Good and Bad Buys at Lidl and Aldi stores (***Please don't expire***)

YoungBlueEyes

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=fatbergs+in+sewers&atb=v315-1&t=chromentp&iax=videos&iai=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KMmrWa3xlBU&ia=videos

Rosa_Damascena

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary its in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Doc_N

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

Cornucopia

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Doc_N

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Where do you start?

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/health/nutrition/the-10-worst-ultra-processed-foods-you-can-eat

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods

Cornucopia

Doc_N said:

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Where do you start?

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/health/nutrition/the-10-worst-ultra-processed-foods-you-can-eat

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods

Thanks for that - I didn't see a definition in the BMJ article.   The BBC article is both most useful for its simplicity, but also contains foods that are eaten very rarely (Hot Dogs), and foods that are very common but whose UPF status will depend on the ingredients.   The advice to eat the best (most expensive?) bread you can afford is all very well, but those will generally be fresh bakery items where the ingredient list may not be readily available.    There's an overall lack of practicality that is most unhelpful.  

I also expect that there may be some statistical contamination between UPFs and foods high in fat, sugar and salt.   I'd be more persuaded by toxicity studies that specifically and definitively ruled certain ingredients "potentially harmful", so that companies, consumers and ultimately governments could exclude them.

Doc_N

Cornucopia said:

IDoc_N said:

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Where do you start?

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/health/nutrition/the-10-worst-ultra-processed-foods-you-can-eat

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods

Thanks for that - I didn't see a definition in the BMJ article.   The BBC article is both most useful for its simplicity, but also contains foods that are eaten very rarely (Hot Dogs), and foods that are very common but whose UPF status will depend on the ingredients.   The advice to eat the best (most expensive?) bread you can afford is all very well, but those will generally be fresh bakery items where the ingredient list may not be readily available.    There's an overall lack of practicality that is most unhelpful.  

I also expect that there may be some statistical contamination between UPFs and foods high in fat, sugar and salt.   I'd be more persuaded by toxicity studies that specifically and definitively ruled certain ingredients "potentially harmful", so that companies, consumers and ultimately governments could exclude them.

Like all such advice, best taken in moderation. Not so long ago, dairy and eggs were bad, then both became good, but now the pendulum seems to be swinging the other way a bit on butter again. 

We do try to avoid UPFs when possible, but sometimes they’re unavoidable if you want to enjoy life. Crisps and bacon, for example, but only occasionally.

We have switched pretty much altogether to breadmaker bread though - cheaper, better, and much more natural than any commercial bread.

maman

I just work on the principle that the best way to avoid UPFs is to make something myself from raw ingredients. It's not just the additives I want to avoid but the added ingredients like sugar, salt, fat etc. 

I do make exceptions like bacon, ham and occasional crisps but try to keep them at treat status rather than every day. 

Rosa_Damascena

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Where do you start?

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/health/nutrition/the-10-worst-ultra-processed-foods-you-can-eat

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods

Thanks for that - I didn't see a definition in the BMJ article.   The BBC article is both most useful for its simplicity, but also contains foods that are eaten very rarely (Hot Dogs), and foods that are very common but whose UPF status will depend on the ingredients.   The advice to eat the best (most expensive?) bread you can afford is all very well, but those will generally be fresh bakery items where the ingredient list may not be readily available.    There's an overall lack of practicality that is most unhelpful.  

I also expect that there may be some statistical contamination between UPFs and foods high in fat, sugar and salt.   I'd be more persuaded by toxicity studies that specifically and definitively ruled certain ingredients "potentially harmful", so that companies, consumers and ultimately governments could exclude them.

Its an evolving concept, if you need assistance in falling asleep at night I can recommend this article.

Bottom line: it is likely to be ultra-processed if it contains ingredients you would not find in your store-cupboard cupboard. Whereas mince could be any part of the animal, including bone, collagen, fat and unmentionables...

Cornucopia

Rosa_Damascena said:

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Cornucopia said:

Doc_N said:

Rosa_Damascena said:

Why would anyone spend money on something they think might be a foodstuff yet know is basically rubbish? At least when I buy confectionary it’s in the full knowledge that it is bad for me, and not disguised as a major ingredient for a meal.

Sadly, a very high percentage of everything sold in supermarkets (barring the basic raw ingredients) is ultra-processed and now reckoned to be unsafe to eat on a long term basis. Whether that analysis proves correct in due course remains to be seen.

I'd be more persuadable if it was clearer what "ultra-processed" actually means.   I'm always a bit wary when someone presents some "science" that isn't very well-defined.

Where do you start?

https://www.bmj.com/content/384/bmj-2023-077310

https://www.bbcgoodfood.com/health/nutrition/the-10-worst-ultra-processed-foods-you-can-eat

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/ultra-processed-foods

Thanks for that - I didn't see a definition in the BMJ article.   The BBC article is both most useful for its simplicity, but also contains foods that are eaten very rarely (Hot Dogs), and foods that are very common but whose UPF status will depend on the ingredients.   The advice to eat the best (most expensive?) bread you can afford is all very well, but those will generally be fresh bakery items where the ingredient list may not be readily available.    There's an overall lack of practicality that is most unhelpful.  

I also expect that there may be some statistical contamination between UPFs and foods high in fat, sugar and salt.   I'd be more persuaded by toxicity studies that specifically and definitively ruled certain ingredients "potentially harmful", so that companies, consumers and ultimately governments could exclude them.

Its an evolving concept, if you need assistance in falling asleep at night I can recommend this article.

Bottom line: it is likely to be ultra-processed if it contains ingredients you would not find in your store-cupboard cupboard. Whereas mince could be any part of the animal, including bone, collagen, fat and unmentionables...

Yes, I got that basic principle.   It's not clear why such a principle should automatically be useful to consumers wanting to make healthy food choices, though.    And of course, many/most people have things like butter and salt in their homes that we are separately warned against.

Bringing it back to the thread topic, I had a quick look at the ingredients for some L & A products I have.   Sweet Chilli Waves (multigrain crispy things) would seem to be okay being basically a mix of different grains/flours with some yeast and natural flavouring.   Greek style Strawberry Yogurt would also seem okay, assuming that fruit pectin is something that a person could conceivably have at home for jam making.    (I wonder what plain yogurt with jam in it tastes like, and would that be better than store-bought?)

Lidl Breadsticks seem very non-UPF - wheat flour, sunflower oil 7%, yeast, barley malt extract, iodised salt (salt, potassium iodate), natural flavourings.    (Though I admit I'm not sure what iodised salt is).