Why does this feel so weak? I’m not doubting “ultra processed” foods (which are very poorly defined in the article) are unhealthy, they don’t really make a case for why they now think they’re extra extra deadly now.
There’s a bunch of source links in that article you could have read to make it feel less weak. The newest of which (but not he source for the entirety of the artcile) being an article on EurekAlert covering a study titled Ultra-processed food consumption and risk of multiple chronic diseases among 8,819,894 adults from 51 prospective cohorts: a dose-response meta-analysis.
To copy from another comment, these studies are still weak because the biggest issue that lot of researchers have with the “ultaprocessed” label is it being way too broad
The trouble starts with the definition. UPF generally refers to packaged foods with questionable-sounding ingredients not typically used in household kitchens (high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, and the like). But not even nutrition scientists can really tell you where normal processing ends and “ultra-processing” begins, and the difference often comes down to vibes. (I once covered a study that, inexplicably, classified tofu as ultra-processed.)
[…]
But it turns out those trials might not show what they claim to, either. In a recent article published in Science, a group of researchers analyzed data from five landmark randomized controlled trials of ultra-processed foods and found that most of them compared ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed diets that differed in important ways beyond processing. The ultra-processed diets tended to be more calorie-dense and lower in fiber, for example, which can lead to overeating regardless of whether a food is “ultra-processed.” Accordingly, some of the effects that they attributed to processing may have had other causes.
[…]
The categories sound tidy. They are not. Many nutrition experts have criticized them as overly broad and hard to apply consistently. Wheat gluten, for example, is an ingredient often added to packaged breads; it’s not used in many household kitchens, and is usually classified as ultra-processed. Yet it’s been used in many Asian cuisines for centuries and can easily be employed in your home kitchen; I use it in my own. There’s no evidence that the ingredient’s rarity in household pantries makes it unhealthy or deserving of a special “ultra-processed” label. Nor is there any reason to assume that a store-bought whole grain bread with added gluten (category 4 under NOVA) is worse for you than, say, a homemade white bread (category 3).
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/494045/ultra-processed-foods-science-rcts
Basically any cooked meat is considered ultra-processed. The word has zero ethos and people can see it.
That’s-a more like it! Usually I do click through to the studies, but this article was such soft-serve I doubted it was worth it
Honestly, ultra-processed sounds like a 100 ingredient list on a product where it is more stabilizers and regulators than actual food. It’s like let’s make cheese but without milk, but it’s also not vegan, but made of cellulose, algae rinds, calf enzymes, terpenes, the chemicals that give spices their taste, water substitute and the CEO’s grandma’s microbiome.
And every extra 100 grams of these foods a day elevated the risk of developing cancer by 4 percent, and the risk of death by any cause by 3 percent.
So… My body should be completely made up of cancer by now? oh it must be blocked by the micro plastics. Winning!
You got it. Just go to your nearest USAF airbase or surrounding community, drink the water. Cured!
I could do the math to verify but I’d need to know the original risk percentage. Would you say you initially had a 64.3% chance to get cancer?
To note: A lot of researchers have issue with the “ultaprocessed” label being way too broad
The trouble starts with the definition. UPF generally refers to packaged foods with questionable-sounding ingredients not typically used in household kitchens (high-fructose corn syrup, maltodextrin, and the like). But not even nutrition scientists can really tell you where normal processing ends and “ultra-processing” begins, and the difference often comes down to vibes. (I once covered a study that, inexplicably, classified tofu as ultra-processed.)
[…]
But it turns out those trials might not show what they claim to, either. In a recent article published in Science, a group of researchers analyzed data from five landmark randomized controlled trials of ultra-processed foods and found that most of them compared ultra-processed and non-ultra-processed diets that differed in important ways beyond processing. The ultra-processed diets tended to be more calorie-dense and lower in fiber, for example, which can lead to overeating regardless of whether a food is “ultra-processed.” Accordingly, some of the effects that they attributed to processing may have had other causes.
[…]
The categories sound tidy. They are not. Many nutrition experts have criticized them as overly broad and hard to apply consistently. Wheat gluten, for example, is an ingredient often added to packaged breads; it’s not used in many household kitchens, and is usually classified as ultra-processed. Yet it’s been used in many Asian cuisines for centuries and can easily be employed in your home kitchen; I use it in my own. There’s no evidence that the ingredient’s rarity in household pantries makes it unhealthy or deserving of a special “ultra-processed” label. Nor is there any reason to assume that a store-bought whole grain bread with added gluten (category 4 under NOVA) is worse for you than, say, a homemade white bread (category 3).
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/494045/ultra-processed-foods-science-rcts
