by wayne persky |
Group 1 includes unprocessed or minimally processed foods (e.g., fresh fruits, vegetables, grains, meats).
Group 2 includes processed culinary ingredients (e.g., oils, butter, sugar, and salt).
Group 3 includes processed foods (such as canned vegetables, cheeses, freshly made bread).
Group 4 includes ultra-processed food and drink products (e.g., soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, reconstituted meat products, pre-prepared frozen dishes).
Using the NOVA classification system, researchers at UCL compared the nutrient content and processing levels of foods to categorize foods into four groups: unprocessed or minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods. Their study, was published in the British Journal of Nutrition, and it yielded several noteworthy findings.
1. Contain higher levels of unhealthy ingredients, including calories, fat, saturated fat, sugar, and salt, compared with minimally processed foods, and this often results in more red and fewer green traffic lights on their FOPL (which would suggest that the labeling system is working correctly).
2. Lead to misleading health perceptions. Although this doesn't apply to all UPFs, some UPFs may appear healthy based on their labeling despite being less nutritious than minimally processed foods, leading consumers to mistakenly believe that UPFs are healthy options.
3. Tend to overlap between nutritional content and processing, typically having a worse nutritional profile and FOPL score when compared with minimally processed foods. Even so, some UPFs still manage to receive favorable POPL scores, and that creates confusion.
Because the current labeling system generally fails to incorporate the degree of processing into its assessment, consumers are often misled. For example a low-fat yogurt might appear to be healthy due to its green traffic light regarding fat content, but it can still be high in sugar and heavily processed. The resulting complexity makes it difficult for consumers to make truly informed choices.
The BMJ study conducted an umbrella review of 45 meta-analyses from 14 review articles, encompassing nearly 10 million participants. This comprehensive analysis revealed that higher consumption of UPFs is consistently associated with numerous adverse health outcomes. Some of the significant findings of that study include:
1. Higher intake of UPFs is linked to a 50% increased risk of cardiovascular disease-related death. This convincing evidence underscores the significant impact of these foods on heart health.
2. The study found a 48-53% higher risk of anxiety and common mental disorders among individuals with high UPF consumption. This association highlights the potential mental health implications of diets rich in ultra-processed foods.
3. There is a 12% greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes associated with high UPF intake. The study also found highly suggestive evidence of a 40-66% increased risk of obesity and related metabolic disorders.
4. High consumption of UPFs is associated with a 21% greater risk of death from any cause. This finding is particularly concerning as it suggests a broad and significant impact on overall mortality.
5. The study also indicated increased risks of various other issues, including sleep problems (22%), depression (22%), and several gastrointestinal and cardiometabolic conditions, although the evidence for these associations remains limited.
6. Various characteristics of UPFs lead to various health issues. For example, the high levels of added sugars, fats, and salts can lead to obesity, hypertension and diabetes. Additionally the additives and preservatives used in UPFs can disrupt gut microbiota, possibly contributing to various gastrointestinal and inflammatory conditions.
1. Ready to eat meat, poultry, and seafood-based products showed the strongest and most consistent associations with increased mortality.
2. Both sugar sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages were linked to higher all-cause mortality.
3. Consumption of dairy based desserts was also associated with an increased risk of death.
4. Ultra-processed breakfast foods contributed to the higher mortality risk as well.
The study highlighted that while UPFs are often high in added sugars, fats, and salts, they lack essential nutrients like vitamins and fiber, which may contribute to their adverse health effects. Interestingly, no significant associations were found between UPF consumption and deaths due to cancer or cardiovascular diseases.
As unlikely as that might be, clearly this raises a valid question about the choice of statistical methods used to analyze the data in these research studies. In other words, the study results appear to be confounded (at least, in my opinion). That doesn't necessarily mean that the study findings are invalid, but it certainly raises some doubts about their statistical value.
1. On average, UPFs accounted for 16% of the participants' total daily energy intake.
2. About 20% of participants reported chronic insomnia.
3. Individuals with chronic insomnia consumed a higher percentage of their daily energy from UPFs.
The study found a statistically significant association between higher UPF intake and increased odds of chronic insomnia. The risk was slightly higher in males than females, with an odds ratio of 1.09 for males and 1.05 for females per a 10% increase in UPF intake. But again, this appears to be a rather modest association, rather than a truly significant effect.
Putting this all into perspective, it appears that the evidence, although significant, is less than overwhelming, or even compelling, when compared with research regarding health risks in general Yes, there's a large body of evidence that suggests that UPFs probably increase the risk of developing health issues, but the evidence appears to be relatively modest — reminiscent of the old saying about a lot of tempest in a teapot.
The bottom line seems to be that yes, most Americans would be significantly better off if they avoided, or at least minimized UPFs in their diet, but until better evidence becomes available it's rather difficult to conclude that UPFs are having truly substantial effects on our overall health, let alone acting as a "silent killer", except possibly in extreme cases.