Consuming large amounts of ultra-processed food (UPF) increases the risk of an early death, according to a international study that has reignited calls for a crackdown on UPF.
Each 10% extra intake of UPF, such as bread, cakes and ready meals, increases someone’s risk of dying before they reach 75 by 3%, according to research in countries including the US and England.
UPF is so damaging to health that it is implicated in as many as one in seven of all premature deaths that occur in some countries, according to a paper in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine.
They are associated with 124,107 early deaths in the US a year and 17,781 deaths every year in England, the review of dietary and mortality data from eight countries found.
It’s astonishing to me that scientists are using such unscientific terms like “ultra processed food”. What is it about these foods that is unhealthy?
It’s like saying “sports are dangerous” while including football and golf in your definition.
Scientists only use terms like ultra processed food after defining them in their scientific papers. The problem here is that the media find it difficult to write a short article for the general audience if they have to define things scientifically.
What specifically is bad about UPF foods is still being researched. A few leading ideas are:
- Very little fibre
- Starches are all immediately accessible to digestion and so blood glucose spikes much more than for the non-UPF equivalent
- UPF foods are soft and dry (so weigh less) making it very easy to eat a lot very fast, so you eat too many calories.
- Relatively high in salt and sugar
- Use of emulsifiers. These may change your gut microbiota and also make your gut more leaky causing inflammation
- Use of preservatives and artificial colours
- Frequently have a lot of oil
Low fibre, emulsifiers and preservatives, while lacking variety of phytochemicals found in fresh food is known to change your gut health. People on UPF diets tend to eat more and have higher blood glucose spikes leading to heart disease and diabetes.
Altogether this is a recipe for a shorter, less healthy life
Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad? Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A bad?
Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad?
I don’t know.
My thoughts are that your total daily intake is more important than considering any single food item. As such, having some UPF in your diet is ok. The problem becomes epidemiologically measurable when, like the UK and US, 60% of calories consumed by some demographics are from UPF food.
And there are almost certainly multiple different things ‘wrong’ with UPF and so if you fix one problem, you may still be at risk from another. For example in your question, there are a lot of studies showing the importance of fibre in the diet, including those that add bran to whatever the person normally eats. So UPF with lots of fibre, all things equal, is likely less bad than UPF without.
Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A bad?
Fat soluble vitamins (A, D, E and K) are interesting in that they don’t show benefits above RDA, and in high doses cause a long list of nasty symptoms. In particular, vitamin A in excess is correlated with increased risk of multiple major diseases and even death.
Those are shit definitions that come from pop-science not real science. They’re so broad as to be functionally useless.
The NOVA classification system is “real” science, but in my opinion the arbitrary and vague definitions make it so that it’s not very good or very robust science.
There is no single definition of ultra-processed foods, but in general they contain ingredients not used in home cooking.
Many are chemicals, colourings and sweeteners, used to improve the food’s appearance, taste or texture.
Fizzy drinks, sweets and chicken nuggets are all examples. However, they can also include less obvious foods, including some breads, breakfast cereals and yoghurts.
A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed, according to public health expert Prof Maira Bes-Rastrollo of the University of Navarra in Spain.
Ultra-processed foods are often high in salt, sugar and saturated fats. In the UK, look out for a “traffic light” label on the packaging.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_food
Thank you for the details - as you point out this is a functionally useless definition.
It reeks of “You know what I mean - that bad stuff”. And that’s not a good scientific definition.
A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed
Curry is “ultra-processed” - you heard it hear first.
Like I said - “Sports are dangerous” is a very bad way to try to categorize risky activity. Golf and football are very different as are Curry and Twizzlers.
Yea the 5 ingredient stuff is weird, what if I make a 5 fruits salad. To me the number of unnatural processing steps (processes that don’t occur regularly in nature) makes more sense.
Yes, curry is processed food. It goes through the unnatural process of high heat cooking. I’m not sure about healthy-ness, I think a lot also depends on dosage. I don’t see processing as always being bad.
To me, Dosage makes the poison.
Drinking 4 gallons of curry in 1 sitting is probably bad, same as drinking 4 gallons of unprocessed water in one sitting.
A product containing more than five ingredients is likely to be ultra-processed
Ugh. No. That amounts to saying “anything that contains five spice is ultra-processed”. Why do you hate Chinese cuisine.
The “not used in home cooking” rule of thumb is way better though you can certainly make absolutely filthy dishes at home. Home cooking also uses “chemicals, colouring and sweeteners”, and also home cooks care about appearance, taste, and texture.
What I’d actually be interested in is comparing EU vs. US standards UPC. EU products use colourings such as red beet extract, beta-carotene, stabilisers, gelling agents etc. like guar gum or arrowroot, when they use fully synthetic stuff then it’s generally something actually found in nature. Companies add ascorbic acid as antioxidant, grandma added a splash of lemon juice, same difference really.
A EU strawberry yoghurt which says “natural aroma” is shoddy, yes, you’re getting fewer strawberries and more strawberry aroma produced by fungi, but I’m rather sceptical when it comes to claims that it’s less healthy.
“An ultra-processed food (UPF) is a grouping of processed food characterized by relatively involved methods of production. There is no simple definition of UPF, but they are generally understood to be an industrial creation derived from natural food or synthesized from other organic compounds.[1][2] The resulting products are designed to be highly profitable, convenient, and hyperpalatable, often through food additives such as preservatives, colourings, and flavourings.[3] UPFs have often undergone processes such as moulding/extruding, hydrogenation, or frying.[4]” Wikipedia
I don’t know why it is not defined as such. It’s easy to understand to me anyway. Flour has been ground up by humans for centuries, and has gone through a process, but the end product still at least resembles what you find in nature. Glycerides however, need to be explained and created using chemistry through indusrial processes.
I don’t know if I could have picked a better example I am no expert. I’m simply disheartened so many struggle to distinguish between processed and ultra processed.
Olive oil is processed; if then, in an industrial process they extract the glyceride from that process and isolate it to its chemical form, to only then inject it into another food stuff product, that’s ultra processed.
Im not that smart, anyone feel free to holler at me for being incorrect. This is my understanding however.
I gave up Ultra-processed foods 15-20 years ago and lost a lot of weight, and maintained that weight loss for years only using the avoidance of ultra-processed foods. Of course when I got slack, I gained again. So to me it seems obvious the harms. However, one could argue injecting vitamin c to a food is healthy, and would be defined as going through ultra process to isolate the vitamin compound.
But there is, to me, something sinister to have food scientists engineer food to be highly palatable and addictive, while also being detrimental to our health. Looking at you hot cheetos.
In this reply you you talked about “some breads”, the OP Post only talks about bread - and that for sure had only ingredients in using at home.
Same for French fries: potato, salt, fat .
I’m with the poor downvoted fellow, I don’t understand where the risk comes from when it’s described this vague.
Are home made burgers better? Is it the freezing process and I should lower my meal prep? Is it additives?
I think there’s a bit of a political drive to try to label chronic conditions as “lifestyle” diseases tbh, hence the loose definitions.
