impairs our ability to correctly evaluate the comparisons being made between these subjects. A mouse denoted as “C57BL/6” in your study could literally be one of several thousand strains, with tens of thousands of known and documented mutations which may of may not be present in your cohort, which is to say nothing of the undocumented influence of drift.
As to whether they’re the best subjects, the unfortunate fact is that we don’t really have an alternative genetic background anywhere near as standardized as these animals. The problem is that nutrition has a habit of trying to shift the reference frame to make low quality data and inferences look high-quality simply because it’s the best they have. See the GRADE scandal for a key example of this.
> Is there more reason to suggest they should have specified?
Geneticists understand that using rodents as a test subject not only means you need to take a huge grain of salt when comparing macroscopic results to humans, but that we also need a big grain of salt when comparing mice cohorts to other mice cohorts, at least when they are of different genotypes.
It just depends on how confident you are that all accumulated drift and mutations in all existing laboratory mice of each denoted strain have have zero effect on the physiology of the animals. Personally, my confidence in this is zero.
If you want, I can give you recent literature on this issue of growing, undocumented genetic diversity in common lab strains and why it’s a problem.
[removed]
Oh, thanks I didn’t know. And why they have reported they used those “extinct” mice?
There is an unfortunate general ignorance outside of genetics of what these mice really are and how to think about them. Institutions that have their own colonies with have qualified and knowledgeable people as maintainers, but they aren’t writing the papers. In a nutshell, they are the renewable testing grounds of a genome we know and control, making them a valid background for a) interventions in that genome and b) interventions among genetically identical cohorts.
Black-6 descendant strains (like B6J, which this study likely used) are not intended to ask questions of diet or drug effect and extrapolate across non-identical colonies or other species, but rather to have a controlled genetic background against which to test the effect of interventions and/or genes which we add or subtract, ie knockouts.
The way that Jackson maintains B6J is by periodically reintroducing frozen gametes from the original “Adam and Eve” B6J pair, and using them to refresh the source colony based on the reference genome, which for B6J is called GRCm38.p6.
However, the inevitable fact is that as soon as you take mice away from that colony and start breeding them, they immediately start diverging from the source genome, accumulating mutations which have the potential to alter their physiology and bias study results. This is why it’s so critically important that you always denote the exact substrain being used, but also more broadly that we take a huge grain of salt when we see some change in outcomes in a mouse population for which we don’t really have an precise background rate of that outcome. It’s not exactly the cohort that’s the problem, since if you’re using two groups of mice that are presumably nearly genetically identical to each other the deviation is null, but rather the comparison between studies.
eg, study 1 used “Black-6” mice and found diet A had 1.5 OR for some outcome compared to diet B, study 2 used “Black-6” mice and found diet A had 0.9 OR for the same outcome compared to diet B, but if we have no idea what the actual genetic differences between those two colonies were, the comparison is kinda fucked. We don’t know their distance from the reference genome, if the distance from each is symmetrical, if both have had cryorecovery done and at what points, etc. These mice are under intense selection pressure to breed large litters and survive a very unnatural laboratory environment, and we know there are substantial genetic differences accumulating among them, both from those environmental stimuli and from drift. And then you start bundling these things into meta-analysis and you have this growing source of invisible confounding.
[deleted]
"somewhat" related indeed
[removed]
What do you mean with processed foods in this context? Cheese or bread is a processed food too, as are all canned goods, fermented stuff like sauerkraut or kimchi and even canned vegetables.
As a laymen it’s incredible hard to understand what these scientific blokes even mean. All that scientific gibberish means nothing if the very start is so dumbed down you don’t even know what kind of foods they are talking about.
??? Your comment is partially garbled grammar, but additionally cheese contains casein, so how is casein sinister but cheese good?
So the food industry is killing us?
[removed]
That is 100% not what the word means. You can discover this in any research article about processed foods. The term is very well defined, and that is unequivocally not the definition.
You literally do not know what the word processed means then. Words have explicit definitions which do NOT change over time. Gay means today what it meant in 1950, 1900, 1800, 1700, 1500, 1300, etc.
The execution of a process must progress in a sequential fashion.
A process is defined as an entity which represents the basic unit of work to be implemented in the system.
Perform a series of mechanical or chemical operations on (something) in order to change or preserve it.
Can somebody help me here? I scanned the article twice, and couldn't find how many mice where in each group. There's a hint from the survival graphs, that it might be 12 in each group.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
Now there's something to learn from science.
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[removed]
[deleted]
Really? We have human flu fatalities all the time. It's been mentioned in the news endlessly
There was just a post about global bacteria infections leading to death.
People die from colds and flus all the time, especially people with compromised immune systems.
I wonder if the covid-19 pandemic resulted (will result) in people getting oddly healthier as a result of the bread making boom that occurred
I'd wager the amount of people that continue to eat strictly homemade bread would be negligible to the final numbers.
Perhaps.
But non homemade bread is just so blah… especially after having homemade bread
Gels with my research that processed diets are specifically designed to give us Government Mandated Metabolic Disorder. (GMMD)
Certain steps in processing serve no purpose other than to remove vital nutrients like Inositol or Queuine.
There are studies from as far back as 1906 to 1938 showing us they know precisely how to give animals and humans metabolic disorder, and that they know how to prevent that metabolic disorder. (Tens of thousands of studies)
Got any DOIs handy?
Man it really sucks to create life just to infect and kill it. I guess that's the price we pay to save ourselves. Thanks JEEBUS for this version of the universe.
Strange-Ad1209 t1_ixir88i wrote
Highly processed being cheez whiz? Quaker instant oatmeal is "processed" food but is actually quite good for you. People need to question the rhetoric used.