u/modeler

Remember the incident at the docks when the revolutionaries threw the T-Mobile imports into the harbour? Talk about high tariffs!

"asked"

Without him, America is a little greater again.

If you'd read the article you will see that this is a report from a network of church abuse survivors and the person speaking has first hand evidence from speaking to Prevost. If you discount them, you are basically saying that witness statements count for nothing. You are silencing the victims.

You will also know that Prevost blocked the 'real investigation' you claim you want and this is core to the point of the article.

Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad?

I don't know.

My thoughts are that your total daily intake is more important than considering any single food item. As such, having _some_ UPF in your diet is ok. The problem becomes epidemiologically measurable when, like the UK and US, 60% of calories consumed by some demographics are from UPF food.

And there are almost certainly multiple different things 'wrong' with UPF and so if you fix one problem, you may still be at risk from another. For example in your question, there are a lot of studies showing the importance of fibre in the diet, including those that add bran to whatever the person normally eats. So UPF with lots of fibre, all things equal, is likely less bad than UPF without.

Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A bad?

Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) are interesting in that they don't show benefits above RDA, and in high doses cause a long list of nasty symptoms. In particular, vitamin A in excess is correlated with increased risk of multiple major diseases and even death.

Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the _media_ find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.

What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:

• Very little fibre

• Starches are all immediately accessible to digestion and so blood glucose spikes much more than for the non-UPF equivalent

• UPF foods are soft and dry (so weigh less) making it very easy to eat a lot very fast, so you eat too many calories.

• Relatively high in salt and sugar

• Use of emulsifiers. These may change your gut microbiota and also make your gut more leaky causing inflammation

• Use of preservatives and artificial colours

• Frequently have a lot of oil

Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.

Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life

This is the correct answer.

Another way to distinguish the good from the bad: Good bread goes stale in a few days, it also is harder to chew. UPF bread will sit in your breadbin for 7 days without noticeable changes and is fluffy and relatively light.

The reason for the fluffiness and the shelf life is all the chemical additives.

You can see why the corporations love UPF bread - and why (if you didn't know the health impact) you might want to buy UPF bread on your weekly shop.

What are you talking about, the victims weren't white?

/s

Almost every survey will get 6-10% of people answering yes to the most extreme or batshit crazy option, no matter what.

Probably the main reason is that people are pissed off that they are being approached by survey takers and punish the survey for revenge.

And there are some batshit crazy people out there.

It's in the middle of a Russian winter so the central heating must have been _belting_ out so much heat for the poor Colonel to open said window.

There's no widespread infanticide happening as far as i can tell

Just a _little_ female infanticide going on.