This category is made up of food products that have been industrially manufactured, often using artificial flavours, emulsifiers and colouring. They include soft drinks and packaged snacks, and tend to be extremely palatable and high in calories but relatively low in nutrients.
Calories are nutrients. Try living on a diet that doesn’t contain calories….
Ultra-processed foods? We’re in more danger from ultra-fascist fuckers.
I offer a propaganda slogan for Prof Carlos Augusto Monteiro to use: “Eat like Hitler!”
That should do the trick.
Tax instant noodles and starve all the students?
He’s quite correct, you can’t: the plural of “fruit” is “fruit” (although a cannibal with a taste for homosexual flesh might disagree).
I think petrol is quite high in calories, but a bit deficient nutrient wise.
You cannot say, ‘Well, I already ate fruits and vegetables today, I can [drink] three cans of Coke.’ No, you can’t
Carlos Monteiro
Watch me, homo.
*Drinks cola, outrageously*
Julia – Chinamen eat noodles for every meal, but you rarely see a fat Chinese person.
Except Buddha, I suppose. And he seems to be a happy guy.
@Bison,
Surely the sentence works better if you replace ‘cannibal’ with a second instance of ‘homosexual’?
@Steve: Buddha was Indian.
AtC – Blimey. You think you know someone…
“Calories are nutrients”. Sorry Tim, no they are not, a calorie is a unit of heat:
https://byjus.com/chemistry/bomb-calorimeter/
Please Addolf. There is no such thing as “heat”. “There is only energy either present or potential. So in “dietary science” it’s perfectly fair to use calories* to describe the potential energy in a foodstuff. You could also use watts/hour, lbs/feet, joules or ΔV/mass if you like. Of course if “dietary science” was a real science it could have it’s own measures. The “standard banana” might be useful?
*If I can remember from my schooldays the amount of energy required to raise the temperature of 1cc of water (pure) by 1°C. “Dietary science” actually generally uses kilo-calories.
Of course what “dietary science” tries to do is make a connection between calories intake & weight gain/loss. Which is purest nonsense because there’s far too many variables to make the connection.
Which is of course the error they’re making in the OP. The amount of calories in the foodstuffs is actually largely irrelevant to the obesity they presumably regarding as the problem. The solution is amongst the variables.
Calories are not nutrients and are completely irrelevant when it comes to weight management, for the reason identified by Addolff: they are units of heat, and we are not steam engines. Might equally talk about the number of electron volts in the food we eat: equally irrelevant because we’re not nuclear reactors either.
“Energy” only exists where there’s the ability to do work in a system, which is not the case with calories in the metabolic process. Our tummies don’t see or use any calories whatsoever, hence they are irrelevant.
It would be more honest if they’d just admit that UPF really means WCF (Working Class Food) and they want to make food more expensive for those damn proles. At least you could respect that.
Martin, the warnings about the health dangers of UPF are valid. They are the direct cause of the metabolic sickness that we see in people all around us.
The question is what policies, if any, governments should adopt.