phonypc

Your second link is the unpublished, widely criticized study I was referring to. Even taken at a face value, it does not indicate infection-acquired immunity is longer lasting, only more robust.

None of the other links indicate infection-acquired immunity is more robust or longer lasting than vaccine-acquired. Only that there is some lasting immunity in some people.

>trussed up and dismembered and skinned while still conscious (granted due to failures in the stun mechanism, but there isn't much push to monitor assembly line failures)

There is absolutely push/incentive to monitor and correct for failures in stunning. The stress response it entails in the animal makes for poor quality meat, or even inedible meat that would have to thrown out.

Also, stunning is followed by slaughtering and draining. There is no situation in industrial production in which an animal would be dismembered and skinned alive.

>They soak the cut potatoes in running water for 5 hours before frying them in peanut oil with a special double dip method to give a good consistency of fluffy on the inside and crisp on the outside.

FWIW, this is standard procedure for pretty much any place that makes their own fries on location. It might be a step up from most big chains that use frozen fries, but there's probably dozens of small eateries in any decent sized town that do the same.

>As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting.

What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.

Language, or the beginnings of it, is probably older than bread. But bread in its simplest form is not complex at all, I feel like you could hypothetically teach it to an early hominid without language. Just pound something starchy into a paste, maybe add some water and work it into a dough and cook it on some rocks.

Eh, the modern-ish notion (tomato sauce and cheese topping) of pizza maybe. Topped flatbreads called pizza are much older, and topped flatbreads in general are again much older than that.

The full text of your link shows the athletes didn't have elevated ketones until the second day of the race. After 80km, or about 12 hours of running, on an energy deficit.

Problematic as in negative health consequences. If there aren't undesired consequences, what is the problem?

I like to add turmeric powder to my rice for the sole purpose of colouring it. Is that some travesty? Is my rice now ultra-processed?

>But this is what the standard you don't like is doing. It's classifying food according to what is present or missing.

No, that's explicitly not what it's doing. It tries to classify things by level of processing. The fact that the examples given often don't fit their criteria only serves to make it look more ridiculous.

>When I run for more than 90 minutes without taking in carbs, my body goes into a ketogenic state very similar to a multi-day fast.

That seems rather implausible. Do you actually test your ketones in both conditions, or is this just some subjective assessment?

To be precise, some of the fuel does need to be glucose. There is no such phenomenon as solely relying on ketones for energy, and the brain is especially glucose greedy.

In a sufficiently fasted state, all of that glucose will be endogenously produced rather than coming directly from food, but it does need to be there.

Yeast is used, and the process isn't any different than supermarket white buns.

Industrial white bread processes do tend to involve very high speed/power mixing that incorporates more air and leads to a smaller crumb structure than traditional bread, but it's certainly not squirted out as a foam.

Right, the problem with chips isn't how processed they are. They're hardly processed at all. It's what is/isn't in them. Nobody would call homemade mashed potatoes ultra-processed, even if they were made to be nutritionally identical to Lay's chips.

No, I don't see the point you're trying to get across.

To keep using the Beyond burger example; you imply emulsifiers are no good. Is sunflower lecithin problematic? Methylcellulose is kind of another one here, but it's literally insoluble fiber, something you imply is problematic for a food to be missing. The only ingredients that might be present as preservatives I can see are salt and vinegar/lemon juice. Are they problematic in the amounts used? Is beet juice a problematic colourant?

Now, if we were talking the emulsifiers being PGEs, sodium benzoate as a preservative and red #40 for colour, then maybe there would be a better case for not eating Beyond burgers. Or maybe canola oil simply isn't what you consider to be healthy. Point is, the problem is what specifically is present or missing. Not whether it fits into some ill-defined notion of processed.

>Basically bleaching and sterilization are two things you don't want as a home baker. You can make it work if you really have nothing else but why go through the trouble?

Hard disagree. Bleached flour is much easier to work with for the home/inexperienced baker. Hydrates easily, dough tends to be less tacky, better volume etc. It's only when you've got the basics down and want to get into the weeds with details that I'd recommend getting into specialty flours that are less likely to be chemically bleached.

I don't really get the point of the sterilized equipment. Surely if anything is going to contaminate the experiment with modern yeast, it's the freshly milled flour.

Presumably you'd want to test the active starter to see if the ancient strains of yeast took hold.

Edit: nevermind, I missed that the flour was sterilized too.

I'm not even trying to argue that anything is good to eat here. This comment chain, since the ingredient list of a Beyond burger was posted, has amounted to pointing in the vague direction of that list and things like it and saying "Ew! Too many ingredients. Too processed".

The point I'm trying to get across is that, insofar as a Beyond burger is bad, it's because of some specific ingredients or processes. It's not substantive to just post the ingredients, or make nebulous allusions to them being gross or un-nutritious.

No, they aren't equivalent. But that's not an argument against eating isolated plant proteins.

If the issue is seed oils, then by all means make that case. There are arguably convincing points to be made in that area.

Implied outrage at long ingredient lists is not constructive.

Expeller-pressed canola oil is explicitly not "hexane refined hydrogenated rapeseed oil". Also no HFCS.

The commonly accepted standard is incoherent.

Chips are listed. Not "some" as is qualified for frozen dinners, but just chips. Chips are just sliced potatoes cooked in oil and salted. No "artificial colors and flavors and preservatives that promote shelf stability, preserve texture, and increase palatability". If you dust some MSG and onion powder on them I guess that technically fits under artifical flavor. But I can do that at home in a couple seconds. Does dusting the same MSG and onion powder on my roasted asparagus make it ultra-processed?

Insofar as chips are an issue, it's that they contain too much fat, or too much salt or something. Not some magical property attached to them in an industrial factory.

There are similar mismatches for their other examples.

If you knew human flesh to be the most tasty substance on Earth, would you want to keep eating it?

(No, obviously eating people is not equivalent on all levels to eating non-human animals. But merely tasting good isn't a very sensible reason to eat something on its own)

Do you take issue with any particular ingredients, or is the implication just "long list bad"?

What are you calling a laxative?

This notion of incomplete proteins is outdated and not very useful, if not quite wrong. It's really hard to eat a diet so restrictive that you end up deficient in the way the theory would predict.

Further, there are actually "complete" vegetarian protein sources. Namely soy beans.

>This is why you can go out to a public restaurant and get chicken sashimi if you want.[1]

You actually can't do that, with very few exceptions.

As a rule, foodborne pathogens are invisible. And odourless.

Those rotten bits on your vegetables are probably perfectly safe to eat, if unpalatable. It might not even involve microbial spoilage at all, just enzymatic breakdown.

>150 is flat out not worth the risk from a public health standpoint.

It's not worth the risk for public health agencies to recommend 150°, that I can agree on. Too much room for inexperienced cooks to make an error.

But chicken held at 150° for a few minutes (which is hard to avoid in most scenarios) is no less safe than the hypothetical "165° for an instant" scenario.

>if you kept it at 150 deg for 2.8 minutes but with standard cooking that is not easy to measure or maintain

It's actually surprisingly hard not to do that. Unless you're cooking at unusually low pan/oven temperatures, the internal temperature of a chicken breast taken off at 150° will probably hit 155° or higher over the next couple minutes.

Overkill. Most health agencies recommend 165°, and that's already got a big margin of safety on it. I aim for 150° these days, and even that's mostly because I like the texture there. 140° is perfectly safe if you can hold it there for a while, like if you're doing sous vide.

It's all kinds of confusing.

AFAIK there is no botanical notion of vegetable. It's a culinary/food term, which should just mean "edible plant matter". Which would make culinary fruit just a subset of vegetables. But for some reason popular usage dictates that the category "vegetable" excludes some sweet tasting fruit, staple starches and some other things.

Sorry, what? You think Chinese manufacturing businesses aren't making a profit?