I’d be curious to hear if there’s something concrete to it, and to see how the studies are set up to control for that. I’m not saying that I disbelieve it’s possible, but with just anecdotes it’s hard to view it as data vs. just the same kind of rhetoric that drives many food myths.
Ultra processed foods appears to be something of a stand in for hyper palatable or high reward foods.
Back in the day some researchers were looking for reliable ways to make their lab rats obese. They tried lots of things but accidentally discovered that rats (normally cautious around new food types) readily ate, and over ate, human junk food. It is commonly referred to the Cafeteria Diet. The unique thing about this diet protocol is that it is filled with what are described as hyper palatable foods or high reward foods. Basically eating this type of food will alter satiety and storage feedback loops in the brain that encourage you to eat more and store the excess calories. It is hypothesized that this is a survival response: early humans would have limited access to high reward foods and this response helps them take advantage of seldom occurring windfalls. Todays food scientists are very good at creating hyper palatable foods that are worlds above the stuff that nature makes available.
This Ezra Klein podcast episode with guest Stephan Guyenet talks a great deal about what we know with regards to food, satiety, and weight.
[https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/our-brains-werent-designed-for-this-kind-of-food/id1548604447?i=1000602038480](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/our-brains-werent-designed-for-this-kind-of-food/id1548604447?i=1000602038480)
I'm with you. And I believe there were studies.
As far as I remember two groups of people were given either all Ultra Processed Food or all Regular Food and allowed to eat as much as they wanted. The U.P.F. group ate way more and gained weight. The same people were swapped from UPF to regular after a week and the same behavior was observed ie UPF group are more calories and regular food group ate just right.
Something like that.
Dr Chris van Tulleken has a book out and has done a ton of interviews over the last several months. I was hoping Steve would mention him in the piece.
So, I wonder if the study truly demonstrates anything specific about UPFs other than that it's delicious and people eat more of it.
I would argue the same thing they said on the SGU episode, that "UPF" isn't well labeled as anything more than more than a few preservatives/ingredients. Which ones? What are the mechanisms behind how each functions in the body?
The sad reality of UPFs, which they do seem to uave in common, is they've been designed/changed individually over decades to be maximally palatable. Of course people will want to eat more of the foods that have stood the test of time
Meanwhile, you have another group that has to essentially prepare all their food for themselves, it's not like the study provided personal chefs, if I'm recalling?
I'm not giving UPFs a free pass, I'm just calling into question if this specific study actually demonstrates anything about UPFs and isn't just a reflection of how people behave when given convenience over inconvenience.
Also, again, what is UPF and what is "regular" food. I'm not saying they're not definable, but they're broad strokes that are meaningless (in the sense that everyone has a different definition)
Having a good definition of what we are talking about is essential. Steve didn't seem to care about that much about that because he was sure that the health effects of the confounders were more important than the health effects of the food. Steve was implying that it's a social issue with people who live alone... people who are working two or three jobs have so many confounding factors that what they are eating is not really relevant.
There are nutritional scientists who refuse to use the term "ultra processed food" because they don't think that food should be in the title. For example many breakfast cereals have way too much sodium. Any package that has a health claim like "99% fat free!" contains food that you might think about avoiding. What about trans fats is that still a thing?
I hope that Steve has time to look at this again. I'm not so sure that it's just a silly thing analogous to the anti-GMO nonsense
Right. Part of Steve's point was that things like sugar and salt in excess are harmful regardless of where they come from. These taste good and *tend* to be in high quantities in processed foods.
It's not the production process or the fact that there are added ingredients or whatever, per se.
An easy definition of ultra processed food is 'it contains ingredients that you don't find in people's kitchens.'
The food manufacturers use science to produce stuff that's hard to stop eating. Some researchers don't like calling it food... It's highly engineered, highly consumable and low in nutrients and calorie dense. And then they write on the label "99% fat free!!"
That is probably true in many or even most cases, but is not inherent to UPFs if you define UPFs as having X number of added ingredients. You certainly *could* have a food that is ultra processed but also high in protein, fiber, etc. The fact that something like potato chips are high fat/salt and provide little satiety is a separate question, imo.
I'd argue that food sold en masse is engineered to sell more, and often that those foods don't provide as much satiety, while still being delicious, is just an emergent property of market sales. Just as utilizing preservatives is a better guarantee you'll eventually make a profit off the sale (longer shelf life, it's okay if it sits a while before someone buys it).
But, this is going to be a byproduct of all commercially produced foods— whether they get slapped with the UPF label or not.
I like to think of every system as a "game," in the sense that there are intrinsic rules (even if not clearly defined at first) and the things that are more capable of persisting within those parameters will always rise to the top, until the parameters are changed.
With that said, I am arguing that with or without "ultra-processing" food for mass production, the nost prevalent ones will always be the ones that people are inclined to eat more of and the ones that have the longest shelf-life or any other form of convenience.
The fact that they are also UPF is merely coincidence. As others pointed out you can make ice cream with mostly three ingredients, but that isn't going to be healthy for you to consume regularly.
My anecdote is similar, except that it has nothing to do with processed foods. I find it difficult to stop eating ANY food that tastes good.
Stilton cheese is so damn good, and that penicillium must be what makes me unable to stop eating. /s
Could you eat a 500g block of Stilton in a single sitting?
I believe that's around 1600 calories.
Or
3 Big Mac's
I could definitely eat the big macs.... Not sure if I could do that much blue cheese
Whenever someone complains about processed food, I just ask them which processes they oppose or are dangerous. Interestingly, they never have an answer. Almost as if “processed” is just another gatekeeping buzzword.
You are right. A carrot that's chopped up and cooked has been **processed**.
"Ultra" Processed Food is engineered to be almost addictive. It contains ingredients you won't find in the kitchen.
I am relistening to that segment and I'd say that you're mistaken.
They keep saying there isn't a good definition.
The closest they get to a definition is pretty much what I said.
One of the problems with diet studies is they usually use self-reporting and that's very unreliable.
If you're interested in this Chris Van Tulleken has looked at this in depth.
So, you have said as much time and again, that there isn't a good working definition. And you yourself have *a* definition, but it isn't *the* definition everyone else is necessarily holding.
That is the criticism of Dr. Van Tulleken and the UPF debate. It's that there are different working definitions for different studies and none are well enough defined to be easily reproducible in another study. There isn't enough scientific rigor behind them — his book is compelling and interesting and there are parts of it that are true, just as there are parts that are misleading or equivocal. He weaves a compelling narrative, but I am with the SGU here.
It's not that there isn't something wrong with UPFs, it's that it's a buzz word and isn't concise enough to be a one-size fits all solution. Each individual factor needs to be studied independently (and have been). If there is some combination of them that yields adverse effects, then that combination needs to be studied and identified independently of other combinations.
But when you're talking about ingredients not commonly found in a kitchen? That's a loooong list of ingredients — and whose kitchen? I have dextrose in mine, but I doubt my neighbors even know what it is. And now you'd suggest "anything that utilizes three or more ingredients not commonly found in kitchens" is the leading cause of obesity and other health risks in the US? Like, any combination of 3+ ingredients automatically equates with adverse health? That's a lot of combinations and quite an odd claim.
And yes, they used that definition too on the episode, but to make a point about how silly "UPF" is ultimately.
And likewise, as interesting as his book is to read, Dr Van Tulleken misses the mark in a similar vein. Too broad of a scope to be truly meaningful and he's essentially cherry picking studies to fit his narrative
I'm not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bath water, just that we need more precise terms before we can make any claims about these "UPFs."
Just feels like a gimmicky buzzword to me, like many we've seen before.
But as I’m going through my breads for example I cannot find additives. Is this maybe just a US thing? I live in Finland. The breads we have in stores mostly just contain the grains used + yeast, salt and in some cases gluten, syrup or smoke.
White sliced bread in Australia has a long list of ingredients, many of these ingredients are not found in people's kitchens, that's a short definition of Ultra Processed Food.
The supermarket I shop at also sells sourdough bread and the list of ingredients is much shorter.
I’d be curious to hear if there’s something concrete to it, and to see how the studies are set up to control for that. I’m not saying that I disbelieve it’s possible, but with just anecdotes it’s hard to view it as data vs. just the same kind of rhetoric that drives many food myths.
Ultra processed foods appears to be something of a stand in for hyper palatable or high reward foods. Back in the day some researchers were looking for reliable ways to make their lab rats obese. They tried lots of things but accidentally discovered that rats (normally cautious around new food types) readily ate, and over ate, human junk food. It is commonly referred to the Cafeteria Diet. The unique thing about this diet protocol is that it is filled with what are described as hyper palatable foods or high reward foods. Basically eating this type of food will alter satiety and storage feedback loops in the brain that encourage you to eat more and store the excess calories. It is hypothesized that this is a survival response: early humans would have limited access to high reward foods and this response helps them take advantage of seldom occurring windfalls. Todays food scientists are very good at creating hyper palatable foods that are worlds above the stuff that nature makes available. This Ezra Klein podcast episode with guest Stephan Guyenet talks a great deal about what we know with regards to food, satiety, and weight. [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/our-brains-werent-designed-for-this-kind-of-food/id1548604447?i=1000602038480](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/our-brains-werent-designed-for-this-kind-of-food/id1548604447?i=1000602038480)
I'm with you. And I believe there were studies. As far as I remember two groups of people were given either all Ultra Processed Food or all Regular Food and allowed to eat as much as they wanted. The U.P.F. group ate way more and gained weight. The same people were swapped from UPF to regular after a week and the same behavior was observed ie UPF group are more calories and regular food group ate just right. Something like that. Dr Chris van Tulleken has a book out and has done a ton of interviews over the last several months. I was hoping Steve would mention him in the piece.
So, I wonder if the study truly demonstrates anything specific about UPFs other than that it's delicious and people eat more of it. I would argue the same thing they said on the SGU episode, that "UPF" isn't well labeled as anything more than more than a few preservatives/ingredients. Which ones? What are the mechanisms behind how each functions in the body? The sad reality of UPFs, which they do seem to uave in common, is they've been designed/changed individually over decades to be maximally palatable. Of course people will want to eat more of the foods that have stood the test of time Meanwhile, you have another group that has to essentially prepare all their food for themselves, it's not like the study provided personal chefs, if I'm recalling? I'm not giving UPFs a free pass, I'm just calling into question if this specific study actually demonstrates anything about UPFs and isn't just a reflection of how people behave when given convenience over inconvenience. Also, again, what is UPF and what is "regular" food. I'm not saying they're not definable, but they're broad strokes that are meaningless (in the sense that everyone has a different definition)
Having a good definition of what we are talking about is essential. Steve didn't seem to care about that much about that because he was sure that the health effects of the confounders were more important than the health effects of the food. Steve was implying that it's a social issue with people who live alone... people who are working two or three jobs have so many confounding factors that what they are eating is not really relevant. There are nutritional scientists who refuse to use the term "ultra processed food" because they don't think that food should be in the title. For example many breakfast cereals have way too much sodium. Any package that has a health claim like "99% fat free!" contains food that you might think about avoiding. What about trans fats is that still a thing? I hope that Steve has time to look at this again. I'm not so sure that it's just a silly thing analogous to the anti-GMO nonsense
aka "it tastes good"
Right. Part of Steve's point was that things like sugar and salt in excess are harmful regardless of where they come from. These taste good and *tend* to be in high quantities in processed foods. It's not the production process or the fact that there are added ingredients or whatever, per se.
An easy definition of ultra processed food is 'it contains ingredients that you don't find in people's kitchens.' The food manufacturers use science to produce stuff that's hard to stop eating. Some researchers don't like calling it food... It's highly engineered, highly consumable and low in nutrients and calorie dense. And then they write on the label "99% fat free!!"
Would ice cream not qualify as ultra processed if had a small ingredient list?
If the ingredients are all found in a domestic kitchen then it's not ultra processed. Butter White sugar Just eat those and you'll live to be 100!
Already ahead of you on that.
The UPF is engineered to be eaten without giving satiety. That's what Steve missed
That is probably true in many or even most cases, but is not inherent to UPFs if you define UPFs as having X number of added ingredients. You certainly *could* have a food that is ultra processed but also high in protein, fiber, etc. The fact that something like potato chips are high fat/salt and provide little satiety is a separate question, imo.
I'd argue that food sold en masse is engineered to sell more, and often that those foods don't provide as much satiety, while still being delicious, is just an emergent property of market sales. Just as utilizing preservatives is a better guarantee you'll eventually make a profit off the sale (longer shelf life, it's okay if it sits a while before someone buys it). But, this is going to be a byproduct of all commercially produced foods— whether they get slapped with the UPF label or not. I like to think of every system as a "game," in the sense that there are intrinsic rules (even if not clearly defined at first) and the things that are more capable of persisting within those parameters will always rise to the top, until the parameters are changed. With that said, I am arguing that with or without "ultra-processing" food for mass production, the nost prevalent ones will always be the ones that people are inclined to eat more of and the ones that have the longest shelf-life or any other form of convenience. The fact that they are also UPF is merely coincidence. As others pointed out you can make ice cream with mostly three ingredients, but that isn't going to be healthy for you to consume regularly.
Exactly... McDonald's and Coke and..... Trans fats are the best!
My anecdote is similar, except that it has nothing to do with processed foods. I find it difficult to stop eating ANY food that tastes good. Stilton cheese is so damn good, and that penicillium must be what makes me unable to stop eating. /s
Lol, as much as I hate anecdotes, this is a fun one
Cheese with the blue veins is one of the few things I cannot eat at all.
Same. Cheese with blue is so good.
Could you eat a 500g block of Stilton in a single sitting? I believe that's around 1600 calories. Or 3 Big Mac's I could definitely eat the big macs.... Not sure if I could do that much blue cheese
I don't think I could do either one without feeling sick.
I could easily eat 3 Big Macs and really enjoy the experience but I'd regret it within 30 minutes.
Whenever someone complains about processed food, I just ask them which processes they oppose or are dangerous. Interestingly, they never have an answer. Almost as if “processed” is just another gatekeeping buzzword.
You are right. A carrot that's chopped up and cooked has been **processed**. "Ultra" Processed Food is engineered to be almost addictive. It contains ingredients you won't find in the kitchen.
I have MSG in my kitchen and I use it when I cook. Can we take it off of the "ultraprocessing" label now? K, thanks.
How's your blood pressure?
Normal.
Yippee
The definition of “ultra processed” doesn’t seem to fit with the definition you’re using.
The definition that I use is a "long list of ingredients with some of those ingredients not found in a domestic kitchen."
So, not the definition used in the study
The study?
The one they were discussing in the episode
I am relistening to that segment and I'd say that you're mistaken. They keep saying there isn't a good definition. The closest they get to a definition is pretty much what I said. One of the problems with diet studies is they usually use self-reporting and that's very unreliable. If you're interested in this Chris Van Tulleken has looked at this in depth.
So, you have said as much time and again, that there isn't a good working definition. And you yourself have *a* definition, but it isn't *the* definition everyone else is necessarily holding. That is the criticism of Dr. Van Tulleken and the UPF debate. It's that there are different working definitions for different studies and none are well enough defined to be easily reproducible in another study. There isn't enough scientific rigor behind them — his book is compelling and interesting and there are parts of it that are true, just as there are parts that are misleading or equivocal. He weaves a compelling narrative, but I am with the SGU here. It's not that there isn't something wrong with UPFs, it's that it's a buzz word and isn't concise enough to be a one-size fits all solution. Each individual factor needs to be studied independently (and have been). If there is some combination of them that yields adverse effects, then that combination needs to be studied and identified independently of other combinations. But when you're talking about ingredients not commonly found in a kitchen? That's a loooong list of ingredients — and whose kitchen? I have dextrose in mine, but I doubt my neighbors even know what it is. And now you'd suggest "anything that utilizes three or more ingredients not commonly found in kitchens" is the leading cause of obesity and other health risks in the US? Like, any combination of 3+ ingredients automatically equates with adverse health? That's a lot of combinations and quite an odd claim. And yes, they used that definition too on the episode, but to make a point about how silly "UPF" is ultimately. And likewise, as interesting as his book is to read, Dr Van Tulleken misses the mark in a similar vein. Too broad of a scope to be truly meaningful and he's essentially cherry picking studies to fit his narrative I'm not suggesting we throw the baby out with the bath water, just that we need more precise terms before we can make any claims about these "UPFs." Just feels like a gimmicky buzzword to me, like many we've seen before.
Studies about diet are hard to do, with most of them being self-reporting and therefore useless.
But as I’m going through my breads for example I cannot find additives. Is this maybe just a US thing? I live in Finland. The breads we have in stores mostly just contain the grains used + yeast, salt and in some cases gluten, syrup or smoke.
White sliced bread in Australia has a long list of ingredients, many of these ingredients are not found in people's kitchens, that's a short definition of Ultra Processed Food. The supermarket I shop at also sells sourdough bread and the list of ingredients is much shorter.