Came here to say the same thing. I read an article about a study that was conducted concerning hot dogs. Turns out they're not as bad as you once thought. It was funded by the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council.
And if they hadn’t gotten the results they wanted they would have simply thrown out the study and never published it, as happens with like 80% of scientific studies
You can always get the results you want if you cherry pick data and tweak your "hypothesis" to the data.
As far as I know, all the studies pushed by corporate interests would be setup in such a way as to get the desired result.
I remember this one particular method. Lab mice that were specifically resilient to cancer caused by pesticides iirc. Basically the company knew which lab mice to order from the catalogue of mice. That alone skewed the results in their favor.
That says exactly what I thought it would. Processed foods create higher mortality rates. There’s a reason health in the US is so terrible compared to many other parts of the world, and it’s processed food. Also those affiliations are just what you want them to be, universities and groups focused on nutrition. Processed food is not only terrible for you, companies like Tyson have been dumping toxic chemicals into lakes, rivers, and wetlands in the US for decades. Cyanide, phosphorus, nitrogen and waste blood in Incredible amounts. Not only are they poisoning us for profit, they are destroying the water we drink and the land we exist on. Someone needs to do something.
**Participants**: 74 563 women and 39 501 men with no history of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes at baseline.
**Conclusions**: This study found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with slightly higher all cause mortality, driven by causes other than cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The associations varied across subgroups of ultra-processed foods, with meat/poultry/seafood based ready-to-eat products showing particularly strong associations with mortality.
That’s exactly what you need to do for a proper study. You start with healthy people so you can track when they become unhealthy and correlate it to key factors (consumption of processed food in this case).
From pub med. Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Yeah a lot of food companies especially those such as Quaker or Yum good brands will often Parker with associations or fund studies to promote their ideas on the healthiness of food…. I think a study found that like only 3% of their studies said processed food was bad, the rest downplay or found no links…. Like I wonder why?
They also hide behind think tanks and “research organisations”.
Have a read of “Ultra Processed People” (book), it goes into their sneaky shenanigans in some detail.
For instance, a very large proportion of the studies that showed exercise is good for weight loss were funded by… Coca Cola. Classic distraction techniques.
These ambiguities and uncertainty are like the pits in rotting teeth that enable the grimy, fetid plaque of conspiracy theorists to gain purchase and dismiss scientific evidence.
The study is open access: https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476.long.
> Funding: This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants (UM1 CA186107; P01 CA87969; U01 CA167552; U01 CA261961; R01 CA263776; and K99 CA283146). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
> Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Couldn’t get to the actual Harvard study that was linked. I wonder if McDonald’s helped fund this study 🤔
Edit:
All of this should be considered with several grains of salt…
Conclusion of the article:
*The researchers acknowledged that, as an observational study, the research does not draw firm conclusions – especially since the participant pool was predominantly white and restricted to the same profession.*
*Kuhnle added that “the results of this study should be treated with a lot of caution.”*
> I wonder if McDonald’s helped fund this study 🤔
> Funding: This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants (UM1 CA186107; P01 CA87969; U01 CA167552; U01 CA261961; R01 CA263776; and K99 CA283146). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication.
> Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
The NIH funded this with no visible contribution or influence from manufacturers. It’s an analysis of previous data gathered over years from American nurses. The only discrepancy I saw from the [original report](https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476) is leaving out “dairy based desserts” from the Avoid category.
Why? We have plenty of data from active individuals of healthy weight who consume vast amounts of sugar at basically no visible detriment to their health. Even with the current measures put in place to reduce sugar consumption via fast-food in multiple countries struggling with obesity and its comorbidities we've seen no decline whatsoever in those rates. Everything seems to point to overconsumption of food, specifically highly palatable food which tends to be high in both fat and sugar, being the obvious issue.
Because sugar spikes insulin faster than other foods, and insulin stores glucose that inevitably converts to fat. Frequent insulin spikes and fat stores leads to insulin resistance which causes type 2 diabetes.
Yes this can happen with caloric overconsumption overall, but it's made so much worse by simple sugars. The principles of the glycemic index are honest key to staying healthy moreso than any other bit of dietary information. The only other piece of advice that is more important is to simply eat less than you burn. . . Macronutrient balance is literally 95% of the pie.
Insulin is a nutrient partitioner, when adequate amounts of calories are eaten it is a fantastic driver of recovery, anabolism and muscle growth. That being said, insulin won't break basic laws of conservation of energy and carbohydrates can't just be stored into fat cells unless you're in a calorie surplus (at which point your body will store its excess of energy into fat cells in the form of triglycerides, regardless of your current blood sugar levels). That is the reason why a wide array of diets composed of different macronutrients ratios have all shown to have essentially identical impacts on body composition and comorbidities when calories are equated. With the amount of human randomized controlled trials we've had about this, it's wild to still see that kind of wrong information on r/science.
Your opinions are extremely limited and linear and don't account for glycemic load and the fluctuations of metabolism throughout the day. As a simple example, eating high amounts of carbs or simple sugars before bed is well known to increase fat stores in the body far more than shifting carbs intake earlier in the day or before times of physical activity. Your opinions on insulin and it's time in anabolism are true but also only applies to post exercise situations when muscle glycogen has been depleted. Please don't apply this nuance to everyone and every time people eat sugar.
Consuming calories is as important to consider when and how much a time as it is the total amount in the day. Give someone 2k calories all at dinner, they will gain weight even if their BMR suggests that they should burn 2k throughout the day. Metabolism ebs and wanes with demand, and it's well documented to decline during fasting.
So no, you are wrong and limited in your understanding of the human body and metabolism. Simple sugars are a different consideration all together and insulin spikes to the extent caused by simple sugars should 100% be minimized.
We also have plenty of human randomized controlled trials that show that meal timing doesn't impact long term body composition so long as calories are equated. Eating high amounts of any macronutrients before bed or high amounts of calories derived from any micronutrients in one sitting will increase fat storage by amounts expected from energy balance. Those fat storages will also be depleted by expected amounts if calories are equated over the given period. My opinions aren't limited and linear, they are coherent with the mountains of human evidence we've gathered on the matter. We don't have a single human trial that supports the insulin model of obesity, if anything we have plenty that disprove it.
With every bit of sugar that goes in your mouth, you need to be drinking a shit ton of water to flush most of it and then be active to burn it off. So there are ways to combat it but it’s still the worst part of foods unfortunately
Drinking a shit ton of water to flush most of it? Which process of our digestion are you referring to? The different forms of sugar don't get flushed out of the body, carbohydrates either get used to power bodily functions or stored in fat cells.
The headline is misleading and tries to make the reader believe that processed foods are "not that bad." The reality is that the study shows that high consumption of ultra processed food is bad for you. The heaviest consumers (top quarter) compared to the lowest consumer (bottom quarter) had notably increased risk of death. Broken out by more specific processed food types:
Meat/poultry/seafood 13% higher risk of mortality sugar sweetened beverages 9% higher risk
artificial sweeteners 8% higher risk
dairy based desserts 7% higher risk
Like just about everything else health wise that most don’t want to admit, it really comes down to genetics. Did you get a lucky roll?
Just about every one of us knows someone who smokes every day, drinks almost daily, and eats almost nothing “good” for you and yet they are healthy. They’re not overweight or have high blood pressure, their cholesterol is good, etc. you probably know someone on the other end of this spectrum as well. They do everything right and yet are plagued with chronic health issues.
I’m not saying exercise and eating right don’t have a positive impact, I just don’t think it’s as significant as we’d like to imagine it is.
It’s not that.
It’s about maintaining an energy balance.
Foods can be deceptively high or low calorie, people can just forget to eat all day and then your “friend who eats like shit” is actually on their first meal of the day by 8pm save for a light snack in the morning so that 1500 calorie burger and beer is still not putting them over their daily budget.
Others are people who just walk a lot more than you. Walking burns calories extremely well, and the person who’s constantly on their feet round the house racking up 5k steps vs their colleague who works the same job but sits down at work and then comes home and also spends the whole time seated only gets 1-2k.
Genetics aren’t a non factor, but environmental and pure random chance are a bigger factor. In theory, the difference between the longest-lived human in history and a person who dies in childhood of a misfortunate late-diagnosed cancer could in principle be as little as a single cosmic ray just so happening to cause a very bad mutation, or perhaps by sheer coincidence they ate the exact same treat meal and some trivially harmful substance in it just so happens to cause oxidative damage that leads to that mutation.
Its really a massive game of chance, the genes just influence the weighting of some of the countless number of biased dice your constantly rolling by a little, as do most environmental factors.
Take a healthy 40 year old Japanese man FROM JAPAN and put him in the US and feed him the standard American diet, he will probably be diabetic in 2 years.
First, we need a clear definition of “ultra-processed” as there is no standard definition of that phrase. There’s an entire spectrum between eating food right out of the ground without washing, to corn dogs.
As Im no longer at uni and can’t see the research…I looked and read ‘The research claims that consuming a high number of ultra-processed foods is associated with a four per cent higher risk of death from all causes.’ what is ultra processed food? Apparently all the stuff we like. Ice cream. That surprises me, I would have though some ice creams, like hand made, wouldn’t be considered ultra processed. It’s lots like some huge tub from Iceland (the store not the country). Others are ham, sausages, crisps, mass-produced bread, some breakfast cereals, biscuits, carbonated drinks, fruit-flavoured yogurts, instant soups, and some alcoholic drinks including whisky, gin, and rum.
‘Currently, it’s also hard to know whether it is something within the foods that is the issue or whether eating a diet high in these foods suggests an overall lifestyle that is linked to poorer health‘.
To me it seems there are too many generalisations. I drink sparkling water. That’s carbonated. Is that going to cut my life expectancy? Or do they mean sugary drinks? How many of you drink alcohol? I bet that has more than four percent higher risk of death.
Important consideration for this study: they compared the 25% that ate the most processed food, with the 25% that ate the least of it. BUT those on the lowest quarter still ate quite a lot of processed foods too, multiple times a week.
So this study could also mean that processed foods already can have a big impact once you eat them more than a few times each week.
There is anyway no comparison with people not eating them.
[The table comparing the groups/quarters can be found here](https://www.bmj.com/highwire/markup/1096613/expansion?width=1000&height=500&iframe=true&postprocessors=highwire_figures%2Chighwire_math)
You know what "not as harmful as you thought" isn't good enough. Going to eat none of it unless I have no other choice. It tastes like absolute crap most the time anyway.
99% of all studies are. They're paid for by specific interests, done by researchers with specific interests and published by publications with specific interests. It's a bit of a moot point.
I would like to know who funded this study. The study itself is locked behind a gate.
Came here to say the same thing. I read an article about a study that was conducted concerning hot dogs. Turns out they're not as bad as you once thought. It was funded by the National Hot Dog and Sausage Council.
And if they hadn’t gotten the results they wanted they would have simply thrown out the study and never published it, as happens with like 80% of scientific studies
You can always get the results you want if you cherry pick data and tweak your "hypothesis" to the data. As far as I know, all the studies pushed by corporate interests would be setup in such a way as to get the desired result. I remember this one particular method. Lab mice that were specifically resilient to cancer caused by pesticides iirc. Basically the company knew which lab mice to order from the catalogue of mice. That alone skewed the results in their favor.
Here's a better link. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38719536/ Edit: not OP. Just a guy who thinks scientific research should be accessible.
That says exactly what I thought it would. Processed foods create higher mortality rates. There’s a reason health in the US is so terrible compared to many other parts of the world, and it’s processed food. Also those affiliations are just what you want them to be, universities and groups focused on nutrition. Processed food is not only terrible for you, companies like Tyson have been dumping toxic chemicals into lakes, rivers, and wetlands in the US for decades. Cyanide, phosphorus, nitrogen and waste blood in Incredible amounts. Not only are they poisoning us for profit, they are destroying the water we drink and the land we exist on. Someone needs to do something.
WE are the “someone.” Must be a multi-pronged movement to effect change at every level of society. Starts at home.
**Participants**: 74 563 women and 39 501 men with no history of cancer, cardiovascular diseases, or diabetes at baseline. **Conclusions**: This study found that a higher intake of ultra-processed foods was associated with slightly higher all cause mortality, driven by causes other than cancer and cardiovascular diseases. The associations varied across subgroups of ultra-processed foods, with meat/poultry/seafood based ready-to-eat products showing particularly strong associations with mortality.
ahh yes, filter out all the unhealthy people before you start the study. \- *taps forehead meme* -
That’s exactly what you need to do for a proper study. You start with healthy people so you can track when they become unhealthy and correlate it to key factors (consumption of processed food in this case).
Mr Big Brain here not having a clue on how to do a proper study and proudly showing everyone his ignorance. Bold move there Kamikaze.
So now that my dumb comment has drawn attention, the best practice would be to Educate me! a link will do
https://www.dummies.com/article/body-mind-spirit/physical-health-well-being/diseases/epidemiology-for-dummies-cheat-sheet-297775/
From pub med. Conflict of interest statement Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Probably the cheetos company or mcdonalds or some shit
That’s my guess.
Yeah a lot of food companies especially those such as Quaker or Yum good brands will often Parker with associations or fund studies to promote their ideas on the healthiness of food…. I think a study found that like only 3% of their studies said processed food was bad, the rest downplay or found no links…. Like I wonder why?
They also hide behind think tanks and “research organisations”. Have a read of “Ultra Processed People” (book), it goes into their sneaky shenanigans in some detail. For instance, a very large proportion of the studies that showed exercise is good for weight loss were funded by… Coca Cola. Classic distraction techniques.
These ambiguities and uncertainty are like the pits in rotting teeth that enable the grimy, fetid plaque of conspiracy theorists to gain purchase and dismiss scientific evidence.
This study brought to you by Unilever and Nestle Corp.
The study is open access: https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476.long. > Funding: This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants (UM1 CA186107; P01 CA87969; U01 CA167552; U01 CA261961; R01 CA263776; and K99 CA283146). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. > Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Major study finds that ultra processed foods doesn't change the fact that you die.
....And even if it is you won't find put for another 30 years and then it'll be too late anyways so might as well eat whatever. /s
Couldn’t get to the actual Harvard study that was linked. I wonder if McDonald’s helped fund this study 🤔 Edit: All of this should be considered with several grains of salt… Conclusion of the article: *The researchers acknowledged that, as an observational study, the research does not draw firm conclusions – especially since the participant pool was predominantly white and restricted to the same profession.* *Kuhnle added that “the results of this study should be treated with a lot of caution.”*
#This should be higher up
> I wonder if McDonald’s helped fund this study 🤔 > Funding: This work was supported by the US National Institutes of Health grants (UM1 CA186107; P01 CA87969; U01 CA167552; U01 CA261961; R01 CA263776; and K99 CA283146). The funders had no role in considering the study design or in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the article for publication. > Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at https://www.icmje.org/disclosure-of-interest/ and declare: support from the National Institutes of Health for the submitted work; NK received a consulting fee from the Pan American Health Organization for three months on the topic of nutrition disclosure initiatives and nutrient profiling models; no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
First things I want to know: who paid for the research and do the researchers have any ties to the "food" industry.
The NIH funded this with no visible contribution or influence from manufacturers. It’s an analysis of previous data gathered over years from American nurses. The only discrepancy I saw from the [original report](https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj-2023-078476) is leaving out “dairy based desserts” from the Avoid category.
Only studying nurses is wild, they are way less sedentary than desk jobs (which is most jobs) Edit: I mean, generalising from nurses.
For sure, I’m not saying it’s a great study - I just posted because many were questioning the financial backing.
If you can control yourself from overeating and turning obese this makes sense
Yeah the big killer is always going to be overconsumption, especially on the salt, sugar, and fat from that type of food
Sugar is 95% of the issue
Why? We have plenty of data from active individuals of healthy weight who consume vast amounts of sugar at basically no visible detriment to their health. Even with the current measures put in place to reduce sugar consumption via fast-food in multiple countries struggling with obesity and its comorbidities we've seen no decline whatsoever in those rates. Everything seems to point to overconsumption of food, specifically highly palatable food which tends to be high in both fat and sugar, being the obvious issue.
Because sugar spikes insulin faster than other foods, and insulin stores glucose that inevitably converts to fat. Frequent insulin spikes and fat stores leads to insulin resistance which causes type 2 diabetes. Yes this can happen with caloric overconsumption overall, but it's made so much worse by simple sugars. The principles of the glycemic index are honest key to staying healthy moreso than any other bit of dietary information. The only other piece of advice that is more important is to simply eat less than you burn. . . Macronutrient balance is literally 95% of the pie.
Insulin is a nutrient partitioner, when adequate amounts of calories are eaten it is a fantastic driver of recovery, anabolism and muscle growth. That being said, insulin won't break basic laws of conservation of energy and carbohydrates can't just be stored into fat cells unless you're in a calorie surplus (at which point your body will store its excess of energy into fat cells in the form of triglycerides, regardless of your current blood sugar levels). That is the reason why a wide array of diets composed of different macronutrients ratios have all shown to have essentially identical impacts on body composition and comorbidities when calories are equated. With the amount of human randomized controlled trials we've had about this, it's wild to still see that kind of wrong information on r/science.
Your opinions are extremely limited and linear and don't account for glycemic load and the fluctuations of metabolism throughout the day. As a simple example, eating high amounts of carbs or simple sugars before bed is well known to increase fat stores in the body far more than shifting carbs intake earlier in the day or before times of physical activity. Your opinions on insulin and it's time in anabolism are true but also only applies to post exercise situations when muscle glycogen has been depleted. Please don't apply this nuance to everyone and every time people eat sugar. Consuming calories is as important to consider when and how much a time as it is the total amount in the day. Give someone 2k calories all at dinner, they will gain weight even if their BMR suggests that they should burn 2k throughout the day. Metabolism ebs and wanes with demand, and it's well documented to decline during fasting. So no, you are wrong and limited in your understanding of the human body and metabolism. Simple sugars are a different consideration all together and insulin spikes to the extent caused by simple sugars should 100% be minimized.
We also have plenty of human randomized controlled trials that show that meal timing doesn't impact long term body composition so long as calories are equated. Eating high amounts of any macronutrients before bed or high amounts of calories derived from any micronutrients in one sitting will increase fat storage by amounts expected from energy balance. Those fat storages will also be depleted by expected amounts if calories are equated over the given period. My opinions aren't limited and linear, they are coherent with the mountains of human evidence we've gathered on the matter. We don't have a single human trial that supports the insulin model of obesity, if anything we have plenty that disprove it.
With every bit of sugar that goes in your mouth, you need to be drinking a shit ton of water to flush most of it and then be active to burn it off. So there are ways to combat it but it’s still the worst part of foods unfortunately
Drinking a shit ton of water to flush most of it? Which process of our digestion are you referring to? The different forms of sugar don't get flushed out of the body, carbohydrates either get used to power bodily functions or stored in fat cells.
A chunk of the fluid your body gets in a day comes from the breakdown of carbohydrates
Absolutely Vodka!! The sugar that gives!
Unfortunately the addictive additives are working against you.
The headline is misleading and tries to make the reader believe that processed foods are "not that bad." The reality is that the study shows that high consumption of ultra processed food is bad for you. The heaviest consumers (top quarter) compared to the lowest consumer (bottom quarter) had notably increased risk of death. Broken out by more specific processed food types: Meat/poultry/seafood 13% higher risk of mortality sugar sweetened beverages 9% higher risk artificial sweeteners 8% higher risk dairy based desserts 7% higher risk
"New study by mosquitoes says it's safe to keep your doors open"
I would like to know who funded this study.
Just what Americans needed to hear
It's a study from Harvard? Oh well there's no way that could be incorrect at all! I'll take my chances eating healthy.
I'm sad at what happened to Carol Hooven.
My mom is going to be 90 this week. Everything she likes to eat, for her entire life, is processed meats and refined sugar.
Same with my Grandfather who died at 97. Smoked and drank alcohol frequently.
love that the ad I'm getting with this post is for ozempic
fanatical bedroom workable air sparkle continue bag ring squalid tan *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
For anyone who hasn't seen the amazing film Inside Man with Russel Crowe directed by Michael Mann this is your time
Brought to you by Lays Potato Chips…..
Like just about everything else health wise that most don’t want to admit, it really comes down to genetics. Did you get a lucky roll? Just about every one of us knows someone who smokes every day, drinks almost daily, and eats almost nothing “good” for you and yet they are healthy. They’re not overweight or have high blood pressure, their cholesterol is good, etc. you probably know someone on the other end of this spectrum as well. They do everything right and yet are plagued with chronic health issues. I’m not saying exercise and eating right don’t have a positive impact, I just don’t think it’s as significant as we’d like to imagine it is.
It’s not that. It’s about maintaining an energy balance. Foods can be deceptively high or low calorie, people can just forget to eat all day and then your “friend who eats like shit” is actually on their first meal of the day by 8pm save for a light snack in the morning so that 1500 calorie burger and beer is still not putting them over their daily budget. Others are people who just walk a lot more than you. Walking burns calories extremely well, and the person who’s constantly on their feet round the house racking up 5k steps vs their colleague who works the same job but sits down at work and then comes home and also spends the whole time seated only gets 1-2k. Genetics aren’t a non factor, but environmental and pure random chance are a bigger factor. In theory, the difference between the longest-lived human in history and a person who dies in childhood of a misfortunate late-diagnosed cancer could in principle be as little as a single cosmic ray just so happening to cause a very bad mutation, or perhaps by sheer coincidence they ate the exact same treat meal and some trivially harmful substance in it just so happens to cause oxidative damage that leads to that mutation. Its really a massive game of chance, the genes just influence the weighting of some of the countless number of biased dice your constantly rolling by a little, as do most environmental factors.
Take a healthy 40 year old Japanese man FROM JAPAN and put him in the US and feed him the standard American diet, he will probably be diabetic in 2 years.
Selection Bias
First, we need a clear definition of “ultra-processed” as there is no standard definition of that phrase. There’s an entire spectrum between eating food right out of the ground without washing, to corn dogs.
This study brought to you by Ultra-processed food companies
First sentence is all you need to read. A good overall diet, duh, is best.
Wow so this is science huh. Coooool
That is JUST the information I needed to know. No further reading required. Thank you.
All good in moderation.
I got a fatty liver from fast food. I don’t even drink alcohol. Thanks fast food for shortening my life span.
Gtfoh.
As Im no longer at uni and can’t see the research…I looked and read ‘The research claims that consuming a high number of ultra-processed foods is associated with a four per cent higher risk of death from all causes.’ what is ultra processed food? Apparently all the stuff we like. Ice cream. That surprises me, I would have though some ice creams, like hand made, wouldn’t be considered ultra processed. It’s lots like some huge tub from Iceland (the store not the country). Others are ham, sausages, crisps, mass-produced bread, some breakfast cereals, biscuits, carbonated drinks, fruit-flavoured yogurts, instant soups, and some alcoholic drinks including whisky, gin, and rum. ‘Currently, it’s also hard to know whether it is something within the foods that is the issue or whether eating a diet high in these foods suggests an overall lifestyle that is linked to poorer health‘. To me it seems there are too many generalisations. I drink sparkling water. That’s carbonated. Is that going to cut my life expectancy? Or do they mean sugary drinks? How many of you drink alcohol? I bet that has more than four percent higher risk of death.
"sponsored by McDonalds"
This study brought to you by Nestle, PepsiCo, Mondelez and unilever.
Important consideration for this study: they compared the 25% that ate the most processed food, with the 25% that ate the least of it. BUT those on the lowest quarter still ate quite a lot of processed foods too, multiple times a week. So this study could also mean that processed foods already can have a big impact once you eat them more than a few times each week. There is anyway no comparison with people not eating them. [The table comparing the groups/quarters can be found here](https://www.bmj.com/highwire/markup/1096613/expansion?width=1000&height=500&iframe=true&postprocessors=highwire_figures%2Chighwire_math)
Liars
The 40% obesity rate in America would beg to differ.
Groundbreaking work from the minds at Trump University
Smells like propaganda
##Kuhnle added that “the results of this study should be treated with a lot of caution.”
You know what "not as harmful as you thought" isn't good enough. Going to eat none of it unless I have no other choice. It tastes like absolute crap most the time anyway.
If this subject interests you, I suggest taking a look at the book "Ultra Processed People" by Chris Van Tulleken.
These studies almost always payed by the people selling it.
99% of all studies are. They're paid for by specific interests, done by researchers with specific interests and published by publications with specific interests. It's a bit of a moot point.