Ultra-processed food

[Grumble]

For a large part of my calories on Saturday I will be relying on a drink made from a powdered mix of sugars and salts. I’m pretty sure if that doesn’t qualify as ultra-processed then nothing does. It would be unhealthy to try and live off it - it’s by no means a complete food - but it will do the job I need it to do. Then I will probably eat a pie, which might also be ultra-processed food, but these things are not like each other. It is a meaningless label.

[Boustrophedon]

I have been trying to get me head around all this
and failed.

There seems to have been a quite natural reaction to the 'turkey dinosaurs chips and coke diet', which is unhealthy, that I understand. But the definitions of processed and ultra-processed seem nebulous, hard to pin down and not useful.

Then others like Tim Spector have tried to take all this and use it to try to define healthy diets, which in Spector's case requires reading his several expensive thick books that has launched (lunched?) a lucrative career on the back of. Doesn't it really just boil down to 'don't eat to much refined flour and sugar?

I smell b.llsh.t. Particularly as there's a perfectly good, easy to understand guide to feeding yourself healthily, beloved of cookery teachers for generations; the Eatwell plate.

eatwell_plate.jpg (173.82 KiB) Viewed 4717 times

[shpalman]

I have to admit that on watching presentations and interviews with Chris van Tulleken, I find myself coming round to his ideas. There are caveats, for example he has a go at diet Coke, but the point of diet coke isn't nutrition, it's "pleasure". The debate about artificial sweetners (i.e. sweet flavours which don't contain any bioavailable sugar) confusing your body and whether they help with weight loss is a slightly separate one. There's certainly nothing more healthy about drinking regular coke with all that added sugar in it...

A threads thread about diet soda which seems to have papers linked in it

https://www.threads.net/@coachcadd/post/C84MyTetObI/

[shpalman]

While ultra-processed foods include the chips and biscuits which plebs eat and Guardian readers virtuously identify as unhealthy, they increasingly include products which even we eat!

Bread
Most pre-sliced bread available in supermarkets contains modified starches and additives like emulsifiers and vegetable gums – even the healthy-sounding multiseed or sourdough loaves. But of course you're baking your own otherwise please cancel your subscription.

Processed meat
Bacon, sausages, and deli-sliced cold meats like ham and salami can be full of emulsifiers, thickeners, modified starches, added fibre, and even added colours and flavouring, so don't eat the cheap ones, but they're fine if they have a European city as part of their name.

Meh I can't be bothered to do the rest of them but I look forward to the vegan "meat" and plant "milk" backlashes.

Who'd have guessed "Ready to eat meals" though!

[insignificant]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ns-cartoon

[discovolante]

Shameless grifting from the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ou-can-buy

[shpalman]

Shameless grifting from the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ou-can-buy

Well my kitchen sometimes does contain potato starch but never has any f.cking falafels in it, so which one of those is the ultra processed one?

[Trinucleus]

Shameless grifting from the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ou-can-buy

That's totally confused me. I assumed UPF meant they had undergone a number of processes that reduce their nutritional value. Yet this article seems to class including an [approved] additive as making something UPF?

[shpalman]

Shameless grifting from the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ou-can-buy

That's totally confused me. I assumed UPF meant they had undergone a number of processes that reduce their nutritional value. Yet this article seems to class including an [approved] additive as making something UPF?

Being a UPF decreases its subjective "nutritional value" but increases its calorie content, or something. (I don't think it does, as such, but it may change the bioavailability of the calories.)

I think it's more to do with the way it's made rather than what's in it, but the presence of certain ingredients is taken as a proxy for the manufacturing process. And then of course people forget that and get all excited about the ingredients themselves.

[Sciolus]

I think it's more to do with the way it's made rather than what's in it, but the presence of certain ingredients is taken as a proxy for the manufacturing process. And then of course people forget that and get all excited about the ingredients themselves.

Yes: colourings are often added because the processing destroys or damages the natural colours of the ingredients. If it's damaging the colour molecules, is it also damaging more nutritionally important compounds? It seems plausible. Similarly, if you need to adds gums and suchlike to recover the natural texture, what are you doing to the macrostructure of the ingredients and does it affect the molecular composition or compounds' bioavailability?

[hakwright]

Shameless grifting from the guardian https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... ou-can-buy

That's totally confused me. I assumed UPF meant they had undergone a number of processes that reduce their nutritional value. Yet this article seems to class including an [approved] additive as making something UPF?

Being a UPF decreases its subjective "nutritional value" but increases its calorie content, or something. (I don't think it does, as such, but it may change the bioavailability of the calories.)

I think it's more to do with the way it's made rather than what's in it, but the presence of certain ingredients is taken as a proxy for the manufacturing process. And then of course people forget that and get all excited about the ingredients themselves.

It's worth pointing out that the Guardian article "25 of the healthiest UPF items" is confused garbage. Most of the things on the list are not in fact UPF. That's why the article headline has now been changed, and an apology/update note added at the bottom.

It's also worth reminding people that the definitions of UPF (by the NOVA group) were not made on the basis of nutritional qualities or health impacts of food items. They are cultural and socio-political definitions ("we think food should be made like this, not like that").

As already commented, the way UPF items are identified is via the ingredients (with the presence of some ingredients supposedly acting as a proxy for food processing techniques). If an item contains one or more of the documented "problem ingredients" the food is categorised UPF. It doesn't matter how much of the "problem" ingredient it contains (1mg or 1g - it's all the same!), and it doesn't matter whether it contains 1 or many "problem" ingredients.

Hence you end up with completely bizarre UPF items like golden syrup (invert sugar = UPF), red leicester cheese (colour) or perfectly good bread that happens to have some gluten added to it. Yes, I know!

The UPF concept as it stands is highly flawed, inconsistent, poorly understood and not based on meaningful health/nutritional qualities. It's an OK way to help sell podcasts and books I guess, but not good for much else.

If there is a move to identifying specific ingredients (preservatives, emulsifiers, colourings) and assessing health impacts of these, that would be infinitely more useful.

Howard

[shpalman]

Chris van Tulleken finds it confusing too.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/art ... t-analysis

[shpalman]

Dietitian eats ultra-processed food for a month, feels better [pulptastic clickbait article]

Dietician Jessica Wilson questioned why an ‘entire category of foods’ should be avoided. To explore this, she decided to consume at least 80 percent of her daily calories from ultra-processed foods for one month.

In response to Dr. Christoffer van Tulleken’s similar experiment, Wilson posted on Instagram [link to Instagram], emphasizing that the strong stance against ultra-processed foods is ‘clearly about race, class, and access’.

...

TIME [link to TIME article which I haven't read yet] reports Wilson opted for soy chorizo instead of eggs as an example of an ultra-processed breakfast.

For lunch, she chose ready-to-eat tamales from Trader Joe’s instead of something like beans with avocado and hot sauce.

Her snacks included cashew-nut yogurt with jam, and dinners sometimes consisted of chicken sausages with vegetables and Tater-Tots or Costco pupusas.

...

In an Instagram post, Wilson shared that she ‘surprisingly felt better’ after just ‘two weeks’ of the diet.

“At the end of my meal I have no idea what my hunger hormones were doing but it was great not to be hungry in an hour and to go longer periods without having to forage for food,” she said.

She believes she wasn’t ‘eating enough’ before starting her ultra-processed food diet.

Despite various studies linking high ultra-processed food intake to increased anxiety and depression, Wilson told TIME she felt less anxious and more energized, to the point where she didn’t need as much coffee.

...

Wilson encourages people to consider ‘the reasons a high UPF diet could be beneficial for someone living in late stage capitalism and the options out there outside of the stereotypical McDonald’s and soda?’

Maybe the article should have been "dietician had sh.tty diet".

[shpalman]

From the TIME article:

Wilson found that she had more energy and less anxiety. She didn’t need as much coffee to get through the day and felt more motivated. She felt better eating an ultra-processed diet than she had before, a change she attributes to taking in more calories by eating full meals, instead of haphazard combinations of whole-food ingredients.

The most widely used food-classification system, known as NOVA... defines an unprocessed food as one that comes directly from a plant or animal, like a fresh-picked apple. A minimally processed food may have undergone a procedure like cleaning, freezing, or drying, but hasn’t been much altered from its original form. Examples include eggs, whole grains, some frozen produce, and milk.

Under NOVA, a processed food contains added ingredients to make it taste better or last longer, such as many canned products, cured meats, and cheeses. An ultra-processed food, meanwhile, is made largely or entirely from oils, sugars, starches, and ingredients you wouldn’t buy yourself at the grocery store—things like hydrogenated fats, emulsifiers, flavor enhancers, and other additives. Everything from packaged cookies to flavored yogurt to baby formula fits that description.

“You end up with a system where gummy bears and canned kidney beans” aren’t treated so differently, says Julie Hess, a research nutritionist with the USDA. At the end of the day, they’re both processed.

Well and at the end of the day they're both foods too. Are the beans ultra processed? I note that the kidney beans I have, which are in cartons rather than cans, have the following ingredient list: rehydrated dried beans, water, salt, calcium chloride, ascorbic acid.

... a category that includes everything from vegan meat replacements and nondairy milks to potato chips and candy. “How can this entire category of foods be something we’re supposed to avoid?” Wilson wondered.

Well you could eat actual meat and real milk, for a start, and obviously cut out the crisps and sweets.

[dyqik]

You could eat the actual meat, if you wanted to be less healthy.

[lpm]

Sounds like a caffeine problem that was inadvertently fixed. Who the hell writes "didn't need as much coffee to get through the day" without figuring it out.

[Martin_B]

Sounds like a caffeine problem that was inadvertently fixed. Who the hell writes "didn't need as much coffee to get through the day" without figuring it out.

Someone who needs more caffeine?

[IvanV]

Wilson opted for soy chorizo instead of eggs as an example of an ultra-processed breakfast.

For lunch, she chose ready-to-eat tamales from Trader Joe’s instead of something like beans with avocado and hot sauce.

Her snacks included cashew-nut yogurt with jam, and dinners sometimes consisted of chicken sausages with vegetables and Tater-Tots or Costco pupusas.

This sounds like a pretty healthy diet.

Having fake chorizo made out of soy bean is probably pretty healthy, probably healthier than chorizo. Dried beans need a lot of processing anyway to be edible. Soy protein is ultra-processed, but I wouldn't suspect it is particularly bad for you, at all.

Tamale is pap made from nixtamalised corn, so even the normal version is pretty heavily processed as nixtamalising involves soaking the corn in a caustic chemical. I doubt the ready-made version is so much more ultra-processed.

Chicken sausages. Sausages come in different qualities. The Richmond sausage is a long way from an artisan butcher's sausage. And chicken would be better for you than pork.

I've never heard of Tater-Tots. But read that it is croquettes made from grated potato and flavourings, and deep-fried, typically sold to people frozen to heat up. So in the same category of bad-for-you as potato crisps. Probably the only think in the diet that is actually not very good for you. But to have a bit of such a thing as part of a varied diet is fine.

It illustrates the clear situation that there is ultra-processed and ultra-processed.

[shpalman]

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... t-you-love

Still on about it.

[Woodchopper]

Dr. Mattei and her colleagues published one of the largest and longest studies on ultraprocessed foods and heart health to date. In it, they analyzed the risks of consuming these foods, and teased out the worst offenders.

The new study, published in a Lancet journal, included more than 200,000 adults in the United States. They filled out detailed diet questionnaires beginning in the 1980s and early 1990s, and completed them again every two to four years for about 30 years.

[…]

After adjusting for risk factors like smoking, family health history, sleep and exercise, the researchers found that those who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods were 11 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 16 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease during the study period, compared with those who consumed the least ultraprocessed foods. The highest consumers also had a slightly, but not significantly, elevated risk of stroke.

The researchers also combined their findings with those from 19 other studies, for a separate analysis of about 1.25 million adults. They found that those who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods were 17 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, 23 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease and 9 percent more likely to have a stroke compared with the lowest consumers.

The study’s size and the regular checks on participants’ diets made it “one of the most robust studies” of this question, said Niyati Parekh, a professor of public health nutrition at New York University.

[…]

The researchers also analyzed whether certain types of ultraprocessed foods were more associated with cardiovascular disease than others.

[…]

Of the 10 ultraprocessed food categories they looked at, two were clearly associated with greater risk: sugar-sweetened drinks (like soda and fruit punch) and processed meat, poultry and fish (like bacon, hot dogs, breaded fish products, chicken sausages and salami sandwiches).

When these two categories were excluded from the data, most of the risk associated with ultraprocessed food consumption disappeared, said Kenny Mendoza, a postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the analysis.

Some types of ultraprocessed foods, on the other hand, were associated with reduced risks for cardiovascular disease. These included breakfast cereals; sweetened and flavored yogurts, frozen yogurts and ice cream; and savory snacks like packaged popcorn and crackers.

These results track with previous studies, which have also suggested that processed meats and sweet drinks are the most harmful types of ultraprocessed foods. And some past research has found that breads, cereals and yogurts are associated with no risk or reduced risk, said Maya Vadiveloo, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island.

The differences between the “good guys” and the “bad guys” may come down to how they’re processed and what they offer nutritionally, Dr. Mendoza said.

Processed meats, for example, tend to be high in sodium and saturated fats, and sodas and other sweet drinks are often high in sugar. Whereas whole grain cereals and breads, even those that are ultraprocessed, can provide valuable nutrients such as fiber, minerals and B vitamins, Dr. Mendoza said.

Dr. Mattei likened scientists’ current understanding of ultraprocessed foods to their knowledge of fats several decades ago. It took time, she said, to figure out which types of fats were harmful and which were not. This study and future research may help to untangle those same questions with ultraprocessed foods, she added.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/well ... study.html

Link to the journal article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3X24001868

[bob sterman]

Errr...a rather significant problem with the journalist's report here...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/09/05/well ... study.html

Of the 10 ultraprocessed food categories they looked at, two were clearly associated with greater risk: sugar-sweetened drinks (like soda and fruit punch) and processed meat, poultry and fish (like bacon, hot dogs, breaded fish products, chicken sausages and salami sandwiches).

When these two categories were excluded from the data, most of the risk associated with ultraprocessed food consumption disappeared, said Kenny Mendoza, a postdoctoral researcher at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, who led the analysis.

Some types of ultraprocessed foods, on the other hand, were associated with reduced risks for cardiovascular disease. These included breakfast cereals; sweetened and flavored yogurts, frozen yogurts and ice cream; and savory snacks like packaged popcorn and crackers.

Many "processed meats" do not even fall into the NOVA Ultra-processed food group category!!! The authors of the original study didn't call them "ultra-processed" - they called these "processed".

Salted, dried, smoked or cured meat or fish, bacon and even beef jerky are all "Group 3: Processed" - not UPF.

So you've got a study showing some non-UPFs (processed meats) being associated with poorer health and some UPFs (cereals and savoury snacks) being associated with better health.

Just emphasises how unhelpful the NOVA categorisation (UPF) can be.

[shpalman]

I notice also that they talk about sugar-sweetened drinks when Chris van Tulleken likes to start off by talking about artificially sweetened diet coke.

[nekomatic]

Oh no toddlers in the UK obtain almost half of their calories from ultra-processed foods (article has link to original open access paper; UPF by Nova classification)

[bob sterman]

Oh no toddlers in the UK obtain almost half of their calories from ultra-processed foods (article has link to original open access paper; UPF by Nova classification)

Easily fixed - just need to replace some of that UPF with bacon and beef jerky. A bit chewy - but at least they're not UPF.