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:
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
Those are shit definitions that come from pop-science not real science. They’re so broad as to be functionally useless.
Is UPF food with ultra high fibre bad? Is UPF with ultra high vitamin A 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.
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.
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.
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.