Guest place from KIP Hansen – February 15, 2025 – 1400 words
Prolog: This will be the last entry in a number of five parts in which the continued scientific controversy was discussed in order to surround the problem of ultra-processed food.
The previous essays were:
What junk nutritional science looks like
Modern scientific controversy: The war against food: part 1
Modern scientific controversy: The war against food: part 2, what are upps?
Modern scientific controversy: The war against the food: Part 3 – Upfs: What do you measure?
The typical news media article about ultra-processed food usually begins with something like that that in a piece of New York Times entitled “How bad are ultra-proofed food really? “By Alice Callahan:
“Are ultra -sapedic foods harmful?
“Most of the research work that UPFS combine with poor health are based on observation studies in which researchers pursue people about their diet and their health for many years. In a large overview of studies published in 2024, the scientists reported that UPFS consumption was associated with 32 health problems, with the most convincing indications of deaths in connection with heart diseases, type 2 diabetes and frequent psychological Health problems such as fear and depression. “
And it is true that UPFS consumption was “associated” with many health problems – by the friendly offices of epidemiology. Remember:
The world-class statistician William “Matt” Briggs, author of the book “Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability and Statistics”, tells us without a doubt :: “Epidemiology is the field that is officially incorrect with correlations for the causes.”
And that is the most fundamental statement that we can make about the Faddish fight against ultra -proiced foods.
First let's make a fundamental assumption:
The basics of “good nutrition” are sufficient, i.e. protein, carbohydrates, fats and essential vitamins and minerals. B) Not too much of someone, especially too much sugar (all kinds), too much fats (of all kinds), too much proteins (of all kinds) and too much salt for some people. c) It is difficult to define “too much” and “appropriate”, but you get the idea. D) Many variety, including wholemeal products, fruit and vegetables of all kinds.
Feel free to have some objections to this assumption, almost everyone can find something that we cannot like, but what we know about the science of nutrition supports this very fundamental assumption.
What does that have to do with ultra -proof foods?
Almost nothing. Ultra -proceded foods (UPFS below) are a category of food that is based exclusively on “scale and purpose of food processing”. Biological nutrition is the purpose of eating. However, nutritional values are not part of the defining features of UPFS.
Remember that Upfs does not mean “junk food”. Upfs does not mean sugar -containing lemonades, hamburgers, fries, sweets and snacks. These are a problem in modern societies, but although they are often contained in UPFS, they are not the core of UPFS.
What is the core of Upfs? “Almost everything on the shelves, in the corridors, their grocery store And in the cupboards and refrigerators of your house. “
Another point of view:
In one piece of Times (“How bad are ultra -proceeded food, really?”), Quote from journalist Alice Callahan Dr. Lauren O'Connor [a nutrition scientist and epidemiologist who researched this topic as a former USDA and NIH employee] With legends:
“It is true that there is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, she said, but that doesn't mean that Upfs directly cause bad health.” O'Connor asked if it is helpful to group such “very different” foods – such as twinkies and breakfast flakes – in a category. Certain types of ultra -proof foods such as lemonades and processed meat are more harmful than others. “
This quote seemed to me to be a little too “on purpose”, so I wrote to Dr. O'Connor and asked her: “Did you really” be “clearer harmful”? (What does Upfs themselves be harmful, some more than others.) Or is that the opinion of the journalist? “
Dr. O'Connor was so friendly to deliver an extended and more differentiated clarification that was written downwards after he had recognized [Alice Callahan] Credit, we spoke for almost an hour so that I got sloppy with my language ”:
“It is true that there is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, she said, but that does not mean that food that has been classified as ultra-processed causes poor health. The correlation is not equally fired. We need randomized controlled studies in which cause and effect can be determined. There are currently only a few small RCTs published, but some more are in the works. “(You can find them at clinicalaltrials.gov or on the reporter website of NIH).)
Dr. O'Connor questions the usefulness of the grouping of such “very different” foods in a category. The typical image of ultra-processed food (Google IT!) Is a picture of hot dogs, sweets and sugary drinks. However, this picture is misleading because the group of ultra-processed food in the USA is very different and also includes many enriched whole grain products and vegetable proteins (as well as baby formula). This is problematic for the development of dietary instructions on ultra-processed foods and communication to the public, since processed meat and sugar-containing drinks are, for example, foods that we recommend to consume in small to moderate quantities. However, the public consistently encourages wholesale and herbal proteins to increase their health. “
Those who have read the entire series will know that the only solid evidence of a harmful effect of so -called UPFs is limited to the results for two UPFs, as in Cordova et al. Shown again. .
Even these effects are low and may not be minimally clinically important for most people (MCID).
Conclusion:
1. There is no evidence that the “UltraProked Foods” category represents a valid concern for the consideration of human diet. It is far too wide and includes “almost everything” regardless of the nutritional value.
2. The avoidance of UPFS can lead to nutritional deficits, especially for people with fewer resources and only for limited access to a variety of affordable foods – not only for bad and marginalized population groups, but also for families of mid -range.
3. This does not negate the evidence that indicate that extreme quantities of sugar in the nutrition of an individual can damage health, especially if it leads to obesity or in combination with a kind of diabetes.
4. The evidence of harmful effects of food on animal -based foods (meat) are controversial [and here] And should be considered separately.
# # # # # #
The author's comment:
In summary, the entire UPFS problem is only a further run from the bland, albeit in a strange way with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, aspects of the “health food movement” and ludditeism. It is worrying that government agencies have risen on the anti-UPFS band car.
It is not necessary to avoid UPFS – in addition to your personal preferences towards food and your personal level of concern about problems such as “food additives” (which is another but related problem).
Try it for a second opinion: ultra -proof food have a terrible reputation. You don't deserve it from Jessica Wilson in Slate.
Essence about food and nutrition is a amusement for the happy segments of humanity, which have a real choice, which should be included in their diet. This has caused a nutritional supplement industry to earn over $ 53 billion in the United States alone. The best evidence shows that supplementary vitamins, minerals or other nutritional supplements only achieve little or no benefit.
My opinion: Eat a variety of food, not too much, in all food groups, including a lot and varied vegetables and fruit (fresh, if possible), legumes and cereals. Get some movement, 20-30 minutes a day in most days, everything that includes moving procurement.
And for their own sake, obsessed with food.
Thanks for reading.
Comments that are intended for me personally should begin with “KIP -“
# # # # # #
Like this:
Load…
Related
Do you discover more from watts?
Subscribe to the latest posts to your e -mail.
