Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Ultra-processed foods study
Morgaath
Posts: 679 Member
Link to the "Ultra-processed food" study. http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/3/e009892.full
Seems in the US close to 60% of our cals come from ultra-processed foods.
Results:
Ultra-processed foods comprised 57.9% of energy intake, and contributed 89.7% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods (21.1% of calories) was eightfold higher than in processed foods (2.4%) and fivefold higher than in unprocessed or minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients grouped together (3.7%). Both in unadjusted and adjusted models, each increase of 5 percentage points in proportional energy intake from ultra-processed foods increased the proportional energy intake from added sugars by 1 percentage point. Consumption of added sugars increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption: from 7.5% of total energy in the lowest quintile to 19.5% in the highest. A total of 82.1% of Americans in the highest quintile exceeded the recommended limit of 10% energy from added sugars, compared with 26.4% in the lowest.
Food classification according to processing:
We classified all recorded food items (N=280 132 Food Codes for both recall days) according to NOVA, a food classification based on the extent and purpose of industrial food processing.23–25 This classification includes four groups:
‘unprocessed or minimally processed foods’ (such as fresh, dry or frozen fruits or vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, fish and milk);
‘processed culinary ingredients’ (including table sugar, oils, fats, salt, and other substances extracted from foods or from nature, and used in kitchens to make culinary preparations);
‘processed foods’ (foods manufactured with the addition of salt or sugar or other substances of culinary use to unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as canned food and simple breads and cheese) and
‘ultra-processed foods’ (formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product).
Seems in the US close to 60% of our cals come from ultra-processed foods.
Results:
Ultra-processed foods comprised 57.9% of energy intake, and contributed 89.7% of the energy intake from added sugars. The content of added sugars in ultra-processed foods (21.1% of calories) was eightfold higher than in processed foods (2.4%) and fivefold higher than in unprocessed or minimally processed foods and processed culinary ingredients grouped together (3.7%). Both in unadjusted and adjusted models, each increase of 5 percentage points in proportional energy intake from ultra-processed foods increased the proportional energy intake from added sugars by 1 percentage point. Consumption of added sugars increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption: from 7.5% of total energy in the lowest quintile to 19.5% in the highest. A total of 82.1% of Americans in the highest quintile exceeded the recommended limit of 10% energy from added sugars, compared with 26.4% in the lowest.
Food classification according to processing:
We classified all recorded food items (N=280 132 Food Codes for both recall days) according to NOVA, a food classification based on the extent and purpose of industrial food processing.23–25 This classification includes four groups:
‘unprocessed or minimally processed foods’ (such as fresh, dry or frozen fruits or vegetables, grains, legumes, meat, fish and milk);
‘processed culinary ingredients’ (including table sugar, oils, fats, salt, and other substances extracted from foods or from nature, and used in kitchens to make culinary preparations);
‘processed foods’ (foods manufactured with the addition of salt or sugar or other substances of culinary use to unprocessed or minimally processed foods, such as canned food and simple breads and cheese) and
‘ultra-processed foods’ (formulations of several ingredients which, besides salt, sugar, oils and fats, include food substances not used in culinary preparations, in particular, flavours, colours, sweeteners, emulsifiers and other additives used to imitate sensorial qualities of unprocessed or minimally processed foods and their culinary preparations or to disguise undesirable qualities of the final product).
0
Replies
-
This is the conclusion:Decreasing the consumption of ultra-processed foods could be an effective way of reducing the excessive intake of added sugars in the USA.
I'm not really shocked. By either the findings or the conclusion.0 -
Reducing calories consumed lowers added sugars as well due to overall decrease in consumption.0
-
I think it makes more sense to look at foods individually rather than categories, and to read labels. For example, I usually add protein powder if I eat oatmeal and did this morning (Tera's whey), and it is ultraprocessed, of course, but also had only 3 grams of sugar (because whey). (No added sugar in the oats or blueberries, unless adding blueberries counts as added sugar.)
Mostly this kind of thing annoys me because the 60% of what Americans eat is an average. Many of us simply don't eat much ultraprocessed foods (especially with added sugar or sat fat or whatever), so focusing on cutting those would do nothing to improve our diets. I think it makes more sense to focus on eating calorie appropriate diets and including healthful foods (like vegetables, good sources of protein, etc.) that would together make up a sensible, balanced diet. Some people can do that even with more processed foods (although it's not my personal choice) and may have time or poor cooking skills as a block. Rather than being told that means they can't eat healthfully, I'd focus on reading and understanding labels (and also learning to cook, of course).0 -
rileysowner wrote: »Reducing calories consumed lowers added sugars as well due to overall decrease in consumption.
This is also a good point -- my guess is that a lot of the ultraprocessed stuff is inherently snacky stuff eaten in additional to regular meals, so cutting down on that stuff is the issue (which happens when you cut calories), not processing in and of itself.0 -
Ultra-processed foods -- Examples of ultra-processed foods include mass produced soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, packaged baked goods, chicken or fish nuggets and other reconstituted meat products, and instant noodles and soups.
"Many of us simply don't eat much ultraprocessed foods" -- Yes, yes we do. How much soda gets drank? How many bags of Doritos get eaten? How many people are living on next to no fresh fruits and veggies? How many foods do you have to put down at the store because the label tells you it is filled with extra stuff? Someone is eating it.
Now if you had said "Some of us"... yep, some of us (But not me)... but I'd put it at less than 20% of the American population. Might not even hit 10%. Some of the people in the survey fell in that group...
"Consumption of added sugars increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption: from 7.5% of total energy in the lowest quintile [Me: Folks who eat very little ultra-processed food] to 19.5% in the highest [Me: Folks who eat a lot of ultra-processed food]. A total of 82.1% of Americans in the highest quintile exceeded the recommended limit of 10% energy from added sugars, compared with 26.4% in the lowest."0 -
Ultra-processed foods -- Examples of ultra-processed foods include mass produced soft drinks, sweet or savory packaged snacks, packaged baked goods, chicken or fish nuggets and other reconstituted meat products, and instant noodles and soups.
And protein powder."Many of us simply don't eat much ultraprocessed foods" -- Yes, yes we do. How much soda gets drank? How many bags of Doritos get eaten? How many people are living on next to no fresh fruits and veggies? How many foods do you have to put down at the store because the label tells you it is filled with extra stuff? Someone is eating it.
That many people DO eat that stuff doesn't mean that many of us do not. I don't eat much of it at all, so telling me to cut back on ultra processed foods would have helped not at all. (I probably eat more now, as I added protein powder and the occasional protein bar when losing weight.)
Soda is a good example, since my understanding is that a huge percentage of the soda consumed is consumed by a relatively small portion of users. (Also, diet soda is a highly processed food that adds no sugar.)"Consumption of added sugars increased linearly across quintiles of ultra-processed food consumption: from 7.5% of total energy in the lowest quintile [Me: Folks who eat very little ultra-processed food] to 19.5% in the highest [Me: Folks who eat a lot of ultra-processed food]. A total of 82.1% of Americans in the highest quintile exceeded the recommended limit of 10% energy from added sugars, compared with 26.4% in the lowest."
Again, is this because of so-called hidden sugars -- people eat lots of ultra processed foods for dinner and so on? Or is it (as I suspect) because if you choose to eat lots of snacky foods and drink soda (which are foods with lots of added sugar that one eats typically as excess calories, outside of mealtimes) that one will also be eating lots of added sugars.
To put that another way, I bet if you looked at Americans who consumed lots of sugary foods, you'd find that lots of them ALSO ate lots of ultra processed foods (since the easy availability of sugary foods is in large part from ultra processed foods) but a significant minority who didn't (but made their treats at home). It is the "ultra processed" foods which are the issue or the fact that people are choosing high cal, low nutrient foods and eating lots of excess calories in drinks and snack foods? I think the latter.
The main influence of ultra processed foods is that it makes high cal foods so easily available and cheap (in terms of time and money to acquire them).0 -
To add to this, and for discussion, when I looked up where added sugar in the American diet was coming from, it was all things that are chosen FOR THEIR SWEETNESS. It wasn't some accidental effect of choosing ultra processed foods.
The biggest source is sugary drinks, like soda and fruit drinks (this is a huge one): over 42%
Then, grain-based desserts (basically, sweet baked goods): 13%
Candy: 7%
Dairy desserts: 5.6%
So about 70% of it is accounted for by people choosing dessert-type foods, not by them accidently consuming sugar as a side-effect of processing. Therefore, that many Americans are getting lots of sugar from these foods seems like a statement of the obvious, not some big revelation.
Cereal has to be another big one, and again that's going to be a food people choose for sweetness. Another source is sugar added to coffee.
So what I think this means (but am interested in conversation) is that the high sugar treats Americans eat happen to also fall within the ultra processed group, not that the issue is that we are eating ultra processed foods.
I avoid most ultra processed foods because I usually don't like them, but some are high cal and have added sugar and not many nutrients and some have a much better profile. (I do eat ice cream, but it would be a high sugar dessert food whether I buy it or make it at home. Pretending that I could eat unlimited ice cream as a health food if I don't buy the packaged stuff wouldn't make much sense.)1 -
I'm trying to recall if I've had any ultra processed food yet today. Does peanut butter count?
Oh, yes, half a protein bar for morning snack. That would count.
But I got more sugar from my blueberries at breakfast and my apple at lunch.0 -
I had 2 Tootsie Pops at the gym. Not really all that processed.0
-
This is the conclusion:Decreasing the consumption of ultra-processed foods could be an effective way of reducing the excessive intake of added sugars in the USA.
I'm not really shocked. By either the findings or the conclusion.
in other news, the sun rose today and it will set ...
0 -
Ultra processed Bold Check mix and Diet Dr. Pepper for my snack a few minutes ago.
I had more sugar from my 124 gram granny smith apple and 80 grams of grapes at lunch time... I did have raw veggies at lunch as well. Did I cancelled something out? maybe? I live 15 minutes from fresh fruits and veggies.. shame on me.
I am going to add this, I have been in this MFP game for a year and half now and I can watch people in the grocery stores put things in their buggies and have no idea what they are eating. I truly believe that there are a whole lot of people out there that do not even know what a calorie is. My point is, I used to shop just like too, and walk right by fresh produce, fresh lean meats and never gave a thought to it until I wanted to loose some excess baggage I was carrying around and wanted to know how I got that way.
Until one wants to, or needs to be educated on right food choices, one keeps meandering in life really thinking that what they choose is eat is healthy or providing them with their daily needs People will come around to their health and lifestyle at some point or another, or will leave the earth a few years shorter than others.
Too bad that this debate cannot be on the front page of the newspapers or internet daily news or even the nightly news. Cause the "Carbs Causes Lung Cancer" news a few days ago made its way around news outlets pretty fast, perhaps something like this can too. sigh...
0 -
lemurcat12 wrote: »To add to this, and for discussion, when I looked up where added sugar in the American diet was coming from, it was all things that are chosen FOR THEIR SWEETNESS. It wasn't some accidental effect of choosing ultra processed foods.
The biggest source is sugary drinks, like soda and fruit drinks (this is a huge one): over 42%
Then, grain-based desserts (basically, sweet baked goods): 13%
Candy: 7%
Dairy desserts: 5.6%
So about 70% of it is accounted for by people choosing dessert-type foods, not by them accidently consuming sugar as a side-effect of processing. Therefore, that many Americans are getting lots of sugar from these foods seems like a statement of the obvious, not some big revelation.
Cereal has to be another big one, and again that's going to be a food people choose for sweetness. Another source is sugar added to coffee.
So what I think this means (but am interested in conversation) is that the high sugar treats Americans eat happen to also fall within the ultra processed group, not that the issue is that we are eating ultra processed foods.
I avoid most ultra processed foods because I usually don't like them, but some are high cal and have added sugar and not many nutrients and some have a much better profile. (I do eat ice cream, but it would be a high sugar dessert food whether I buy it or make it at home. Pretending that I could eat unlimited ice cream as a health food if I don't buy the packaged stuff wouldn't make much sense.)
In fact, you'd be closer to able to eat unlimited ice cream with the purchased stuff. See: Halo Top, Arctic Zero.
Another example of ultra-processed being 'better' than regular.
Under the definition of ultra-processed, doesn't that include everything with an artificial sweetener? In that case, there's a whole bunch of foods that are better ultra-processed than not from a sugar content and probably calorie content standpoint.0 -
Good post; you brought up some good points.I am going to add this, I have been in this MFP game for a year and half now and I can watch people in the grocery stores put things in their buggies and have no idea what they are eating. I truly believe that there are a whole lot of people out there that do not even know what a calorie is. My point is, I used to shop just like too, and walk right by fresh produce, fresh lean meats and never gave a thought to it until I wanted to loose some excess baggage I was carrying around and wanted to know how I got that way.
Until one wants to, or needs to be educated on right food choices, one keeps meandering in life really thinking that what they choose is eat is healthy or providing them with their daily needs People will come around to their health and lifestyle at some point or another, or will leave the earth a few years shorter than others.
Too bad that this debate cannot be on the front page of the newspapers or internet daily news or even the nightly news. Cause the "Carbs Causes Lung Cancer" news a few days ago made its way around news outlets pretty fast, perhaps something like this can too. sigh...
0 -
Setting National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2010.
Participants We evaluated 9317 participants aged 1+ years with at least one 24 h dietary recall.
So a reliable body of evidence ?0 -
Setting National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2009–2010.
Participants We evaluated 9317 participants aged 1+ years with at least one 24 h dietary recall.
So a reliable body of evidence ?
they write (bold emphasis mine):
Potential limitations should be considered. As with most population measures, dietary data obtained by 24 h recalls are imperfect. However, the standardised methods and approach of NHANES minimise potential error and bias, particularly for assessing population averages as focused on in the present study. Previous studies suggest that people with obesity may under-report consumption of foods with caloric sweeteners43 such as desserts and sweet baked goods.44 ,45 If so, these biases may lead to an underestimation of the dietary contribution of ultra-processed foods and the overall intake of added sugars, but should have much less effect on the association between these. Although NHANES collects some information indicative of food processing (ie, place of meals, product brands), these data are not consistently determined for all food items, which could lead to modest overestimation or underestimation of the consumption of ultra-processed foods.0 -
It would be interesting to look at sales of ultra-processed foods, if only to provide a cross check on the occasional recall diary data.0
-
Processed foods isn't scary enough, so a new term needed to be invented?0
-
-
lemurcat12 wrote: »To add to this, and for discussion, when I looked up where added sugar in the American diet was coming from, it was all things that are chosen FOR THEIR SWEETNESS. It wasn't some accidental effect of choosing ultra processed foods.
The biggest source is sugary drinks, like soda and fruit drinks (this is a huge one): over 42%
Then, grain-based desserts (basically, sweet baked goods): 13%
Candy: 7%
Dairy desserts: 5.6%
So about 70% of it is accounted for by people choosing dessert-type foods, not by them accidently consuming sugar as a side-effect of processing. Therefore, that many Americans are getting lots of sugar from these foods seems like a statement of the obvious, not some big revelation.
Cereal has to be another big one, and again that's going to be a food people choose for sweetness. Another source is sugar added to coffee.
So what I think this means (but am interested in conversation) is that the high sugar treats Americans eat happen to also fall within the ultra processed group, not that the issue is that we are eating ultra processed foods.
I avoid most ultra processed foods because I usually don't like them, but some are high cal and have added sugar and not many nutrients and some have a much better profile. (I do eat ice cream, but it would be a high sugar dessert food whether I buy it or make it at home. Pretending that I could eat unlimited ice cream as a health food if I don't buy the packaged stuff wouldn't make much sense.)
I think that this is mostly true. People who get lots of added sugar from these foods are usually seeking the sugar.
Sodium may be a different issue. Package foods contain sodium sometimes to help preserve and add time to shelf-life.0 -
Yes, I agree with that.0
-
I want to make clear that I'm not trying to minimize the study, but just trying to clarify a few things, and I had an additional thought as to how to express the point I'm trying to make, so maybe worth posting again?
Study indicates that a significant portion of the American diet is ultra processed foods (although Americans vary a lot in how many of these they consume). Those who consume the highest amount of ultra processed foods also consume excessive added sugar (based on the current recommendations).
Possible interpretations:
(1) we are consuming more added sugar than we should because we are eating ultra processed foods instead of home cooked foods, and they happen to contain more added sugar than the equivalent home cooked options.
(2) we are consuming lots of ultra processed foods and attendant sugars because ultra processed foods are harder than home cooked foods to control the consumption of, because chemicals.
or
(3) the prevalence of ultra processed foods of particular types, namely dessert items (and also snacky stuff like chips which are not addressed) makes these items a lot easier and cheaper (if you include the value of time) than they used to be, and they have become tastier than the original versions of ultra processed foods due to the increase of such things as sugar (and for some items there was a switch from fat to sugar, although many are also still high fat). Due to this, many Americans have both largely replaced traditional sources of added sugar (like homemade cookies) with foods that happen to be ultra processed and increased their consumption of such food items, because they are so cheap and available.
I think it's mostly (3). So focusing on the difference between an ultra processed cookie and a home made cookie or worrying about ultra processed foods in general (as some of them have perfectly reasonable nutrition profiles) seems to me to miss the point. The issue is whether we are including low nutrient "junk" food in our diets in excessive amounts, which I think on average Americans are. The existence of ultra processed foods simply enables this and makes it easier, but people are still making a choice to eat these foods. It would be no different if people focused on whole foods and yet baked cookies daily and ate many of them. It's just that's harder, so people don't (usually, with some exceptions).
On the other hand, focusing on less processed foods isn't a bad strategy, as it often helps people (those who are comfortable cooking) be more mindful about creating a balanced meal with adequate protein and vegetables, and less likely to eat lots of packaged stuff, which might help them also be more mindful about their consumption of snacky stuff. I just don't think we should confuse the causal direction here -- which again is that people are choosing to eat lots of snacky stuff and dessert items and that stuff also happens to be ultra processed (not because they are ultra processed or that all ultra processed foods are the same). And, similarly, I don't think there's anything wrong with eating some of these ultra processed "junk" foods in moderation or that it makes much difference whether you do that or instead include similar amounts of home made or less processed options (like some commercial ice creams or bakery treats).0 -
-
juggernaut1974 wrote: »
Some people can never get enough scaremongering.0 -
Processed foods isn't scary enough, so a new term needed to be invented?
I've seen numerous posts on MFP use the term "ultra processed food" or ask that others use it. And since some members insist that things like frozen vegetables are "processed food" I think it is a needed term.
I'm pretty surprised that only 60% of calories come from ultra processed foods. I would have guess higher.0 -
It does suggest that a strategy of demonising sugar or ultra processed food will be effective for some people. "Reduce the crap" strategies - even if poorly based on actual nutritional knowledge - will result in lower calorie consumption.
But it is also likely that it is part of the issues that then results in yo-yoing, poor food relationship, etc.
0 -
I disagree that most people "don't eat that much processed food" (I forget who posted that one) but, where I live, in Central Alabama, all you have to do is look at some of the people checking out at Winn-Dixie and look at what they're buying. Aside from running up their grocery bills (and a lot of people here are on "food-stamp-programs" for themselves and their families so there isn't a lot of wiggle-room there) they are not going to get much nutrition out of the stuff they're buying. And, BTW, it doesn't just stop with the people on govt subsidies: I see plenty of people with young kids loading up on the processed stuff and not a lot of fresh vegs or other "ingredients" etc in those carts. I KNOW it seems easier to give the kids a can of Spaghetti-O's than to cook up some pasta and make some of your own sauce, but they probably don't realise that. ANYWAY, it's too bad that we don't still teach "Home Ec" in hs and try and get some sense and knowledge into the heads of the people who will be raising families in a very short time...(and boys should be taking it, as well!!!)0
-
weaver south wrote: »I disagree that most people "don't eat that much processed food" (I forget who posted that one) [... and other stuff]
No one posted that.
0 -
EvgeniZyntx wrote: »weaver south wrote: »I disagree that most people "don't eat that much processed food" (I forget who posted that one) [... and other stuff]
No one posted that.
Right, they said "many". Also, since Alabama is usually rated one of the most unhealthy states in the US it wouldn't typical of the entire country.
I was surprised that only 60% of the calories came from ultra-processed foods, but I think my state is also near the bottom of that list.0 -
weaversouth wrote: »I disagree that most people "don't eat that much processed food" (I forget who posted that one) but, where I live, in Central Alabama, all you have to do is look at some of the people checking out at Winn-Dixie and look at what they're buying. Aside from running up their grocery bills (and a lot of people here are on "food-stamp-programs" for themselves and their families so there isn't a lot of wiggle-room there) they are not going to get much nutrition out of the stuff they're buying. And, BTW, it doesn't just stop with the people on govt subsidies: I see plenty of people with young kids loading up on the processed stuff and not a lot of fresh vegs or other "ingredients" etc in those carts. I KNOW it seems easier to give the kids a can of Spaghetti-O's than to cook up some pasta and make some of your own sauce, but they probably don't realise that. ANYWAY, it's too bad that we don't still teach "Home Ec" in hs and try and get some sense and knowledge into the heads of the people who will be raising families in a very short time...(and boys should be taking it, as well!!!)
I don't think the pasta rings in Spaghetti-Os are any more processed than a dried pasta would be.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions