10 ms·

Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

70 points by smn1234 4y ago

photochemsyn 4y ago
There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits. The only downside is that relying only on 'real food' ingredients requires a fair amount of cooking, but the effort is well worth the payback. There's no snappy one-word term for this dietary choice, maybe someone could come up with one.
- oh_my_goodness 4y ago
  I've heard "Eat food. Not too much." as a slogan for this.
  - jonah 4y ago
    The full quote is: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” ― Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...
- omginternets 4y ago
  Incidentally, I think this is also why many extreme diets seem to have some evidence in favor of their health benefits. From where I'm standing, it seems like veganism/paleo/etc start being linked to various problems right around the time the agro industry starts cranking out specialized (read: highly-processed) products. Relatedly: I'm taking bets regarding lab-grown meat.
  - garettmd 4y ago
    Which direction are you betting on lab-grown meats?
    - omginternets 4y ago
      I'm betting they go in the same direction as margarine.
      - drooby 4y ago
        Does Meati change your mind? This startup is growing a specific species of fungus that is high protein and vitamin rich. I haven’t tried it but reviews so far are saying it cooks, tastes and feels like meat.
        omginternets 4y ago
        That's not exactly lab-grown meat. But to your question, it's hard to take bets on individual things, so I'll answer this way: I'll bet against anything lab-grown or highly processed (Meati included), and I expect to make money on average. Time will tell :)
        drooby 4y ago
        How is it highly processed? They are mass producing a naturally growing fungus, not unlike farming mushrooms. They seem to be adding some seasonings and sodium before packaging but thats not "processing" exactly.
        omginternets 4y ago
        It's transformed from its naturally-occurring aspect into something resembling the texture of meat. That is processing. I suspect that it's also a non-trivial amount of processing, but I could be wrong. Contrast this with grabbing a handful of chanterelles and putting them in a bag.
- drooby 4y ago
  I believe a Whole-Food Diet is the term for a non-processed diet.
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  > There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits. What has you convinced? I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm curious if you're relying on anything more than intuition. I don't think intuition is worthless, for whatever it's worth. Seems like a pretty common-sense idea that non-fresh foods could have adverse effects. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major factor in increased rates of cancer, which is surely a combination of many mild factors that accumulate over a long period of time.
pessimizer 4y ago
> “People need to know they should cook more and prepare their own food from scratch. I know. We say we don’t have time but it really doesn’t take that much time,” Suemoto said. This is bullshit in a very important way: you have to know how to cook. Bring back home economics classes.
- mjburgess 4y ago
  I think that required housewives. We're missing a full day's domestic labour.
  - omginternets 4y ago
    Nah. I work long hours and still find time to cook. Dinner takes about 15 mins to prepare, on average. I think the issue has more to do with people not knowing how to cook things that are both simple and nutritious. I really feel for people who are trying to learn; every beginner's cookbook is full of things that require specific ingredients, complicated prep work, or a shit-ton of chopping. I've toyed around with the idea of writing a cookbook of my own, but _that_ is something I truly do not have time for. Ah well :/
    - picture 4y ago
      Have you come across any good (or, better,) cookbooks or resources for simple and nutritious food? I'm about to go to college so it would be a great help
      - omginternets 4y ago
        I have heard good things about Tim Ferriss' The Four Hour Chef, though I have not read it myself. What I like about it is that it seems to focus on the process of cooking, rather than giving you a list of recipes. It's about turning you into "someone who cooks" rather than documenting such and such recipe. The rules of thumb, which I am paraphrasing from secondhand discussions about the book, are as follows: 1. Buy good ingredients. 2. Taste and smell as you go. 3. Herbs and spices are your friends. 4. Don't overcook. I agree with all of them. Here's the thing: cooking is a skill, like juggling or programming. Just knowing all the rules (techne) doesn't suffice to actually perform the act. You need to spend some time applying the principles to concrete situations (metis). The good news is that if you follow the above rules, you'll basically never make something inedible. Another tip I can give you is to get familiar with substitution ingredients. Don't have any sour cream? Yogurt is probably fine. Now, in direct contradiction with what I've been saying so far, let me share with you one of my favorite recipes that got me through my PhD. Cooking time: 10 mins. INGREDIENTS: 1. 1 or two whole leeks, depending on how hungry you are 2. Sour cream (or whatever) 3. Bacon (or lardons, if you can find them, but seriously... whatever) 4. White wine (optional, but _really_ makes a difference. Prefer dry wine, but whatever.) PREP: 1. Cut your leek in 1cm rings. Throw away the dark green part. COOKING: 1. Cook your bacon until crispy, then crumble it and set it aside. 2. While the bacon is cooking, put some butter in a pan and cook your leeks until they're soft and slightly translucid (kinda like you would cook an onion). Don't sweat it; it's hard to fuck up. 3. Add bacon and sour cream. Stir. 4. Add white wine. Stir until you're happy with the consistency Boom. Done. Keeps well in the fridge, to boot.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
dvh 4y ago
Is there an official scale of processednes? NVM found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food
omarhaneef 4y ago
I wish I knew what was ultraprocessed. > "Ultraprocessed foods are defined as "industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," according to the study. But if I have a package that says it is whole grain or whatever, how do I know if it is or isn't ultraprocessed or just, you know, regular processed?
- arnejenssen 4y ago
  The sorry state is that a chain is not stronger than the weakest link. And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives. Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup. It is more important to avoid the bad anti-nutrients than to eat a particular food for a certain "miracle" nutrient.
  - cortesoft 4y ago
    > And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives. This can't be true in an absolute sense. There is no way that adding a single drop of high fructose corn syrup to a meal would completely ruin any health benefits of the rest of the meal. There is also no way that adding a bit of corn syrup to a plate of broccoli would be equally as unhealthy for you as a bowl of lucky charms. Obviously the mix of ingredients matters. Where do you get the idea that a single bad ingredient ruins the entire food?
    - arnejenssen 4y ago
      Sorry. You are right. The amounts matter as well. My bad.
  - positr0n 4y ago
    > Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup. Would a granola bar sweetened with the exact same number of sucrose/fructose molecules from organic coconut sugar (or palm sugar, or date juice, etc) be any more healthy? I currently do not believe it would be. Sugar is sugar. But I'm not 100% sure.
wolfi1 4y ago
if you put the cut potatoes yourself in the deep fryer I guess that that wouldn't be that beneficial
4pkjai 4y ago
I think I sort of know what they are, but a definition of "ultra-processed" foods would be good.
- criddell 4y ago
  The article says they are “industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives”. I take that to mean milk may be a whole food, yogurt might be a processed food, and spray cheese in a can would be ultra-processed.
rendang 4y ago
As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later. What would prevent us from doing a study like this: take 1000 diverse subjects, assign each of them a lab assistant, and for 2+ years, diligently track everything they eat, their exercise, sleep, etc. You could pay each participant and staff $100k/each, and the cost would be on the order of $400MM. May not be epistemologically perfect given that people change their behavior when observed, but still superior to plenty of the stuff getting published now, and likely the knowledge gained for humankind would be worth many billions.
- sideshowb 4y ago
  What you describe is still an observational study, just a very expensive one now. It's still quite possible you'd fail to measure something important you hadn't thought of. Better to spend some of that budget instead on a randomised controlled trial but there are likely issues with getting people to follow their prescribed diets to the letter
- vkk8 4y ago
  > As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later. On my peak fitness enthusiasm I kept a rigorous food diary for some time and it was such a pain in the ass that I don't believe for a second that food diaries coming from people who are not 100% committed and interested in keeping one are accurate at all. People would often forget to log small snacks they have, or estimate portion sizes completely wrong, or neglect logging sauces, oils, condiments, etc.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  What do you think you could learn from such an expensive study? It seems too short and unfocused to learn anything meaningful.
  - rendang 4y ago
    Really? I would think weight loss, inflammation, and psychological health measures would at least be affected on a timescale of a couple years, if not risks for things like cancer and heart disease.
mjevans 4y ago
I'd like to hear more about the study design / quality of the science. How are they correcting for correlation between the ability to afford the more money-expensive or more time-expensive ends of rich people with experts that cook for them, and health nuts (or suffers of seriously annoying allergies) that cook for themselves even though it's more time expensive?
allturtles 4y ago
I'm always pretty skeptical of correlative nutrition science studies, and this one is no different. I would posit that anyone who studies "ultraprocessed" foods is unlikely to ever release a study showing they are good for you. The very category of ultraprocessed foods was invented to be a "bad-for-you" food category, and so the research program is "find more evidence that they are bad." Categorizing food based on whether it's industrial or home-made may be a useful heuristic for lifestyle choices, but it seems unlikely to me to be useful for getting a deep understanding of nutrition and health.
Animats 4y ago
It's not clear that "ultraprocessed" is the issue. The article says "they are usually very high in sugar, salt and fat". Too much salt and sugar are known to be problems. That has nothing to do with processing. Although it does have to do with what will sell. The author has a "natural" bias.
- helmholtz 4y ago
  This seems like unnecessary nitpicking. What would you say are examples of ultraprocessed food that's not full of salt, sugar and fat?
  - nonethewiser 4y ago
    That misses his point. You can have too much sugar/salt/fat without eating a single "ultra" processed food. So if the root of the problem is sugar/salt/fat it doesn't simply follow that "ultra" processed food is the problem.
  - tootie 4y ago
    The point here is that they are essentially defining "ultraprocessed" as being full of salt, fat and sugar. I can go buy a frozen pizza at Trader Joe's that contains organic flour, yeast, tomatoes and cheese. Nutritionally identical to what I'd make at home. I can also grind sugar cane and wheat berries and churn butter in my kitchen to make a cake that is just as unhealthy as a Twinkie.
- giantg2 4y ago
  Well... salt is generally used to preserve texture and flavor. At least that's from my canning background. It's possible to reduce some salt, but really depends. There's emerging evidence that consuming potassium with salt tends to reduce the negative effects of higher salt intake. Basically, that many of the prior sodium studies ignored the sodium/potassium balance. Of course you could still have too much sodium while staying in balance, but just thought that's worth pointing out. If nothing else, it illustrates how complex it nutrition science can be, and how much we still have to learn (or at least dispel popular half-truths).
- 4y ago
xchaotic 4y ago
I (and other) call Bs on classifying something as processed or ultra processed as inherently bad. Baby formulas, workout premixes, and also home cooking are all forms of processed food. It’s what you put in it and also at what ratio is what matters most. If you get processed food that has all the good oils and fiber and proteins like YFood or Soylent that’s actually more healthy than say eating “unprocessed” fried potatoes for example.
giantg2 4y ago
"...typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," I'm thinking it's probably relates to all the additives in foods today. I would love to see some sort of study comparing these commercially processed foods containing additives to more traditional processing (like my grandparents eating tons of homecanned and home processed foods).
colordrops 4y ago
It would help if the exact factors that cause health issues in ultra-processed foods could be identified. "Ultra-processed" is too crude a heuristic. sugar and fat? refined seed oil? calorie density? Food coloring and other toxic ingredients?
mattmcknight 4y ago
Whenever I see any nutrition article like this, I am extremely skeptical. The definition of "ultra-processed" is completely arbitrary as I read it [1]. The control diet is generally worse on non-processing related attributes. The processing angle really only serves to confuse the nutrition debate as the attributes of ultra-processed food (excess sugar, use of partially hydrogenated oils) are already well established health risks. By putting things in the context of the processing, it ignores the possibility of processed foods that avoid these ingredients. By limiting the processing concern to an arbitrary definition of ultra-processing, actual causes might be left uncovered, while non-causes are left in. Whey protein, which I know many very healthy people eat, is considered ultra-processed. Meanwhile, pasta is considered merely processed, while if the pasta is ready to eat, it is ultra-processed. This distinction doesn't seem to be a useful way to make intelligent decisions, and is simply a spurious correlation actually caused by the food ingredients, or just some side effect of people eating less when food isn't ready-made, because they have to do more work to consume it... [1] https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5644EN/ https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5644EN/
- linsomniac 4y ago
  Ultra processed foods are defined by the "NOVA" classification system. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova
  - mattmcknight 4y ago
    Yes, the definition is at the link I posted. I find it arbitrary.
- Bancakes 4y ago
  Your body doesn't need ultra processed foods. It hasn't evolved to needing them. It has, in fact, evolved to surviving well on food within the horizon. If you don't drink protein shakes, you will get as big as nature intended for your natural diet and genetics. Cutting out ultra processed foods because they are not part of our evolutionary diet allows us to omit six or seven figures worth of grant money for science we don't need. Saves time for readers, too.
jhot 4y ago
Sounds similar to this paper [0] that compared the types of dietary fats eaten with cognitive decline in adults 65+. "higher intakes of saturated fat (p for trend = 0.04) and trans-unsaturated fat (p for trend = 0.07) were linearly associated with greater decline in cognitive score over 6 years. These associations became stronger in analyses that eliminated persons whose fat intake changed in recent years or whose baseline cognitive scores were in the lowest 15%." I, for one, am hoping it's largely to do with cheap, high-calorie ingredients and not to do with actually processing as I'm a big fan of Soylent (largely monounsaturated fats FYI) for its convenience and it doesn't get much more "processed" than that. 0 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15136684/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15136684/
EricE 4y ago
One of the best thing about the "meal in a box" companies is they remove a lot of the friction from cooking from scratch. I use Blue Apron and love the convenience. They gather ingredients that aren't practical for a single person to normally source/maintain yet I get to have interesting and tasty meals. When it comes to a lot of fresh herbs or specialty items, the cost of meals through them can actually be lower since you have far less waste. They also help force me out of my comfort zones. There are a lot of recipes that would never try cold out of a cook book, but because they are bundling everything needed the risk/reward tilts more firmly into the "why not try it" column. Even if every meal was at a premium it's still worth it to me for the connivence. I've shared free meal codes with friends/family - had a co-worker who's teenage daughter wanted to cook more but was overwhelmed. They tried the service, used it for a year and after she got her skills and confidence up they ended up dropping it, but remade their favorites from the last year and used those for ideas of other recipes to try that they probably otherwise wouldn't have. You don't have to take them every week too - I currently skip around and do it maybe one or two times a month just to supplement my other cooking. The variety is nice. It is a bit of a pain requiring some micromanaging since they are obviously motivated to keep you on the weekly treadmill.
Sp4mBo7 4y ago
bvoq 4y ago
If you don't have a partner/parents at home you are less likely to cook yourself and eat more processed foods. People are getting more lonely and eat more ultraprocessed foods because of it.
UUID_KING 4y ago
High glycemic index foods, full of chemicals / salt / etc linked to cognitive decline and other health problems? Shocker. Are food companies incentivized to create addictive products that exploit human biology? 100%
UUID_KING 4y ago
Search for the following food industry term “Bliss Point”. Related.
ryandvm 4y ago
"TV dinners bad for you" sounds an awful lot like "Walmart shopping liked to early mortality". Entirely believable, but I have my doubts anyone could untangle the confounding sociological factors.
tpoacher 4y ago
It always amuses me whenever the crux of an argument is "too much X is bad", where the definition of "too much" is assumed to be commonly accepted, but when pressed for a definition it decays to precisely that amount for which X is bad (i.e. a tautological argument).

70 points by smn1234 4y ago

There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits. The only downside is that relying only on 'real food' ingredients requires a fair amount of cooking, but the effort is well worth the payback. There's no snappy one-word term for this dietary choice, maybe someone could come up with one.

oh_my_goodness 4y ago
I've heard "Eat food. Not too much." as a slogan for this.
- jonah 4y ago
  The full quote is: “Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.” ― Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much-mostly-plants https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...
omginternets 4y ago
Incidentally, I think this is also why many extreme diets seem to have some evidence in favor of their health benefits. From where I'm standing, it seems like veganism/paleo/etc start being linked to various problems right around the time the agro industry starts cranking out specialized (read: highly-processed) products. Relatedly: I'm taking bets regarding lab-grown meat.
- garettmd 4y ago
  Which direction are you betting on lab-grown meats?
  - omginternets 4y ago
    I'm betting they go in the same direction as margarine.
    - drooby 4y ago
      Does Meati change your mind? This startup is growing a specific species of fungus that is high protein and vitamin rich. I haven’t tried it but reviews so far are saying it cooks, tastes and feels like meat.
      - omginternets 4y ago
        That's not exactly lab-grown meat. But to your question, it's hard to take bets on individual things, so I'll answer this way: I'll bet against anything lab-grown or highly processed (Meati included), and I expect to make money on average. Time will tell :)
        drooby 4y ago
        How is it highly processed? They are mass producing a naturally growing fungus, not unlike farming mushrooms. They seem to be adding some seasonings and sodium before packaging but thats not "processing" exactly.
        omginternets 4y ago
        It's transformed from its naturally-occurring aspect into something resembling the texture of meat. That is processing. I suspect that it's also a non-trivial amount of processing, but I could be wrong. Contrast this with grabbing a handful of chanterelles and putting them in a bag.
drooby 4y ago
I believe a Whole-Food Diet is the term for a non-processed diet.
nonethewiser 4y ago
> There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits. What has you convinced? I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm curious if you're relying on anything more than intuition. I don't think intuition is worthless, for whatever it's worth. Seems like a pretty common-sense idea that non-fresh foods could have adverse effects. I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major factor in increased rates of cancer, which is surely a combination of many mild factors that accumulate over a long period of time.

pessimizer 4y ago

> “People need to know they should cook more and prepare their own food from scratch. I know. We say we don’t have time but it really doesn’t take that much time,” Suemoto said. This is bullshit in a very important way: you have to know how to cook. Bring back home economics classes.

mjburgess 4y ago
I think that required housewives. We're missing a full day's domestic labour.
- omginternets 4y ago
  Nah. I work long hours and still find time to cook. Dinner takes about 15 mins to prepare, on average. I think the issue has more to do with people not knowing how to cook things that are both simple and nutritious. I really feel for people who are trying to learn; every beginner's cookbook is full of things that require specific ingredients, complicated prep work, or a shit-ton of chopping. I've toyed around with the idea of writing a cookbook of my own, but _that_ is something I truly do not have time for. Ah well :/
  - picture 4y ago
    Have you come across any good (or, better,) cookbooks or resources for simple and nutritious food? I'm about to go to college so it would be a great help
    - omginternets 4y ago
      I have heard good things about Tim Ferriss' The Four Hour Chef, though I have not read it myself. What I like about it is that it seems to focus on the process of cooking, rather than giving you a list of recipes. It's about turning you into "someone who cooks" rather than documenting such and such recipe. The rules of thumb, which I am paraphrasing from secondhand discussions about the book, are as follows: 1. Buy good ingredients. 2. Taste and smell as you go. 3. Herbs and spices are your friends. 4. Don't overcook. I agree with all of them. Here's the thing: cooking is a skill, like juggling or programming. Just knowing all the rules (techne) doesn't suffice to actually perform the act. You need to spend some time applying the principles to concrete situations (metis). The good news is that if you follow the above rules, you'll basically never make something inedible. Another tip I can give you is to get familiar with substitution ingredients. Don't have any sour cream? Yogurt is probably fine. Now, in direct contradiction with what I've been saying so far, let me share with you one of my favorite recipes that got me through my PhD. Cooking time: 10 mins. INGREDIENTS: 1. 1 or two whole leeks, depending on how hungry you are 2. Sour cream (or whatever) 3. Bacon (or lardons, if you can find them, but seriously... whatever) 4. White wine (optional, but _really_ makes a difference. Prefer dry wine, but whatever.) PREP: 1. Cut your leek in 1cm rings. Throw away the dark green part. COOKING: 1. Cook your bacon until crispy, then crumble it and set it aside. 2. While the bacon is cooking, put some butter in a pan and cook your leeks until they're soft and slightly translucid (kinda like you would cook an onion). Don't sweat it; it's hard to fuck up. 3. Add bacon and sour cream. Stir. 4. Add white wine. Stir until you're happy with the consistency Boom. Done. Keeps well in the fridge, to boot.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

dvh 4y ago

Is there an official scale of processednes? NVM found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food

omarhaneef 4y ago

I wish I knew what was ultraprocessed. > "Ultraprocessed foods are defined as "industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," according to the study. But if I have a package that says it is whole grain or whatever, how do I know if it is or isn't ultraprocessed or just, you know, regular processed?

arnejenssen 4y ago
The sorry state is that a chain is not stronger than the weakest link. And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives. Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup. It is more important to avoid the bad anti-nutrients than to eat a particular food for a certain "miracle" nutrient.
- cortesoft 4y ago
  > And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives. This can't be true in an absolute sense. There is no way that adding a single drop of high fructose corn syrup to a meal would completely ruin any health benefits of the rest of the meal. There is also no way that adding a bit of corn syrup to a plate of broccoli would be equally as unhealthy for you as a bowl of lucky charms. Obviously the mix of ingredients matters. Where do you get the idea that a single bad ingredient ruins the entire food?
  - arnejenssen 4y ago
    Sorry. You are right. The amounts matter as well. My bad.
- positr0n 4y ago
  > Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup. Would a granola bar sweetened with the exact same number of sucrose/fructose molecules from organic coconut sugar (or palm sugar, or date juice, etc) be any more healthy? I currently do not believe it would be. Sugar is sugar. But I'm not 100% sure.

wolfi1 4y ago

if you put the cut potatoes yourself in the deep fryer I guess that that wouldn't be that beneficial

4pkjai 4y ago

I think I sort of know what they are, but a definition of "ultra-processed" foods would be good.

criddell 4y ago
The article says they are “industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives”. I take that to mean milk may be a whole food, yogurt might be a processed food, and spray cheese in a can would be ultra-processed.

rendang 4y ago

As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later. What would prevent us from doing a study like this: take 1000 diverse subjects, assign each of them a lab assistant, and for 2+ years, diligently track everything they eat, their exercise, sleep, etc. You could pay each participant and staff $100k/each, and the cost would be on the order of $400MM. May not be epistemologically perfect given that people change their behavior when observed, but still superior to plenty of the stuff getting published now, and likely the knowledge gained for humankind would be worth many billions.

sideshowb 4y ago
What you describe is still an observational study, just a very expensive one now. It's still quite possible you'd fail to measure something important you hadn't thought of. Better to spend some of that budget instead on a randomised controlled trial but there are likely issues with getting people to follow their prescribed diets to the letter
vkk8 4y ago
> As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later. On my peak fitness enthusiasm I kept a rigorous food diary for some time and it was such a pain in the ass that I don't believe for a second that food diaries coming from people who are not 100% committed and interested in keeping one are accurate at all. People would often forget to log small snacks they have, or estimate portion sizes completely wrong, or neglect logging sauces, oils, condiments, etc.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
What do you think you could learn from such an expensive study? It seems too short and unfocused to learn anything meaningful.
- rendang 4y ago
  Really? I would think weight loss, inflammation, and psychological health measures would at least be affected on a timescale of a couple years, if not risks for things like cancer and heart disease.

mjevans 4y ago

I'd like to hear more about the study design / quality of the science. How are they correcting for correlation between the ability to afford the more money-expensive or more time-expensive ends of rich people with experts that cook for them, and health nuts (or suffers of seriously annoying allergies) that cook for themselves even though it's more time expensive?

allturtles 4y ago

I'm always pretty skeptical of correlative nutrition science studies, and this one is no different. I would posit that anyone who studies "ultraprocessed" foods is unlikely to ever release a study showing they are good for you. The very category of ultraprocessed foods was invented to be a "bad-for-you" food category, and so the research program is "find more evidence that they are bad." Categorizing food based on whether it's industrial or home-made may be a useful heuristic for lifestyle choices, but it seems unlikely to me to be useful for getting a deep understanding of nutrition and health.

Animats 4y ago

It's not clear that "ultraprocessed" is the issue. The article says "they are usually very high in sugar, salt and fat". Too much salt and sugar are known to be problems. That has nothing to do with processing. Although it does have to do with what will sell. The author has a "natural" bias.

helmholtz 4y ago
This seems like unnecessary nitpicking. What would you say are examples of ultraprocessed food that's not full of salt, sugar and fat?
- nonethewiser 4y ago
  That misses his point. You can have too much sugar/salt/fat without eating a single "ultra" processed food. So if the root of the problem is sugar/salt/fat it doesn't simply follow that "ultra" processed food is the problem.
- tootie 4y ago
  The point here is that they are essentially defining "ultraprocessed" as being full of salt, fat and sugar. I can go buy a frozen pizza at Trader Joe's that contains organic flour, yeast, tomatoes and cheese. Nutritionally identical to what I'd make at home. I can also grind sugar cane and wheat berries and churn butter in my kitchen to make a cake that is just as unhealthy as a Twinkie.
giantg2 4y ago
Well... salt is generally used to preserve texture and flavor. At least that's from my canning background. It's possible to reduce some salt, but really depends. There's emerging evidence that consuming potassium with salt tends to reduce the negative effects of higher salt intake. Basically, that many of the prior sodium studies ignored the sodium/potassium balance. Of course you could still have too much sodium while staying in balance, but just thought that's worth pointing out. If nothing else, it illustrates how complex it nutrition science can be, and how much we still have to learn (or at least dispel popular half-truths).
4y ago

xchaotic 4y ago

I (and other) call Bs on classifying something as processed or ultra processed as inherently bad. Baby formulas, workout premixes, and also home cooking are all forms of processed food. It’s what you put in it and also at what ratio is what matters most. If you get processed food that has all the good oils and fiber and proteins like YFood or Soylent that’s actually more healthy than say eating “unprocessed” fried potatoes for example.

giantg2 4y ago

"...typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," I'm thinking it's probably relates to all the additives in foods today. I would love to see some sort of study comparing these commercially processed foods containing additives to more traditional processing (like my grandparents eating tons of homecanned and home processed foods).

colordrops 4y ago

It would help if the exact factors that cause health issues in ultra-processed foods could be identified. "Ultra-processed" is too crude a heuristic. sugar and fat? refined seed oil? calorie density? Food coloring and other toxic ingredients?

mattmcknight 4y ago

Whenever I see any nutrition article like this, I am extremely skeptical. The definition of "ultra-processed" is completely arbitrary as I read it [1]. The control diet is generally worse on non-processing related attributes. The processing angle really only serves to confuse the nutrition debate as the attributes of ultra-processed food (excess sugar, use of partially hydrogenated oils) are already well established health risks. By putting things in the context of the processing, it ignores the possibility of processed foods that avoid these ingredients. By limiting the processing concern to an arbitrary definition of ultra-processing, actual causes might be left uncovered, while non-causes are left in. Whey protein, which I know many very healthy people eat, is considered ultra-processed. Meanwhile, pasta is considered merely processed, while if the pasta is ready to eat, it is ultra-processed. This distinction doesn't seem to be a useful way to make intelligent decisions, and is simply a spurious correlation actually caused by the food ingredients, or just some side effect of people eating less when food isn't ready-made, because they have to do more work to consume it... [1] https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5644EN/ https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5644EN/

linsomniac 4y ago
Ultra processed foods are defined by the "NOVA" classification system. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova
- mattmcknight 4y ago
  Yes, the definition is at the link I posted. I find it arbitrary.
Bancakes 4y ago
Your body doesn't need ultra processed foods. It hasn't evolved to needing them. It has, in fact, evolved to surviving well on food within the horizon. If you don't drink protein shakes, you will get as big as nature intended for your natural diet and genetics. Cutting out ultra processed foods because they are not part of our evolutionary diet allows us to omit six or seven figures worth of grant money for science we don't need. Saves time for readers, too.

jhot 4y ago

Sounds similar to this paper [0] that compared the types of dietary fats eaten with cognitive decline in adults 65+. "higher intakes of saturated fat (p for trend = 0.04) and trans-unsaturated fat (p for trend = 0.07) were linearly associated with greater decline in cognitive score over 6 years. These associations became stronger in analyses that eliminated persons whose fat intake changed in recent years or whose baseline cognitive scores were in the lowest 15%." I, for one, am hoping it's largely to do with cheap, high-calorie ingredients and not to do with actually processing as I'm a big fan of Soylent (largely monounsaturated fats FYI) for its convenience and it doesn't get much more "processed" than that. 0 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15136684/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15136684/

EricE 4y ago

One of the best thing about the "meal in a box" companies is they remove a lot of the friction from cooking from scratch. I use Blue Apron and love the convenience. They gather ingredients that aren't practical for a single person to normally source/maintain yet I get to have interesting and tasty meals. When it comes to a lot of fresh herbs or specialty items, the cost of meals through them can actually be lower since you have far less waste. They also help force me out of my comfort zones. There are a lot of recipes that would never try cold out of a cook book, but because they are bundling everything needed the risk/reward tilts more firmly into the "why not try it" column. Even if every meal was at a premium it's still worth it to me for the connivence. I've shared free meal codes with friends/family - had a co-worker who's teenage daughter wanted to cook more but was overwhelmed. They tried the service, used it for a year and after she got her skills and confidence up they ended up dropping it, but remade their favorites from the last year and used those for ideas of other recipes to try that they probably otherwise wouldn't have. You don't have to take them every week too - I currently skip around and do it maybe one or two times a month just to supplement my other cooking. The variety is nice. It is a bit of a pain requiring some micromanaging since they are obviously motivated to keep you on the weekly treadmill.

Sp4mBo7 4y ago

bvoq 4y ago

If you don't have a partner/parents at home you are less likely to cook yourself and eat more processed foods. People are getting more lonely and eat more ultraprocessed foods because of it.

UUID_KING 4y ago

High glycemic index foods, full of chemicals / salt / etc linked to cognitive decline and other health problems? Shocker. Are food companies incentivized to create addictive products that exploit human biology? 100%

UUID_KING 4y ago

Search for the following food industry term “Bliss Point”. Related.

ryandvm 4y ago

"TV dinners bad for you" sounds an awful lot like "Walmart shopping liked to early mortality". Entirely believable, but I have my doubts anyone could untangle the confounding sociological factors.

tpoacher 4y ago

It always amuses me whenever the crux of an argument is "too much X is bad", where the definition of "too much" is assumed to be commonly accepted, but when pressed for a definition it decays to precisely that amount for which X is bad (i.e. a tautological argument).