Topic: Ultra Processed Foods

[thejbs]

This is where I don't think the classification of UPF is that helpful for "healthier" types of food (although I would not consider shop bought butties healthy) - but it would cover things like whey protein shakes, something like huel etc, wholemeal bread unless going to your local baker and having zero preservatives.

I don't think the automatic association of being UPF so therefore it must be bad, is necessarily correct. Re the study in the guardian - that finds those that eat a higher % of UPF have a higher risk of heart disease - a lot of UPFs are full of shit and preservatives, so those eating a higher % are bound to be putting more junk into their bodies. It is probably more indicative of them having a bad diet in general and stuffing their faces with trans fats, sugars, salt & calorie dense foods.

I personally think the nutritional value is far more important, than if it is UPF or not. The newspaper articles make it sound like the conclusion is UPF = bad, while in general that will be true, it will be because of the shite in the foods, rather than being UPF in itself.

Here is the Scientific Advisory Committee statement
https://www.nutrition.org.uk/news/2023/sacn-position-statement-on-processed-foods-and-health/

I thought this, and so did many scientists, but the most recent evidence is suggesting otherwise.

Processing can drastically change how your body processes food. There are fascinating studies involving the same food ingested in different forms having different effects on the body, despite being identical in regard to nutrition, calories and ingredients.

The fact is that the 'stuffing their faces' aspect seems to be a side-effect of UPFs rather than a lifestyle choice. Literally, once you pop, you can't stop.

I'd recommend you read Chris van Tulleken's book. It's well written and researched and properly sourced.

[redbyrdz]

This is all a load of woo for me.

The advatage of avoiding “upfs” is to have a diet that is lower in salt, sugar and fat.

Not necessarily. You could put plenty of salt, sugar, and fat into your own homecooked food. My nan's meals had amounts of fat that seem really strange to me now.

To me, its more about avoiding stuff that I wouldn't consider edible on its own and that, quite frankly, I'm not conviced our bodies deal with especially well.

For example, somehody brought biscuits into the work the other day that had "bamboo fibre". I'm not a panda!

Also what thejbs said above - I'm suspicious of eating stuff that has been mashed up too much.

[TepidT2O]

Not necessarily. You could put plenty of salt, sugar, and fat into your own homecooked food. My nan's meals had amounts of fat that seem really strange to me now.

To me, it’s more about avoiding stuff that I wouldn't consider edible on its own and that, quite frankly, I'm not conviced our bodies deal with especially well.

For example, somehody brought biscuits into the work the other day that had "bamboo fibre". I'm not a panda!

This is exactly the pseudo science I mean .

It’s not science ….

Control fat, salt and sugar in processed foods and you’ll change health outcomes

[Too early for flapjacks?]

I don't get this all or nothing thinking.

You don't need to be Jamie Oliver to cook your own meals, there's plenty of easy, quick recipes around. I think it's actually quicker to eg. chop up some veg, cook it  and boil some rice than waiting for a takeaway order to turn up.

And there's nothing wrong with buying fruit and veg from Lidl or Aldi. It's perfectly fine.

I agree that its weird that sweets are cheaper than strawberries  but it's not about eating strawberries year round, it's about eating potatoes, carrots, apples, normal stuff that isn't actually that expensive. I think along with forgetting how to cook  people also have weird expectations what eating healthy means. They see pictures of people eating berries year round, but an apple or an orange is just fine.

It's a bit of a myth that you need to spend more to eat healthier and quite often the opposite is true if you stay away from fad super foods.

[thejbs]

This is exactly the pseudo science I mean .

It’s not science ….

Control fat, salt and sugar in processed foods and you’ll change health outcomes

Respectfully, you’re conflating processed and ultra processed. There’s a massive difference. Most food is processed before consumption and is perfectly healthy.

It’s worth noting that most ‘health’ products available in shops (low fat, low sugar) are upf.

Research is showing that fat, sugar and salt in upfs is doing more harm to the body and leading to obesity Moreso than the equivalent amounts do in non upf food.

[Red-Soldier]

Unfortunately a lot of people don't have the time, skills, money, kitchen etc... to be Jamie Oliver. Like i'd like to buy all my food from a farmers market but im not on premier league players wages so have to make do with Lidl or Aldi. I find a lot of types that preach down to people about what they eat are from well off backgrounds anyway. Don't know about the UK but in Ireland it's about three times more expensive for something healthy like a pack of strawberries than an equivalent size pack of sweets.

Saying that i've a bowl of porridge each and every morning to start the day and don't waste my money on rubbish like take out coffee.

I'm from a poor, working class background.  Yet, my mum always cooked good meals for me, from scratch.  She went to cookery classes when she left home and had lots of cookery books.  Unfortunately, she didn't pass any of those skills on to me, so I had to learn from scratch, when I lived on my own.

Nobody starts off as an expert in anything, you learn from reading, being taught, and/or practice etc.  All you need is a bit of aptitude and will.

[Red-Soldier]

Respectfully, you’re conflating processed and ultra processed. There’s a massive difference. Most food is processed before consumption and is perfectly healthy.

It’s worth noting that most ‘health’ products available in shops (low fat, low sugar) are upf.

Research is showing that fat, sugar and salt in upfs is doing more harm to the body and leading to obesity Moreso than the equivalent amounts do in non upf food.

When you see something 'low' or 'no', it means that they have had to go through another process, had something taken out, and additional things put in.

I eat natural soya yogurt anyway, but if I were to eat cows yogurt, I'd go for the full fat version.

[Red-Soldier]

It's a bit of a myth that you need to spend more to eat healthier and quite often the opposite is true if you stay away from fad super foods.

Exactly.  UPFs are expensive to buy, not cheaper.  But, they are quicker to eat and can be highly addictive.  You are paying for this through your pocket and your health.

[Jshooters]

Exactly.  UPFs are expensive to buy, not cheaper.  But, they are quicker to eat and can be highly addictive.  You are paying for this through your pocket and your health.

I disagree. A quick google has shown me that fresh chicken breast is £7.20 per kilo while 1 kilo of nuggets will cost £4.20 (Tesco).

Same will go for fresh veg vs. baked beans, fresh fruit vs. sweets and snacks.

I looked at buying some flax seeds yesterday and it was something like £5.20 for about 400g

[Red-Soldier]

I disagree. A quick google has shown me that fresh chicken breast is £7.20 per kilo while 1 kilo of nuggets will cost £4.20 (Tesco).

Same will go for fresh veg vs. baked beans, fresh fruit vs. sweets and snacks.

I looked at buying some flax seeds yesterday and it was something like £5.20 for about 400g

How much chicken do you think is in those kilo of nuggets?  And chicken breasts are the most expensive chicken product you can buy, because the process of taking the breasts away from the chicken, and skinning them (not always), has been done for you.  Again, you are paying for convenience.

Compare those nuggets to a pack of drumsticks or thighs, or even a whole chicken.  I can take a whole chicken and turn it into multiple meals, if I wanted.  I can also buy a whole fish and turn it into fillets too.  I learnt these skills through reading and practice.

Fresh veg vs baked beans (hard to compared, as they are totally different foods) - broccoli: 72 p, savoy cabbage: 69 p, red cabbage 80 p, colliflower: 95 p, leeks 1.29 p.  Tesco baked beans - special offer - 4 for 1.85.

[Jshooters]

All very sensible and I’m fully on your side. We cook from fresh all the time in our house and fortunately can afford to buy the produce we need and have the interest and ability to have a varied and healthy diet.

I’ve long railed for government subsidies for fresh fruit and veg to encourage healthy eating but it’s a simple fact that for the same price as 6 apples people can buy a multi bag of 12 packs of crisps.

People who need to watch their spending and who may not have learned the skills or been exposed to the multitude of ways that food can be prepared will go for what is perceived to be a cheaper (and easier) option and on the face of it, upf will be that option.

[thejbs]

UPF is so ubiquitous that it’s cheaper and more expensive than actual food. I think the cheap end will be the most problematic.

There are some ways of cheap healthy snacking. Lidl’s do large bags of raw cashews and almonds for £2. Bananas are incredible value. Apples aren’t too expensive either. Plain/lightly salted tortilla chips are fine too. So is popcorn.

Since cutting back on upf but not sugar, I’ve noticed my sugar cravings are completely gone and I’m sated more easily when eating. I’ve also lost weight. Now, this isn’t scientific at all, and less upf will automatically mean more fresh food in my diet, but I’ve felt a marked change.

I still have the occasional bit of upf at home - ketchup, the odd soft drink etc.

[Red-Soldier]

All very sensible and I’m fully on your side. We cook from fresh all the time in our house and fortunately can afford to buy the produce we need and have the interest and ability to have a varied and healthy diet.

I’ve long railed for government subsidies for fresh fruit and veg to encourage healthy eating but it’s a simple fact that for the same price as 6 apples people can buy a multi bag of 12 packs of crisps.

People who need to watch their spending and who may not have learned the skills or been exposed to the multitude of ways that food can be prepared will go for what is perceived to be a cheaper (and easier) option and on the face of it, upf will be that option.

 

[filopastry]

UPF is so ubiquitous that it’s cheaper and more expensive than actual food. I think the cheap end will be the most problematic.

There are some ways of cheap healthy snacking. Lidl’s do large bags of raw cashews and almonds for £2. Bananas are incredible value. Apples aren’t too expensive either. Plain/lightly salted tortilla chips are fine too. So is popcorn.

Since cutting back on upf but not sugar, I’ve noticed my sugar cravings are completely gone and I’m sated more easily when eating. I’ve also lost weight. Now, this isn’t scientific at all, and less upf will automatically mean more fresh food in my diet, but I’ve felt a marked change.

I still have the occasional bit of upf at home - ketchup, the odd soft drink etc.

Yes I haven't read it in detail, but there do seem to be indications that at least some types of UPF can have impacts on appetite.

Diet drinks with artificial sweeteners I believe seem to have the same impacts and appear to have unfavourable impacts on the gut microbiome, although understanding the gut microbiome seems to be a science very much in its infancy

[Nobby Reserve]

I disagree. A quick google has shown me that fresh chicken breast is £7.20 per kilo while 1 kilo of nuggets will cost £4.20 (Tesco).

Same will go for fresh veg vs. baked beans, fresh fruit vs. sweets and snacks.

I looked at buying some flax seeds yesterday and it was something like £5.20 for about 400g

Those nuggets will be frozen.

If you buy frozen chicken breasts (there is literally just the breasts and no added crap), they're currently £4.25/kg. That's if you buy the own-brand option and, as they price match each other, it's the same price in Tesco, Morrisons, Aldi, Lidl (at least).


Quick question: Is bacon a UPF?

[redbyrdz]

Quick question: Is bacon a UPF?

Proper bacon, no. It's just a cut of meat. Maybe cured in some traditional way. But I'm sure you can get UPF bacon, where the meat and the fat come from somewhere else in the animal, or maybe even not an animal, and are just shaped and coloured like bacon.

[BarryCrocker]

Quick question: Is bacon a UPF?

Technically no. It is processed because it has been reconstituted. Ideally stick to nitrate free and most of the reports suggest minimise red and processed meats (salami, bacon, ham, pepperoni, jerky, etc)

[TepidT2O]

Technically no. It is processed because it has been reconstituted. Ideally stick to nitrate free and most of the reports suggest minimise red and processed meats (salami, bacon, ham, pepperoni, jerky, etc)

Scientifically there’s no good evidence that red meats are bad for you. There are too many confounding variables for this to be said with any level of confidence.

[Craig S]

I thought this, and so did many scientists, but the most recent evidence is suggesting otherwise.

Processing can drastically change how your body processes food. There are fascinating studies involving the same food ingested in different forms having different effects on the body, despite being identical in regard to nutrition, calories and ingredients.

The fact is that the 'stuffing their faces' aspect seems to be a side-effect of UPFs rather than a lifestyle choice. Literally, once you pop, you can't stop.

I'd recommend you read Chris van Tulleken's book. It's well written and researched and properly sourced.

Thanks, I will order - going on holiday in a few weeks.

I just feel uncomfortable with stating UPF means a food must be automatically bad. Take something like Alpro - No sugar oat milk. It is NOVA 4, as oat milk needs a stabiliser, and the milk has to be extracted (as well as soy milk, almond milk, probably all dairy replacements). However, it has a Nutri-Score of A, the highest category. It has zero sugar, very low in salt, low in sat fats, decent fibre and has decent vitamins.

There is a huge huge subset of UPFs that are undoubtedly bad food, but the inference from the newspaper articles over the last few days is UPF = bad, no subtleties. There is a correlation between increased UPF consumption and risk of disease, from that observational data, but I am not sure correlation means causation that the papers seem to be claiming. To me, that feels like bad science in itself. The causation of an increase in both things feels to be like the bad diet in the first place. I would like to see that data segmented by some form of demographics around calorie consumption, lifestyle etc. I am not sure it is the study in itself which is jumping to that conclusion, or just the way the papers are framing it.

I am not trying to just be contrary or anything, I do think they are a huge issue. I will reads the book when I go away, to see the other studies.

[thejbs]

I'll let you read the book and see. Those recent studies are getting the most headlines, but there is a growing amount of evidence out there that the book references. Most UPF studies in the book have controlled for sugar, salt, fat and fibre content and shown that the processing (thermal, mechanical, chemical) is the problem, not the nutritional profile of foods.

The purpose of UPF is to maximise profits. And one of the key ways to do this is design food substances that increase consumption. Many studies show that you eat more UPF when compared to non-UPF foods with similar nutritional profiles.

Anyway, the book is utterly fascinating and will at least encourage you to be more conscious of the food you give yourself (and your kids).

[John C]

There's an article on Newsnight tonight in a bit, on this.

[Jm55]

There’s no consensus what so ever.  It’s quite a lot of pseudo science tabloid friendly guff.

It might end up having positive consequences, but it’s riddled with nonsense.

A piece of beef.  Fine
Mince it?  Not so good.
Shape it into a burger? Worse.
Put the burger in a box and sell it? Worst.

I mean, come on.

I’ve been following this subject for about 9 months now purely because I’m in the process of losing weight and one of the YouTube Videos that caught my eye was Tim Spector (people may remember him from the pandemic) discussing this.

What you’re describing may be how the tabloids present it (I wouldn’t know as I never read them,) but it isn’t how anyone I’ve paid any attention to, does, thankfully.

The basic rule is if you couldn’t make it yourself, there’s a good chance it’s ultra processed. Nobody that I’ve listened to would have any issue whatsoever with a pre-made burger which has been shaped from ground meat with perhaps some flavourings (ie salt, pepper) etc in. What would constitute UP is if the burger was filled through of additives to make it last longer on the shelf and had an ingredient list as long as the periodic table as those sorts of artificial flavourings, sugars etc tend to cause insulin spikes, create an addiction to the food whereby the person eating it craves more, is never full up etc.

That’s the crux of it and of course like anything it’s simplified and bastardised by the media, but the basic premise behind it is certainly not pseudo science (although I’m sure it’s been jumped on by people with that mindset to use it for their own ends).

[Rhi]

Guys do you know that E-numbers make kids hyperactive? Buy my book detailing all the science of why E-numbers cause CANCER AND ADHD.

[lobsterboy]

Always remember one year while watching the TDF on Eurosport.
Usual stunning helicopter views over the beautiful French countryside as the race grinds through the kilometres.
Commentators reading facts about some of the landmarks they pass.
They passed this massive open mine, main export is gypsum and apparently the biggest consumer is the food industry who use it as a filler.

[Red-Soldier]

Cancer is on the rise in under-50s – a key task is to work out why

Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50 but research shows a worrying rise in early onset cases

There are many upsides to growing old, but one of the downsides, unfortunately, is a higher risk of developing cancer. Increasing age is a key risk factor. And with more of us living longer worldwide, millions of older people will have to contend with the disease.

Now a new study adds weight to previous work warning of a grim trend in global health: cancer in people under the age of 50 is becoming more common.

In the study, researchers led by the University of Edinburgh in Scotland and Zhejiang University School of Medicine in Hangzhou, China, found that the number of under-50s being diagnosed with cancer worldwide rose by 79% between 1990 and 2019, from 1.82 million to 3.26 million. Cancer deaths in the same age group grew by 27%, and more than 1 million under-50s a year are now dying of cancer, the research published in BMJ Oncology reveals.

The study is not the first to show the trend. A review in 2022 of cancer registry records from 44 countries found that the incidence of early onset cancer was rising rapidly for 14 types of cancers, and this increase was happening across many middle- and high-income nations.

The new research adds meat to the bone. Examining data from 204 countries, it found a striking increase in the global incidence of early onset cancers. It also showed the highest incidence rates of cancer in the under-50s was in North America, Oceania and western Europe.

Researchers worldwide are only just starting their next task: working out why.

The authors of the 2022 review, led by Harvard University, said any uptick in testing or checks could not account for the rise in diagnoses. They suggested the rise was most likely due to an unhealthy mix of risk factors that could be working together, some which are known and others of which need to be investigated.

Many of these risks had established links to cancer such as obesity, inactivity, diabetes, alcohol, smoking, environmental pollution and western diets high in red meat and added sugars, not to mention shift work and lack of sleep. Experts have speculated that ultra-processed food may also be partly to blame.

The researchers behind the new study echoed those observations. Genetic factors are likely to have a role, they say. But diets high in red meat and salt and low in fruit and milk, as well as alcohol consumption and tobacco use, are the main risk factors underlying the most common cancers among under-50s, with physical inactivity, excess weight and high blood sugar other contributory factors.

As worrying as the increase in early onset cancers is, caution is required. Cancer in people under 50 is still uncommon. With breast cancer, the most common type in under-50s, there were 13.7 cases per 100,000 people in 2019. Nine in 10 of all cancers affect people over 50.

There were also limitations to the latest research, principally the variable quality of cancer registry data in different countries.

Until experts unlock definitive answers, there remains plenty that people young and old can do to reduce their risk of cancer. Not smoking, maintaining a balanced diet and a healthy weight, getting plenty of exercise and staying safe in the sun are among them.

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/05/cancer-is-on-the-rise-in-under-50s-a-key-task-is-to-work-out-why

Why is cancer striking earlier? One answer could be a diet of ultra-processed foods

Government action is needed to give children affordable access to healthier foods. We can’t wait another decade for change

Across high-income countries, from Britain to Denmark to the US, cancers in people under the age of 50 are becoming more common. This is quite an unusual pattern given that, for decades, cancer was seen as an affliction of old age. In fact, the high rates of cancer in high-income countries in much older people – above the age of 80 – was a sign of humans overcoming infectious diseases to live a long life before chronic diseases such as cancer would set in.

So the increase in cancer rates in younger people has come as a surprise. The numbers are stark. Data from the G20 group of industrialised countries indicates that between 1990 and 2019, cancer rates increased by 22% in the age group 25-29. Rates of cancer in the next age group, 30-34, are at the highest level ever. And given cancer screening classically isn’t routine in younger age groups, these cancers tend to go undiagnosed for longer with the tumours being more aggressive.

And cancer incidence is projected to keep going up in young people. Prof Shuji Ogino of Harvard University argues that a “birth cohort effect” is occurring: simply put, the numbers show that each group of people born at a later time, such as a decade, have a higher risk of developing cancer later in life. He links this to early-life exposure to risk factors related to diet, lifestyle, weight and environmental exposures – factors that weren’t around for older age cohorts.

To understand exactly why this is happening, we need to look underneath the broad umbrella of “cancer”, to the specific type of cancer and linked risk factors. The increase in early-onset cancers since 1990 has mainly been in breast, colon, oesophagus, kidney, liver and pancreas cancer. Among the 14 cancer types on the rise, eight are related to the digestive system. Colorectal cancer, for example, increased 70% among those aged 15-39 in G20 countries between 1990 and 2019. This means there is clearly a specific set of organs and tissues where these cancers are occurring, so we can look at environmental factors that could be affecting all them.

While cancer itself is a complex group of diseases, the risk factors are generally the same: smoking, drinking alcohol, obesity, physical inactivity and poor diet. Ogino points to diet as being a key factor in the rise of cancers in young people (although this is still an educated guess rather than conclusive evidence). Ogino is not alone in pointing to diet: many experts have made this link after looking at the types of cancers on the rise, and their connection to the digestive system. Along with a colleague, Ogino is now investigating the links between what we eat when we’re young, how this changes the overall balance of bacteria in the digestive system (the microbiome) and the link to early onset cancer.

The microbiome is the roughly 100tn microbes that live inside us, largely in the gut, and play a key role in overall health such as digestion, regulation of the immune system and protecting against disease-causing bacteria. Increasing evidence indicates that eating ultra-processed foods, particularly those high in saturated fat and sugar, alters the composition of the microbiome in negative ways.

The basic problem is that the food we’re exposed to is often heavily processed but has the benefit of being affordable, easy, long-lasting and appealing to taste buds. But it is almost certainly quite bad for our health. And this is increasingly the case for children. Highly processed foods have become regular meals, including processed breakfast cereals, processed supermarket bread, ready meals, frozen pizzas, processed supermarket sandwiches, and processed biscuits, doughnuts and chocolates. As Dr Chris van Tulleken has written, we are becoming ultra-processed people. More than 80% of the processed food sold in Britain is considered unsafe for marketing to children by the World Health Organization.

This will only get worse with food prices having increased 19.1% in the past year. This means that for many families buying ultra-processed products is the only affordable way to eat, given how expensive fruit, vegetables, meat, fish and dairy products are in comparison. Figures from the Office for National Statistics in May showed eggs increased 37% in price, milk 33%, chicken 23% and, another survey showed, fruit and vegetables by 30%. Limiting access to ultra-processed foods is only possible if policies are put in place to subsidise healthier options, especially for low-income families.

This increase in cancer incidence in young people won’t stop without clear action and leadership focused on populations living longer, healthier lives. This should include healthier food options that are affordable and accessible, and decent salaries to be able to buy these.

Investing in prevention is essential for a productive workforce and lower healthcare costs. Why treat what can be prevented? Better cancer survival outcomes are important, but equally important is preventing cancer developing in the first place. And currently, a childhood diet of ultra-processed foods is already contributing to health problems. With evidence increasingly linking it to the shocking rise of cancers in younger people too, governments can’t wait another decade to take it on.

    Prof Devi Sridhar is chair of global public health at the University of Edinburgh

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/25/cancer-striking-earlier-ultra-processed-foods

[Rhi]

Seems like the author of this book has rational opinions and gets his "science" from decent sources.



 

[Jm55]

Seems like the author of this book has rational opinions and gets his "science" from decent sources.



 

The argument here is that although exercise burns calories, it won’t actually, by itself, contribute in any meaningful way to weight loss as your body will tend to compensate for it by making you hungrier and less active when you would otherwise be burning calories as a result of NEAT.

It’s really not that controversial, in order to lose weight the vast majority of the work comes from the diet, not the exercise. Yes it can be a handy supplement to a good diet, a calorie defecit etc, but on its own it won’t do much.

This is why you see people hitting the gym and running on a treadmill 4 times a week who grow frustrated that little changes.

[Zlen]

In my personal experience, weight loss is about 80% diet and the rest is exercise and sleep.

[Jm55]

In my personal experience, weight loss is about 80% diet and the rest is exercise and sleep.

Yes - the argument which Spector and Tulleken make is that exercise on its own is virtually worthless for weight loss (but not for health generally).

Ie if you had no calorie deficit but the same amount of exercise you wouldn’t lose any weight, or the vast majority of people wouldn’t anyway.

As I said above, the pair of them worked with the Zoe app which is a person specific way of clarifying which foods cause insulin spikes etc and how they interact with your gut micro biome. I’ve never used it nor really looked into it but Spector is an epidemiologist at Kings College so I’d be surprised if this stuff is without scientific literature.

On a more general point I’d be interested to hear the thoughts of anyone disputing the idea that mass processed foods full of additives, fat and sugar aren’t unhealthy as I didn’t ever think that was particularly controversial.

Spector discusses UPFs in the context of calorie controlled weight loss, ie if you just pay attention to the calorie number on the packet rather than the quality of the food, you won’t ultimately succeed with weight loss - yes you’ll lose weight but you’ll eventually crack and put it back on, his argument being that the better way is to clean up your diet, eat more satiating foods which won’t give you radical insulin spikes which is sustainable for longer, again I don’t think that’s especially controversial.

[redbyrdz]

Nothing controversial about food high in fat and sugar being unhealthy. The controversial idea is that UPF food with exactly the same fat and sugar content as minimally processed food is more unhealthy. I'd separate the additives discussion a bit, because that's such a broad categorie.

For an example, I recently had a takeaway hot drink, and the these little milk pots said "skimmed milk with non-milk fat". The idea is that that is more of a health risk than having pure milk, even at the same fat content.

[Jm55]

Nothing controversial about food high in fat and sugar being unhealthy. The controversial idea is that UPF food with exactly the same fat and sugar content as minimally processed food is more unhealthy. I'd separate the additives discussion a bit, because that's such a broad categorie.

For an example, I recently had a takeaway hot drink, and the these little milk pots said "skimmed milk with non-milk fat". The idea is that that is more of a health risk than having pure milk, even at the same fat content.

I’ve not read anything to suggest that the actual processing / refinement of the food is the issue, ie the fact that a food item has been through significant processing makes it less healthy than something that hasn’t - for example, the majority of people who discuss this reference whey protein as an example of a good ultra processed food.

The issue is that the vast majority of foods that are ultra processed are packed full of sugars, sweeteners, unhealthy fats and chemicals which make them unhealthy, obviously if you buy whole foods and raw meat / fish they will be almost entirely without these ingredients.

Whether anyone is claiming that the example that you’ve referenced, I’m not sure although I guess they must be otherwise you wouldn’t be citing it, but the reality is that if you’re consuming UPF’s rather than whole foods your diet will almost always be significantly higher in fats, sugars etc and the foods will on the whole make you crave more of them, hence the direct correlation between nations with high quantiles of UPF consumption and diabetes, obesity.

[Rhi]

Yes - the argument which Spector and Tulleken make is that exercise on its own is virtually worthless for weight loss (but not for health generally).

That is not what he says though. So you’re choosing to believe he means something different despite the fact that what he actually wrote down in a public place is a bare-faced lie.

Convince yourselves of this stuff all you want, but like the e numbers bad, fat bad, carbs bad and sugar bad fads before it, it is an idea packaged as science to sell stuff.

[Jm55]

That is not what he says though. So you’re choosing to believe he means something different despite the fact that what he actually wrote down in a public place is a bare-faced lie.

Convince yourselves of this stuff all you want, but like the e numbers bad, fat bad, carbs bad and sugar bad fads before it, it is an idea packaged as science to sell stuff.

It’s not what he says in his tweet, I’ve watched a 90 minute interview with Tim Spector in YouTube in which this is the point that he makes.

I’ve no particular skin in the game, I eat whole foods because I don’t think it’s remotely controversial to follow the theory that will be better for me than pre-packaged super-market food on the whole, there’s obviously exceptions to that but as a general dietary choice you’re not going to go far wrong with fresh meat and vegetables if the alternative is frozen ready meals. If people want any science to back up that point then a quick reference to the correlation between countries with high consumption of iltra processed foods and diabetes and obesity should make the point, yes you can have a conversation about whether the issue is the fact that the food is ultra processed or the fat that ultra processed foods are almost always higher in sugar and unhealthy fats if you want to but it doesn’t really change the point that they’re worse for you.

[Red-Soldier]

In my personal experience, weight loss is about 80% diet and the rest is exercise and sleep.

Indeed. 

[Robinred]

That is not what he says though. So you’re choosing to believe he means something different despite the fact that what he actually wrote down in a public place is a bare-faced lie.

Convince yourselves of this stuff all you want, but like the e numbers bad, fat bad, carbs bad and sugar bad fads before it, it is an idea packaged as science to sell stuff.

Can you expand on this Rhi?

I fascinated by this whole debate. One reason is because I reversed my type 2 diabetes in 2011, by radically changing my diet. I was on medication for diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis; my son - a qualified nutritionist - persuaded me to come off the pharmaceuticals. I cut out all nightshades, wheat and dairy (I replaced potato with sweet potato, bread with rye crackers, milk and cheese with goats-milk based products). Over the next 12 months, I lost a stone-and-a-half, and had increased energy, no aches and pains from my arthritis, and eventually, came off the diabetic register at my health centre.

That all changed with lockdown I’m afraid - I fell off the wagon big style, and I’m now back on the diabetic register. I do bake sourdough using organic spelt and rye flour, and try to keep to a minimum ‘treat’ foodstuffs I’d cut out. Kefir and other fermented foods are helpful, but any sugary or high-carbohydrate indulgences will cause a spike in my blood sugar; my body simply cannot cope without metformin and empagliflozin.

[Red-Soldier]

Can you expand on this Rhi?

I fascinated by this whole debate. One reason is because I reversed my type 2 diabetes in 2011, by radically changing my diet. I was on medication for diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis; my son - a qualified nutritionist - persuaded me to come off the pharmaceuticals. I cut out all nightshades, wheat and dairy (I replaced potato with sweet potato, bread with rye crackers, milk and cheese with goats-milk based products). Over the next 12 months, I lost a stone-and-a-half, and had increased energy, no aches and pains from my arthritis, and eventually, came off the diabetic register at my health centre.

That all changed with lockdown I’m afraid - I fell off the wagon big style, and I’m now back on the diabetic register. I do bake sourdough using organic spelt and rye flour, and try to keep to a minimum ‘treat’ foodstuffs I’d cut out. Kefir and other fermented foods are helpful, but any sugary or high-carbohydrate indulgences will cause a spike in my blood sugar; my body simply cannot cope without metformin and empagliflozin.

That's great. 

Lockdown has had a huge, negative impact, on so many. Hopefully, you can get back on the wagon again and come off your meds.

I used to be a Nutritional Advisor (sports nutrition) and after completing my qualification, and finishing reading 'The New Optimum Nutrition Bible', I totally changed my diet.  I had a big, lumpy weight lifter/body builder physique, but my digestive system was wrecked and I felt constantly sluggish.  As soon as I cut out all the wheat, gluten and diary, as well as going mostly plant-based, the weight just dropped off.  I was much leaner and felt fantastic - had so much energy, I felt like Superman.  I haven't looked back since.

I've also read many stories about how people reversed their diabetes, through changing their diet.

I don't like to comment on others, but I think Rhi is a bit of a luddite, when it comes to these things.

[Jm55]

I’m not even sure that it’s a particularly new concept is it?!

The word ‘ultra-processed’ might be, but the concept of pre packaged ready meals crammed full of additives, sugar and sweetners not being good for you is something which the majority of people thought was the case anyway?

I mean, the idea that if you have a floret of broccoli with the various nutrients contained within that, and then cook it, cover it in additives, mix it with sugar, cook it with 15-20 other ingredients, package it and put it on a shelf with ingredients that somehow allow that broccoli to remain edible for months, that through that process that broccoli has probably lost most if not all of the nutrients that it once had, is that something that people needed a book to tell them was the case?

I haven’t read the book noted on this thread and I doubt I will, but having watched a few YouTube videos on the subject the basic idea is that a lot of ultra processed food contains ingredients which makes you want to eat more of it whilst lacking much by way of nutritional content or satiating ingredients, meaning you can quickly consume large amounts of calories and then feel hungry again far quicker than had you consumed a similar number of calories with something like, say, a chicken breast and salad, hence why it’s contributing to an obesity epidemic. If you then add into that the large quantities of sugar then you have insulin blood sugar spikes, diabetes etc.

The advice that I’ve read and listened to is mostly to try to cut down on ultra processed foods by cooking with whole ingredients, to focus more on the quality of your food than the number of calories within it and to get a broad range of different plants in your diet. It’s hardly ground breaking stuff i didn’t think but it has lead me to make some better choices (or at least what I perceive to be better choices,) for example Greek yoghurt and grapefruit for breakfast rather than a cheese toastie - higher levels of protein, feel full up for longer and lower in sugar than you would get from shop bought bread. I’ve lost over 2 stone this year and it certainly isn’t all from the above changes but they’ve certainly helped; the main thing being I’ve lost that amount of weight without ever feeling overly hungry or deprived of anything, which I assume comes from the large amounts of protein in my food.

[Red-Soldier]

Ultra-processed food linked to higher risk of depression, research finds

US study finds association between large amounts of ultra-processed food, especially artificial sweeteners, and depression

Consuming large amounts of ultra-processed food, especially drinks containing artificial sweeteners, is associated with a higher risk of depression, research has found.

Despite extensive data linking ultra-processed food with physical ill health, such as strokes, heart attacks and raised blood pressure, this is the first large study to suggest that consuming ultra-processed foods and drinks, particularly those that include artificial sweeteners, could increase the instance of depression.

Using data from one of the biggest studies of women’s long-term health in the US, researchers at Massachusetts general hospital and Harvard medical school examined the diets and mental health of more than 30,000 primarily white middle-aged women between 2003 and 2017 who did not already have depression.

The authors estimated the overall extent of ultra-processed food intake as well as the type of food, such as ultra-processed grain foods, sweet snacks, ready-to-eat meals, fats and sauces, ultra-processed dairy products, savoury snacks, processed meat, beverages and artificial sweeteners.

They then compared how many women went on to develop depression against their consumption of ultra-processed food. Adjusting for other health, lifestyle and socioeconomic risk factors for depression, the research, published in US journal JAMA Network Open, found that those who consumed nine portions or more of ultra-processed foods a day had a 49% increased risk of depression compared with those who consumed fewer than four portions a day.

In addition, those who reduced their intake of ultra-processed food by at least three servings a day were at lower risk of depression than those with relatively stable intake.

“These findings suggest that greater ultra-processed foods intake, particularly artificial sweeteners and artificially sweetened beverages, is associated with increased risk of depression,” the authors concluded.

“Experimental studies have shown that artificial sweeteners may trigger the transmission of particular signalling molecules in the brain that are important for mood.”

Responding to the findings, Keith Frayn, emeritus professor of human metabolism at the University of Oxford, said: “The relationship between artificial sweeteners and depression stands out clearly. This adds to growing concerns about artificial sweeteners and cardiometabolic health. The link with depression needs confirmation and further research to suggest how it might be brought about.”

Others urged greater caution. Prof David Curtis, an honorary professor at University College London Genetics Institute, said: “The only foodstuffs which [this study] shows are associated with increased risk of depression are artificial sweeteners. Of course, this does not mean that an effect of artificial sweeteners is to increase depression risk – it is just that people with increased risk of developing depression tend to consume larger quantities of artificial sweeteners.”

But the authors disagree. Prof Andrew T Chan, chief of the clinical and translational epidemiology unit at Massachusetts general hospital and co-author of the research, said: “The strength of our study is that we were able to assess diet several years before the onset of depression. This minimises the likelihood that our findings are simply due to individuals with depression being more likely to choose ultra-processed foods.”

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/sep/20/ultra-processed-food-linked-higher-risk-depression-research-finds

[thejbs]

UPF as an addiction:

https://www.theguardian.com/food/2023/oct/12/its-like-trying-to-quit-smoking-why-are-1-in-7-of-us-addicted-to-ultra-processed-foods?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Worth noting that the guardian was advertising Coke to me in the middle of the article.

[kavah]

^ there seems to be a lot of resistance (in the comments section) to the general gist of these UPF articles in the Guardian for some reason, I suppose labeling something as addictive is quite a powerful statement.

Anyway

I’ve got a sweet tooth and love the added palm oil, vegetable oil and sugar the food industry put in their offerings. It’s all highly addictive of course.
I’m doing a real food month in September with no UPF and I’m bricking it to be honest - cold Turkey time  ...

I did it 
I found it relatively easy but I got a lot of family support and I don't have a very time consuming schedule so I'm lucky in that regard.
I also ate pretty much the same thing every day for 30+ days to make it easier (also I had no big social events or work dinners etc), I also gave up booze except for a couple of vodka-sodas on Saturday night, you get a right buzz on when you haven't had a drink all week 
So I lost 5kg - and my body fat went from 27% to 21%  (in 40+ days because I've continued into October).