Well, it's only _over_-processed if we assume it is _bad_. A consensus does seem to be emerging that it _is_ bad, but building that right into the name seems unhelpful. And as alluded to in the article, what the point is after which something is 'over'-processed is not particularly clear.

Olive oil, steel cut oats, and dried beans, are processed. It's to differentiate from things like Coca-Cola or TV dinners.

It's funny that it's only the high IQ types that have difficulty distinguishing beans from coca cola.

It's what I like to call being so smart they're stupid. Everyone strives to be the smartest most pedantic one in the room around here.

Ultra-processed foods are broadly speaking foods that cannot be produced in a normal domestic or restaurant kitchen.

> some other more neutral term

Nutrient dense/high calorie is probably more accurate.

This would encompass eggs and is leaving out what might be key components (engineered by food scientists and produced in factory)

I have had this exact argument on HN at least a half dozen times.

Someone will have to explain to me why so many people claim that honey is not a "refined sugar." If bees do the refining than it doesn't count?

yeah people still do it but at least adding the "ultra" indicates is not something a person cooking for their family would be doing to food

It's just as dumb though because the act of processing doesn't really mean anything.

If it didn't mean anything then why the findings in the article?

The findings in the article basically came down to - people eat more calories when it tastes good. Even the article itself admits there are a multitude of other factors that could account for the results other than UPF.

It absolutely does if you're able to take off the pedantry glasses for like 5 seconds. Why are you nitpicking this? is it because you actually think articles like this are about chopping carrots?

"if it couldn't be made outside of a factory, don't eat it."

from someone else in the comments is pretty clear

Why jump from one weird statement to another? Maybe even a worse one?

Here we go again...

It's still a misleading term, so it would be good to talk about what the actual harm is, as to not confuse people. And it does confuse, since I vividly remember as a kid being confused by it, and it's important to have healthy habits from a young age. It always sounded a bit weird that food being "processed" means it's bad, so I didn't understand it really. And if you don't focus on the harm, but use terms like this, it's hard to say what is pseudoscience and what is actual science.

Until you add ketchup.

Proce-X'ed foods

Just as a side note/for info, there’s a specific definition (I think by the FAO?) used for them. The tldr is that when you’re extracting/reacting something to use as an ingredient (eg hydrogenated oil), it becomes ultra processed.