5 ms·

There is one question I have when seeing articles about these types of studies. I understand that ultra-processed foods often lead to being overweight or obese

There is one question I have when seeing articles about these types of studies. I understand that ultra-processed foods often lead to being overweight or obese, and I can see how a whole host of problems can flow from that, from that condition of the body. My question is: as a normal weight person, would these downsides still apply? It does seem, skimming these articles, that the answer is 'yes' - ultra processed foods being associated with cancers and with a 22% higher chance of death from any cause, for example. I'd be interested in more on those points, but this is helpful to know.

sooheon 3y ago
Why wouldn’t it? Weight is a lagging indicator, and it’s only one phenotype out of the countless ways your body is affected by what you eat.
whatshisface 3y ago
Many of them, like the glycemic load, can damage your body directly without being mediated through the many dangers of excessive fat tissue.
nikkwong 3y ago
People can (and very readily do) develop metabolic diseases from consuming a poor diet at a normal weight. People develop insulin resistance and become diabetes quite commonly in this circumstance, but they can also develop liver, cardiovascular, and kidney disease. Basically, all of the potentially fatal diseases of excess that you would best avoid.
dylan604 3y ago
This really seem like a weird way to look at it. It's pretty clear that it's not good for you, yet it reads as if you're looking for a loop hole. That's like saying you know heroin can cause problems for a specific segment of the population, yet you're wanting to risk it anyways. Edit: to be less accusational
- Supermancho 3y ago
  > yet you're looking for a loop hole. Claiming a poster has a secret intent, is not constructive.
- xboxnolifes 3y ago
  If a study claimed that eating unlimited tacos every day was bad, as it found detrimental effects to 50% of the population, yes, I would be interested in knowing if being in the other 50% meant it wasn't bad you for. If processed foods(, or alcohol, or meat, or carbs, or whatever) have 25% increased negative outcomes for overweight people, but only 2% increased negative outcomes for non-overweight people, that significantly changes the calculus. I don't understand how you don't understand why you'd want to know that. It's practically equivalent to avoiding peanuts because other people have peanut allergies.
mise_en_place 3y ago
The weight is irrelevant, the studies have shown that when comparing an ultra processed diet to a non processed diet, the cohort that ate the ultra processed ended up gaining a statistically significant amount of weight. What's unknown is how UPFs affect metabolic health. Effectively they're predigested food molecules that are reconstituted. It would seem the very act of digestion has an important role to play in the regulation of hunger, circadian rhythm, and metabolism.
NoPicklez 3y ago
Whilst the focus is often on "obese" people, it is highly apparent that even "normal weight" people can be abnormally unhealthy internally. Normal weight people can still get disease, cancers, poor liver function, obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension. Furthermore, ultra processed foods can contribute to mental illness and generally feeling like crap

sooheon 3y ago

Why wouldn’t it? Weight is a lagging indicator, and it’s only one phenotype out of the countless ways your body is affected by what you eat.

whatshisface 3y ago

Many of them, like the glycemic load, can damage your body directly without being mediated through the many dangers of excessive fat tissue.

nikkwong 3y ago

People can (and very readily do) develop metabolic diseases from consuming a poor diet at a normal weight. People develop insulin resistance and become diabetes quite commonly in this circumstance, but they can also develop liver, cardiovascular, and kidney disease. Basically, all of the potentially fatal diseases of excess that you would best avoid.

dylan604 3y ago

This really seem like a weird way to look at it. It's pretty clear that it's not good for you, yet it reads as if you're looking for a loop hole. That's like saying you know heroin can cause problems for a specific segment of the population, yet you're wanting to risk it anyways. Edit: to be less accusational

Supermancho 3y ago
> yet you're looking for a loop hole. Claiming a poster has a secret intent, is not constructive.
xboxnolifes 3y ago
If a study claimed that eating unlimited tacos every day was bad, as it found detrimental effects to 50% of the population, yes, I would be interested in knowing if being in the other 50% meant it wasn't bad you for. If processed foods(, or alcohol, or meat, or carbs, or whatever) have 25% increased negative outcomes for overweight people, but only 2% increased negative outcomes for non-overweight people, that significantly changes the calculus. I don't understand how you don't understand why you'd want to know that. It's practically equivalent to avoiding peanuts because other people have peanut allergies.

mise_en_place 3y ago

The weight is irrelevant, the studies have shown that when comparing an ultra processed diet to a non processed diet, the cohort that ate the ultra processed ended up gaining a statistically significant amount of weight. What's unknown is how UPFs affect metabolic health. Effectively they're predigested food molecules that are reconstituted. It would seem the very act of digestion has an important role to play in the regulation of hunger, circadian rhythm, and metabolism.

NoPicklez 3y ago

Whilst the focus is often on "obese" people, it is highly apparent that even "normal weight" people can be abnormally unhealthy internally. Normal weight people can still get disease, cancers, poor liver function, obesity, insulin resistance, hypertension. Furthermore, ultra processed foods can contribute to mental illness and generally feeling like crap