Tim Spector?

[Boustrophedon]

Been introduced to Tim Spector by a relative, Mr Spector seems to have a diet, with books to sell, TV appearances and a podcast. I have not come across him before.
Is Mr Spector just another phoney nutritionist with a diet and glib glossy paperbacks to sell? Or is he the real deal; a bona fide scientist with evidence backed advice, with glossy paperbacks to sell?

[IvanV]

This is the ZOE diet that is advertised everywhere just now. Includes some pin prick blood test from which an oracle will tell you what to eat.

As far as I can see, Mr Spector seems to have followed a similar career path to Michael Mosley. He started off being a a respectable epidemiologist. He wrote some fairly sensible stuff about eating, including a 2015 book called The Diet Myth, which seems to say the usual stuff - lots of what you read is bollocks, and the sensible thing to do is eat a varied high-fibre diet with lots of fresh fruit and veg.

He has written about the folly of fad diets.

But now he's promoting a diet. For all I know maybe what the Zoe thing does is support you to have a varied high fibre diet, because maybe some people need to be told what to eat or they'll fall back to gorging themselves on ultra-processed convenience food.

[Boustrophedon]

Thanks, that's very helpful.

[bob sterman]

Tim Spector - "making people feel weird about food" for £299 (then £24.99 for 12 months)...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/zoe-nutrition-apps

[discovolante]

Tim Spector - "making people feel weird about food" for £299 (then £24.99 for 12 months)...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/zoe-nutrition-apps

Always good to see medical devices being used for non-medical purposes.

[Gfamily]

Now getting criticised for 'advice' not to use factor 50 Sunblock all year round
https://www.theguardian.com/society/art ... -sunscreen

Proposition is that Vitamin D may be protective against cancer (in mice) and that factor 50 may reduce vitamin D production.

[bob sterman]

I see Spector has history for campaigning against the sinister forces of big sun cream manufacturers.

Maybe he's worried the cream will interfere with continuous glucose monitors attached to the skin?

[shpalman]

Tim Spector - "making people feel weird about food" for £299 (then £24.99 for 12 months)...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/zoe-nutrition-apps

Always good to see medical devices being used for non-medical purposes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/art ... ss-science

[Tessa K]

Tim Spector - "making people feel weird about food" for £299 (then £24.99 for 12 months)...

https://www.wired.co.uk/article/zoe-nutrition-apps

Always good to see medical devices being used for non-medical purposes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/art ... ss-science

Good article.

If you're going to spend that much money why not see a clinical dietitian? I guess being told to eat a balanced diet doesn't make them feel smug and special. Paying that much attention to what you eat is verging on an eating disorder.

[discovolante]

Always good to see medical devices being used for non-medical purposes.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/art ... ss-science

Good article.

If you're going to spend that much money why not see a clinical dietitian? I guess being told to eat a balanced diet doesn't make them feel smug and special. Paying that much attention to what you eat is verging on an eating disorder.

And even if it doesn't go that far, it's also just stressful.

The glucose monitor has been great for my dad, who has type 1 diabetes. I think if I wore one I'd get extremely hypersensitive to every little change and probably imagine that I'm feeling the variations in my blood sugar levels a lot more than I actually am.

[bob sterman]

I recall a few years ago - antioxidants were supposedly going to prevent loads of diseases - as oxidative stress was causing everything. Until antioxidant treatments for neurodegenerative diseases turned out to be disappointing - and some antioxidant vitamins seemed to make lung cancer worse.

Now it seems that fixing your microbiome is going to prevent loads of diseases - and conveniently you can't fix it without testing the effects using expensive gadgets.

Just need to forget that massive gains in life expectancy during the 20th century all took place when we were wrecking our microbiomes with excessive antibiotic usage, white bread and diet sodas.

[shpalman]

I recall a few years ago - antioxidants were supposedly going to prevent loads of diseases - as oxidative stress was causing everything. Until antioxidant treatments for neurodegenerative diseases turned out to be disappointing - and some antioxidant vitamins seemed to make lung cancer worse.

Now it seems that fixing your microbiome is going to prevent loads of diseases - and conveniently you can't fix it without testing the effects using expensive gadgets.

Just need to forget that massive gains in life expectancy during the 20th century all took place when we were wrecking our microbiomes with excessive antibiotic usage, white bread and diet sodas.

Well on the one hand people are looking for all sorts of things to blame for rising levels of obesity and the associated poor health outcomes while self-reporting that they aren't eating more, but I do also think that some kinds of diet make it difficult to not eat too many calories and part of that may be what happens to gut bacteria.

The appification/gamification leverages/monetises the known effect that the best intervention for reducing weight in cases of mild overweight is to keep a food diary. Some people can't even be bothered to use a free app for that. Maybe if they're spending money they'll feel more motivated.

[bjn]

Apparently there has been a trial as to the efficacy of the ZOE thing. It doesn’t appear to have been carried out particularly well. Things like not even a vague attempt to blind the trial.

https://drguess.substack.com/p/my-kingd ... trol-group

[Tessa K]

I recall a few years ago - antioxidants were supposedly going to prevent loads of diseases - as oxidative stress was causing everything. Until antioxidant treatments for neurodegenerative diseases turned out to be disappointing - and some antioxidant vitamins seemed to make lung cancer worse.

Now it seems that fixing your microbiome is going to prevent loads of diseases - and conveniently you can't fix it without testing the effects using expensive gadgets.

Just need to forget that massive gains in life expectancy during the 20th century all took place when we were wrecking our microbiomes with excessive antibiotic usage, white bread and diet sodas.

Well on the one hand people are looking for all sorts of things to blame for rising levels of obesity and the associated poor health outcomes while self-reporting that they aren't eating more, but I do also think that some kinds of diet make it difficult to not eat too many calories and part of that may be what happens to gut bacteria.

The appification/gamification leverages/monetises the known effect that the best intervention for reducing weight in cases of mild overweight is to keep a food diary. Some people can't even be bothered to use a free app for that. Maybe if they're spending money they'll feel more motivated.

It is possible that people will be more motivated if it's costing them but the main problem with weight loss is not the initial loss it's sustainability. Many diets, however faddy, work short term. The problem is that they don't change people's relationship with food. Another problem is that fast weight loss means the body will try to put the weight back on once the diet ends. Or that people start off well but slip back into bad habits.

I did some work with someone doing a PhD into barriers to change a few years ago. These are cultural as well as psychological.

So while the app may work short term (or long term for a few determined individuals), for the majority this is just yet another fad diet.

[jimbob]

https://archive.is/2025.05.21-061727/ht ... processed/

Turned into a grifter

[Fishnut]

https://archive.is/2025.05.21-061727/ht ... processed/

Turned into a grifter

link doesn't work for me

[Sciolus]

It's more about the nonsensical notion of UPF.

“Nutritional yeast was manufactured, and chicory root inulin was extracted using an industrial process. For the latter, the extraction process included slicing and steeping, purification using carbonated water as well as evaporation, partial enzymatic hydrolysis (adding of enzymes) and filtration,” its ruling said.

which apparently means it's ultra-processed, which the ASA seem to consider to mean “more than a minimal level of processing”. At the same time, the ASA says that it isn't UFP under the NOVA definition. The ASA tried to guess what the public might think a nonsense term means and reached a nonsense decision.
Ruling is here.

[bob sterman]

https://archive.is/2025.05.21-061727/ht ... processed/

Turned into a grifter

Lot of money to be made from the affluent worried well.

Quite amusing really - he was quite happy with the ridiculously inconsistent and poorly defined concept of UPFs when trying to sell his expensive diet monitoring subscription plans (https://zoe.com/learn/what-is-ultra-processed-food). But the concept has come back to bite him (although I understand ASA weren't following NOVA).

Following his earlier guidance to avoid UPFs - I shall shun his UPF supplement and get stuck into more beef jerky, beer, salted and sugared nuts, cured ham (all merely NOVA group 3 "processed").

[hakwright]

https://archive.is/2025.05.21-061727/ht ... processed/

Turned into a grifter

Following his earlier guidance to avoid UPFs - I shall shun his UPF supplement and get stuck into more beef jerky, beer, salted and sugared nuts, cured ham (all merely NOVA group 3 "processed").

A lot of beef jerky, and some ham will be UPF (NOVA group 4). Most jerky I looked up has "flavouring", which makes it UPF. And leaving prosciuto and serrano style dry-cured hams to the side, quite a few cured and cooked hams show up as UPF (as they contain one or more things like glucose, dextrose, flavouring, colour or other E numbers). There are a fair number of hams that are not UPF (if you really care, I don't), but you would need to check ingredients.

[bob sterman]

https://archive.is/2025.05.21-061727/ht ... processed/

Turned into a grifter

Following his earlier guidance to avoid UPFs - I shall shun his UPF supplement and get stuck into more beef jerky, beer, salted and sugared nuts, cured ham (all merely NOVA group 3 "processed").

A lot of beef jerky, and some ham will be UPF (NOVA group 4). Most jerky I looked up has "flavouring", which makes it UPF. And leaving prosciuto and serrano style dry-cured hams to the side, quite a few cured and cooked hams show up as UPF (as they contain one or more things like glucose, dextrose, flavouring, colour or other E numbers). There are a fair number of hams that are not UPF (if you really care, I don't), but you would need to check ingredients.

A lot will still be eligible for Group 3 "processed" depending on what is added.

To quote Carlos Monteiro et al - the people who devised NOVA (https://www.worldnutritionjournal.org/i ... cle/view/5)...

Group 3 Processed Foods

The third NOVA group is of processed foods. These are relatively simple products made by adding sugar, oil, salt or other group 2 substances to group 1 foods. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients. Processes include various preservation or cooking methods, and, in the case of breads and cheese, non-alcoholic fermentation.

The main purpose of the manufacture of processed foods is to increase the durability of group 1 foods, or to modify or enhance their sensory qualities.

Typical examples of processed foods are canned or bottled vegetables, fruits and legumes; salted or sugared nuts and seeds; salted, cured, or smoked meats; canned fish; fruits in syrup; cheeses and unpackaged freshly made breads.

Processed foods may contain additives used to preserve their original properties or to resist microbial contamination. Examples are fruits in syrup with added anti-oxidants, and dried salted meats with added preservatives.

When alcoholic drinks are identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods such as beer, cider and wine, are classified here in Group 3.

So some preservatives and antioxidants does not necessarily mean a UPF.

[hakwright]

Following his earlier guidance to avoid UPFs - I shall shun his UPF supplement and get stuck into more beef jerky, beer, salted and sugared nuts, cured ham (all merely NOVA group 3 "processed").

A lot of beef jerky, and some ham will be UPF (NOVA group 4). Most jerky I looked up has "flavouring", which makes it UPF. And leaving prosciuto and serrano style dry-cured hams to the side, quite a few cured and cooked hams show up as UPF (as they contain one or more things like glucose, dextrose, flavouring, colour or other E numbers). There are a fair number of hams that are not UPF (if you really care, I don't), but you would need to check ingredients.

A lot will still be eligible for Group 3 "processed" depending on what is added.

To quote Carlos Monteiro et al - the people who devised NOVA (https://www.worldnutritionjournal.org/i ... cle/view/5)...

Group 3 Processed Foods

The third NOVA group is of processed foods. These are relatively simple products made by adding sugar, oil, salt or other group 2 substances to group 1 foods. Most processed foods have two or three ingredients. Processes include various preservation or cooking methods, and, in the case of breads and cheese, non-alcoholic fermentation.

The main purpose of the manufacture of processed foods is to increase the durability of group 1 foods, or to modify or enhance their sensory qualities.

Typical examples of processed foods are canned or bottled vegetables, fruits and legumes; salted or sugared nuts and seeds; salted, cured, or smoked meats; canned fish; fruits in syrup; cheeses and unpackaged freshly made breads.

Processed foods may contain additives used to preserve their original properties or to resist microbial contamination. Examples are fruits in syrup with added anti-oxidants, and dried salted meats with added preservatives.

When alcoholic drinks are identified as foods, those produced by fermentation of group 1 foods such as beer, cider and wine, are classified here in Group 3.

So some preservatives and antioxidants does not necessarily mean a UPF.

Sure, but the ingredients I mentioned - flavouring, dextrose, glucose, colouring - will all make a food item UPF. And most of the jerky I checked, along with quite a lot of the hams, contained one or more of these.

The bottom line for me is that the UPF definitions are crap. They are vague, inconsistent, subjective and not based on evidence. They are a set of guidelines that try to define a food category based on somebody's personal whims. So as most people find, getting any understanding of which food items are UPF is a confusing minefield.

One thing I see very often in articles on UPF is the claim that UPFs are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. I've never seen any evidence to back this up, but the claim keeps getting repeated as if it's based on solid evidence. If anybody has any evidence or studies that support this claim I'd be really interested in links.

[Tessa K]

thing I see very often in articles on UPF is the claim that UPFs are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. I've never seen any evidence to back this up, but the claim keeps getting repeated as if it's based on solid evidence. If anybody has any evidence or studies that support this claim I'd be really interested in links.

It looks like sometimes there's some confusion between UPF and ready meals which are often high in all three (but not always).

[shpalman]

... the ingredients I mentioned - flavouring, dextrose, glucose, colouring - will all make a food item UPF. And most of the jerky I checked, along with quite a lot of the hams, contained one or more of these.

The bottom line for me is that the UPF definitions are crap. They are vague, inconsistent, subjective and not based on evidence. They are a set of guidelines that try to define a food category based on somebody's personal whims. So as most people find, getting any understanding of which food items are UPF is a confusing minefield.

One thing I see very often in articles on UPF is the claim that UPFs are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fat. I've never seen any evidence to back this up, but the claim keeps getting repeated as if it's based on solid evidence. If anybody has any evidence or studies that support this claim I'd be really interested in links.

The ingredients themselves aren't necessarily what makes a food item a UPF, but they're taken as a proxy for it, because the label doesn't tend to indicate the actual industrial processing/manufacturing procedures.

As for the salt, sugar, and saturated fat content, that nutritional information is on the label.

But there can't be a rigid definition of a UPF. There isn't really a rigid definition of "healthy" or "unhealthy" food either, is there?

(At least I've stopped seeing the stupid word "healthful".)

My viewpoint is that a lot of the supposed health problems associated with food would go away if we stopped relying on people's self-reported intakes.

[Tessa K]

Or if they just ate as much fresh fruit and veg as they can afford to.

[shpalman]

Or if they just ate as much fresh fruit and veg as they can afford to.

I'm not sure if even I manage 5 a day. Maybe 3-4.

I'm not sure where I stand on the "whole foods" thing but I think we know that sugar hits different if it arrives in a piece of fruit or a piece of cake, and vitamins hit different if they arrive in food or tablets.