Guest Essay by Kip Hansen — 15 February 2025 — 1400 words
Prologue: This will be the last entry to a series of five parts which have discussed the ongoing scientific controversy surround the issue of Ultra-Processed Foods – UPFs.
The previous essays were:
What Junk Nutrition Science Looks Like
Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 1
Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 2, What are UPFs?
Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 3 — UPFs: What Are They Measuring?
The typical news media article on Ultra-Processed Foods usually starts with something like this, used in a New York Times piece, titled “How Bad Are Ultraprocessed Foods, Really? “ by Alice Callahan:
“Are ultraprocessed foods harmful?
“Most research linking UPFs to poor health is based on observational studies, in which researchers ask people about their diets and then track their health over many years. In a large review of studies that was published in 2024, scientists reported that consuming UPFs was associated with 32 health problems, with the most convincing evidence for heart disease-related deaths, Type 2 diabetes and common mental health issues like anxiety and depression.”
And it is true, consumption of UPFs have been “associated” with a lot of health problems – through the kind offices of epidemiology. Remember:
World-class statistician, William “Matt” Briggs, author of the book “Uncertainty: The Soul of Modeling, Probability & Statistics”, tells us, in no uncertain terms, that: “Epidemiology is the field which officially mistakes correlations for causations.”
And that is the most basic statement we can make about the faddish battle against Ultraprocessed Foods.
Let’s first make a basic assumption:
The basics of a “Good Diet” are a) Adequate, meaning enough, protein, carbohydrates, fats and essential vitamins and minerals. b) Not too much of any one thing, especially too much sugar (of all types), too much fats (of all types), too much proteins (of all types), and for some people, too much salt. c) Defining ‘too much’ and ‘adequate, enough’ is tricky, but you get the idea. d) Lots of variety including whole grains, fruits and vegetables of all types.
Feel free to have some objections to that assumption, nearly everyone can find something not to like, but what we know of the science of diet supports that very basic assumption.
What does this have to do with Ultraprocessed Foods?
Almost nothing. Ultraprocessed Foods (UPFs hereafter) are a category of foods based solely on “the extent and purpose of food processing”. Biologically, nutrition is the purpose of eating. Yet, nutritional values are not part of the defining characteristics of UPFs.
Remember, UPFs does not mean “junk food”. UPFs does not mean sugary sodas, hamburgers, French fries, candy and snacks. Those are a concern in modern societies, but, while they are often included in UPFs, they are not the core of UPFs.
What is the core of UPFs? “Almost everything on the shelves, in the aisles, of your grocery store and in the cupboards and refrigerators of your home.”
Another viewpoint:
In a NY Times piece (“How Bad Are Ultraprocessed Foods, Really?“), the journalist, Alice Callahan, quotes Dr. Lauren O’Connor [a nutrition scientist and epidemiologist who researched this topic as a former USDA and NIH employee] as saying:
“It’s true that there is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, she said, but that doesn’t mean that UPFs directly cause poor health.”….”Dr. O’Connor questioned whether it’s helpful to group such “starkly different” foods — like Twinkies and breakfast cereals — into one category. Certain types of ultraprocessed foods, like sodas and processed meats, are more clearly harmful than others.”
That quote seemed just a little too “on purpose” to me, so I wrote to Dr. O’Connor and asked her “Did you really say “are clearly more harmful”? (which implies that UPFs themselves are harmful, some more than others.) or is that the opinion of the journalist?”
Dr. O’Connor was kind enough to supply an expanded and more nuanced clarification, re-written as below, after acknowledging that “to Alice’s [Alice Callahan] credit, we spoke for almost an hour so I may have gotten sloppy with my language”:
“It’s true that there is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, she said, but that doesn’t mean that foods classified as ultra-processed directly cause poor health. Correlation does not equal causation. We need more randomized controlled trials in which cause-and-effect can be determined. Currently, there are only a couple small RCTs published but several more are in the works.” (you can find them registered at clinicaltrials.gov or on NIH’s reporter website)
Dr. O’Connor questions the utility of grouping such “starkly different” foods into one category. The quintessential image of ultra-processed foods (google it!) is an image of hot dogs, candy, and sugar-sweetened beverages. However, this image is misleading because the group of ultra-processed foods in the US is highly variable and also includes many fortified whole-grain products and plant-based proteins (as well as infant formula). This is problematic for developing dietary guidance on ultra-processed foods and communicating to the public because processed meats and sugar-sweetened beverages, for example, are foods that we recommend consuming in small to moderate amounts. However, there is consistent encouragement to the public to increase whole grains and plant-based proteins to improve their health.”
Those who have read the entire series will know that the ONLY solid evidence for any detrimental effect of so-called UPFs are restricted to the results for two sub-classes of UPFs, as shown yet again in Cordova et al. (2023) “Consumption of ultra-processed foods and risk of multimorbidity of cancer and cardiometabolic diseases: a multinational cohort study”:
Even those effects are small and may not amount to minimal clinically important differences (MCID) for most people.
Bottom Lines:
1. There is no evidence that the category “Ultraprocessed Foods” is a valid concern for any consideration regarding human diets. It is far too broad and encompassing ‘nearly everything’ without regard for nutritional value.
2. Avoidance of UPFs can lead to nutritional deficiencies particularly for those with fewer resources and limited access to a wide variety of affordable foods – not only for poor and marginalized populations, but even for middle class families.
3. This does not negate the evidence that suggests that extreme amounts of sugars in an individual’s diet can harm health, particularly if it leads, or has led, to obesity or is in combination with either type of diabetes.
4. The evidence for harmful effects of animal based foods (meats) is controversial [and here] and should be considered separately.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment:
The whole UPFs issue is, in summary, just another run-away food fad, albeit blended in an odd way with anti-corporatism, anti-globalization, aspects of the ‘health food movement’ and Luddite-ism. It is worrying that governmental agencies have hopped on the anti-UPFs band-wagon.
There is no need to avoid UPFs – other than your personal preferences about foods and your personal degree of concern about such issues as “food additives” (which is a different but related issue).
For a second opinion, try: Ultraprocessed Foods Have a Terrible Reputation. They Don’t Deserve It, by Jessica Wilson at Slate.
Obsessing about foods and diet is an amusement for those lucky segments of humanity that have a real choice about what to include in their diets. This has led to a dietary supplement industry earning over 53 Billion dollars in the United States alone. While the best evidence shows that there is little to no benefit gained from supplementary vitamins, minerals or other diet supplements.
My Opinion: Eat a wide variety of foods, not too much, across all the food groups, including plenty and varied vegetables and fruits (fresh if possible), legumes, and grains. Get some exercise, 20-30 minutes a day most days, anything that includes moving around counts.
And for your own sake, quit obsessing about food.
Thanks for reading.
Comments meant for me personally should begin with “Kip – “
# # # # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The whole brouhaha about UPFs is a red herring! The real problem is the consumption of highly processed carbohydrates, as there is really no need to actually consume any of them! They are the biggest culprits in raising insulin levels which in turn leads to metabolic syndrome; the precursor of nearly ALL of our major chronic diseases like diabesity, heart disease and dementia!
There are essential fatty and amino acids, but not even FDA scientists have been able to find an essential carbohydrate yet! Maybe they just need a little more funding from Big Food! There are literally thousands of proponents of low carb ketogenic diets now using fundamental nutrition science to reverse diabesity, heart disease and dementia in many cases! They nearly all recommend a diet high in fat, protein, and green, leafy vegetables; with little or no sugar or flour; the two items that were introduced to native populations around the world just prior to them developing the diseases of the West! A coincidence, I’m sure!
I seriously doubt the truth or scientific basis of what you say. Most of humanity has lived on a high carbohydrate diet for most of history since the invention of agriculture 10K years ago. The arrow of causation does not run from carbohydrates towards endocrine problems.
No kidding, I remember those cave paintings where the people were dancing around a bowl of Lucky Charms.
Carbohydrates were only available for 1 month every year for most of those 10k years. The excess carbs were converted into fat immediately as winter was coming. That’s how our bodies work.
Modern society has an abundance of carbs all year round: There’s your problem.
Look up Pima Indian diabetes rates, and then do a search of Inuit and Maasai diets. Next, some research into the diets of American Plains tribes like the Cheyenne, Comanche, and Arapaho will be illuminating! You’ll find that the Plains tribes, almost as much as the Pima, now have exceedingly high rates of obesity and diabetes; a common result when modern hunter-gatherers change to the Western diet filled with processed flour and sugar!
It has only been ~10,000 years since agriculture gave humans the ability to produce large quantities of grain. That is not nearly enough time for most of us to have evolved the ability to metabolize large quantities of refined carbs. If you don’t believe me, look up the diabetes rates among Hindus in India who follow a primarily vegetarian diet!
Want more science? I’ve got bookfuls! The Tokelau Island Migrant Study from New Zealand is particularly illuminating. In 1968, three percent of Tokelauan men, and almost 9% of women had diabetes. By 1982, nearly 20% of the women, and 11% of the men who had immigrated to New Zealand had diabetes; a doubling in only 14 years! Not surprisingly, heart disease, hypertension and obesity rates increased significantly as well!
Maasai diets:
Suspicious conclusions ignored the confounding variables of a higher BMI and a more sedentary lifestyle, ALONG with the diet changes.
Maasai diet includes some amount of cows blood mixed with cows milk. A great afternoon drink. Think I’ll skip it.
That is probably true to some extent. Certainly bread was the main staple for the poor, protein in the form of meat was very expensive and unaffordable for the peasantry. If the landowner had venison then his workers might be offered the humbles to make humble pie. Poaching of animals was punishable by death.
Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease. The pathophysiology of type 2 diabetes is very complex, including genetics. If it were simply due to obesity then every such person would be diabetic and no person with an acceptable BMI would be, neither which is the case.
Type 2 diabetes isn’t that complex! Chronic high insulin levels lead to insulin resistance and eventual breakdown of the bodies regulation of blood sugar with insulin. If you want to break the cycle cut out the source of chronic high insulin levels; processed carbs like sugar and flour, hopefully before it’s too late!
For more about dealing with diabetes I would recommend Dr. Ben Bikman, a cellular biologist in Utah.
According to most medical research, around 90% of people with type 2 diabetes are considered overweight or obese; meaning a significant majority of individuals diagnosed with type 2 diabetes fall into the overweight or obese category based on their BMI
Why do you reject the 90% data?
That makes no sense.
Do you practice in front of a mirror to get more enjoyment out of hearing your own voice!? Where in ANYTHING I wrote did I deny a connection between obesity and diabetes!? If you had bothered to read my original post, you might have noticed that I wrote ”diabesity,” which is a term becoming more common with researchers; just as Alzheimer’s is often referred to as Type 3 diabetes!
Chronic high insulin leads to insulin resistance AND metabolic syndrome, which anyone who looks will find includes overweight or obesity; along with hypertension, low HDL, high LDL, and high triglycerides! ALL of these stem from insulin resistance caused by long term consumption of highly processed carbs, like sugar and white flour! If you can find any other source for high insulin levels I’d love to hear it!
He wasn’t replying to you.
Big Pharma and Food indeed.
Agriculture has indeed been a boon to humanity … but … but … but … You’re assuming that endocrine diseases didn’t result from the introduction of agriculture ten thousand years ago.
It has been observed that, when traders introduced sugar, molasses, white flour, and white rice, to non-agrarian populations, the panoply of western diseases followed: cardiovascular disease, cancer, tooth cavities, etc. etc. etc. Those diseases had not previously been observed in those populations.
Even with agriculture, hunger was still the rule for most of humanity. The American first food guides, in the 1930s and 1940s, were advice on how to get enough to eat.
It’s only lately that junk food has become so cheap that even the poorest can afford piles of it. The result is the obesity epidemic and all its co-morbitities.
You missed highly processed carbohydrates.
Archaeologists have found that the switch from hunting and gathering to agriculture – that is, a change of diet from meat and a wide variety of wild fresh fruits and vegetables to one of mainly grains, tubers, and cultivated fruits and vegetables – was associated with lower stature and more signs of disease. OTOH, it was associated with much higher populations. Farmers are much more likely to be able to store enough calories to keep everyone alive through the winter or the dry season, and no doubt some of the unhealthy individuals found in a farm village cemetery would have been shoved out into the snow to die by hunter-gatherers when food became short.
” The real problem is the consumption of highly processed carbohydrates, ”
Another nutrition myth
One of many
Studies ONLY tell us
Overweight and obesity are problems
Not the foods one eats to get there.
Do you only speak about that which you know little, or do you sometimes study first before opening your yap!? I read dozens of different authors and compare, before I voice my opinion! You have two ears and one mouth; maybe you should go back to using them in that ration, again!
Obviously, otherwise he would be largely silent.
The best comment I ever read is this and it came from a rancher. ” when we want to fatten up cattle we feed them grain, why did the FDA thing the same would not be true for humans?” What the educated idiots of the world miss is fat and protein can reside in the blood without too many problems,(excess protein is pasted in the urine, fat must be processed in sugar than back to fat before it can be stored) sugar (all carbohydrates end up as sugar) cannot, sugar either need to be burned or turned to fat for storage. Cholesterol in the blood comes from sugars not fat or protein. Your statement is patently false.
A real issue is that UltraProcessedFoods is such a diverse category that has very little to do with the actual content of the food.
Is soy sauce UPF? The brewing process is fairly involved, even though there are fairly few ingredients.
Tom ==> UPFs are by definition not related to actual content. Or by number of ingredients. Textured Vegetable Protein – one ingredient — is UPF by processing.
I don’t know if soy sauce is on any official UPF list, it is, in most cases, high is salt content, a concern for those who are salt sensitive.
Kip, I thoroughly enjoyed your entire series on the ‘science of UPF’.
No definition of UPF.
No definition of harms other than since antiquity known excess maladies.
Lots of contradictions.
Lack of reproducibility thanks to all of above.
Metaphor for ‘climate science’ in a nutshell.
I, (and my SO until she died last year) had very simple food rules that kept us healthy (along with exercise) for decades, having nothing to do with her passing:
Or, as her beloved ‘adopted’ Italians would say, simply amore.
Yes, a decent summary of a sensible approach, and pretty much our own, though we almost never drink anything alcoholic. The only thing I would add to it would be to include beans and pulses in moderation as alternatives to meat. For instance, a few days a week have them rather than meat.
Most people with a European background, and many with an Asian background, are descended from people who ate in this way over many centuries and lived healthy and active lives. By necessity of course. There was no industrial prepared foods, so you had to cook from scratch what was in season, and meat and fish were too expensive to eat in more than moderation.
Rud ==> Lots of sensible diets out there — glad you have had a good and productive life. And, sorry for your loss…you have a happy reunion to look forward to.
Related
I came across an article that discusses foods that “disgust” some people more than others. The concept is under the heading “Pathogen Disgust Sensitivity” although PDS will take you to a different subject. Apparently, I have a high value on this sensitivity scale. Your milage may vary.
Kiviak (kiviaq) is a traditional Inuit dish from Greenland that I would pass on. There are many others that are less so that I still won’t touch.
Lutefisk?
Bugs … is also something that has not been present in any major food chain for millions of years, whereas meat is consistently there, and our digestive tract is evolutionarily adapted to it accordingly. And now, they want to push the primer into our throats claiming the latter isn’t healthy. Give me a break.
Eric ==> Most primitive peoples apparently happily ate any bug that was big enough to pickup and toss into their mouths — grubs, grasshoppers, etc. Crunchy.
Eric, Probably nothing all that wrong with bugs. Lobster goes for between $11 and $15 a pound at my local supermarket. And that’s with the shell on and dubiously edible inards in. The seem to have a fair number of buyers. Granted Crustacea are a different class of arthropod than Insecta, but my guess would be that the flavor and nutritional characteristics aren’t all that different.
OK all is well with food..
I lie.
I am confused….
I make homemade sausages, only add some salt and pepper, occasionally some herbs, and then freeze all the extras made, about 2 kg. This almost is classed as UPF.
Casings natural pig or lamb/sheep/beef
The best is the Italian pork, pepper, dash of salt thick sausages or pork trotters which are boiled. Are these UPF? Again, extras are feezed.
So if I smoke pork bell am I making some form of UPF..
So if I smoke a rump cap I am making some form of UPF..
Is grilling a T-bone steak, on BBQ, cut in the official/traditional way, that is knife between the bone and cleave to break the bone connection UPF?
That is about a 1” steak, or 25mm for the converted.
I make bread at home, high protein flour, durum wheat flour, with additional addition of gluten flour, 75% flour, 25 % gluten flour, is that UPF?
So according to all this I am going to die yesterday..
FOILED!!!
nhasys ==> Sounds dangerous — how are you feeling? Heart ticking right, are you sure? (kidding…)
You are not the only one confused by the UPF issue. The anti-UPFers are themselves confused.
I’d say, it basically goes back to Paracelsus’ saying: Everything is poison, nothing is poison.
It all depends on the dose. I rarely think quality is the issue, except maybe for some controversial food additives. But a lot of people eat too much or not enough of certain things and/or have too little daily exercise. A balanced diet also helps to avoid deficiencies of any sort. Calorie intake and expenditure have to be more or less in balance. A healthy body normally regulates food intake quite precisely, to less than a percent, because otherwise, weight gain is a rapid consequence. Making food producers responsible for dietary problems e.g. “Nestle knew” is just as preposterous as “Exon knew” for fossil fuels. What could help, is to avoid corporate capture of lunch programs and facilitating good dietary education and practices in schools, even if more expensive. It pays off in the long run.
Eric ==> “avoid corporate capture of lunch programs” I would say ” Avoid federal government capture of school food programs.”
Farming is the foundation of civilisation. We can be sure our biodiversity would be far smaller if farming had not evolved to to do the heavy lifting of feeding the growing population of the world.
With that in mind, I am always minded to champion farm production, all meats all grains all fruits and pulses. I am content to leave the grass to be eaten by the animals best suited to eat grass and then harvest the outcome.
My simple approach to food is, keep it simple and clean. As a hobby beekeeper I recommend a tea spoon of the golden sweetness on an oat based breakfast with plenty of fruits chopped into it plus milk.
The other thing to think about is not all foods are wholesome. Avoid wild gathered mushrooms. As a woodsman, among other things, I can tell you it is easy to get it wrong. Always remember, If you can get it wrong so can the other gatherers,
Rod,
You might want to keep an eye on your fructose consumption; a major cause of fatty liver disease!
While I believe, like the ancients, that honey is medicine; as such it should be used in small doses! I like it in my home-made low-carb BBQ sauce, and in my balsamic vinaigrette.
Why eat oats for breakfast, with their residual pesticides and herbicides, when you can get all the nutrition you need from a hearty scramble or omelet? I know eggs are expensive right now, but they are still a bargain when you consider their nutritive value, and their beneficial affect on cholesterol!
All sound ideas, I would happily go with eggs for breakfast. Having grown up on a wooded small holding keeping pigs and chickens plus bees, having eggs and bacon for breakfast is a natural option. Always use rape seed oil when frying to avoid heat induced toxin issues when frying.
I have also managed to produce a smoked honey, a genuine technological breakthrough. When honey basting gammon requires that smoked barbecue flavour, it is the perfect option..
Don’t ask about home made cider…..
Rod ==> We have kept bees but had to give them up when we had too many too little kids with hands too interested in “What are the bees doing in there? ….investigating with their hands. Of course, each of our kids only did it once..then there were the visiting kids to consider.
I later used my beekeeping kit to clear wild bees out of under other peoples porches and tool sheds. In my opinion, there is nothing better than dark wild bee honey. This was a free service, I kept all but a quart jar of the honey (to the owner of the home) and all the bee’s wax.
Had a 90 year-old Ukrainian friend who ate a pound of honey every day — lived to 99.
How much do you get paid for writing these articles?
I can’t imagine any other reason for FIVE articles to tell us the definition of UPFs makes no sense.
I don’t recall you mentioning that people will often lie about what they ate and how much they ate, so it is impossible to KNOW exactly what they ate for any nutrition study.
And although what people eat can not be blamed for all their medical problems, if what they ate results in overweight or obesity, that will often cause medical problems.
What else can be said about nutrition claims?
Not much
There were studies in the 1950s and 1960s that showed low carb diets worked no better than low fat diets. If you wanted to lose weight, you had to lower net calorie intake. Some scientists had been hired to demonize sugar or demonize saturated fats.
Your outlook is nearly prehistoric; there are over 100 ongoing studies right now exploring the benefit of low carb diets! Until Ansel Keys threw out the science in the 1950s, low carb/ high fat was recommended for obesity and epilepsy. The past 60-70 years have throughly disproven the calories in/calories out theory; the quality of the calorie, and understanding it’s effect on hormones and enzymes is the only way to turn the body into a fat burning, rather than a fat storing, machine!
Calories in versus calories out has NEVER been disproven.
That suggests you can not lose weight by reducing calories, WHICH IS BS.
Too many net calories causing weight gain is a good Rule of Thumb. Your claims are Rules of Dumb
And studies do not prove or disprove anything. They collect evidence. I base my conclusions on an overwhelming amount of evidence.
Please look at Ansel Key’s Minnesota Study on Starvation! The subjects suffered through a near starvation diet for months, and gained back any minor loss and then some once the study was over! ALL of the studies that I’ve seen referenced show that lowering calories causes the metabolism to slow down, decreasing energy and activity, until the person plateaus! Similarly, exercise increases your appetite enough that any weight loss is counteracted!
If you really want to lose weight, change the type or quality of the calories you eat, and practice intermittent fasting! In your case, you might remove that 25 pounds of useless fat sitting between your shoulders!
Calories in versus calories out
If you had any idea what you were talking about, you would understand how low carb diets impact that equation.
Richard ==> I have actually been paid, once, for my writing. The publisher insisted on it, maybe something about European copyright laws.
For my writing here, I am paid mostly in abuse from readers in the comments. And occasionally, compliments.
Kip, Your comment reminds me of the story told of Kris Kristofferson. When he wouldn’t give up in Nashville to get an appropriate career, his mother wrote a letter telling him she and his father wanted nothing more to do with him. You are an embarrassment, so do not come back here. Johnny Cash who also had difficulty with his father, said to Kris “It is always nice to get a letter from home.”
So, when you get an abusive comment, at least you know folks are reading. You aren’t likely to receive national awards, but keep writing, please.
When people make negative comments, the sting is in proportion to one’s respect for the critic. I am sure that you should feel no discomfort whatsoever from the ravings of a troll like RG.
What I find interesting is that while most trolls have a single topic, or at least a fairly narrow field, this guy trolls pretty much every post, telling every author how wrong they are. I guess he’s happy being constant right in his own mind, if alone. I wish we could mute individual commenters. Oh, and I think he likes being downvoted, like Nick does.
He must be great fun at parties!
Re: Fig 3 and the concept of Minimal Clinically Important Differences– those difs reported in the figure are Relatively Risks (RR), not Absolute Risks (AR). Eg- let’s say a drug reduces mortality from 10 in a 1000 cases to 5 per 1000– that’s a 50% improvement in RR (wow!) but really only a 0.5% improvement in AR….you need to treat 200 cases to save one life (BFD).
No dietary factor “causes” disease, but some dietary influences can activate genotypes that lead to phenotypic disease states. …Eg- lactose intake in those with lactase deficiency, or gluten intake in those genetically prone to Celiac Disease are simple examples. More complex examples are excess calorie intake (regardless of source) in those genetically prone to T2 DM or higher salt intake with genetically determined more active renin/angiotensin systems. Those without those genetic predispositions can splurge on the offending factors with impunity.
As Kip wisely states- there is no such thing as “good” nutrition– only adequate or inadequate nutrition…and even that is relative to individual genetics and activity levels..
It’s been known for decades that calorie restriction (regardless of source of calories) is associated with longer lives.
guidoLaMoto ==> Strictly speaking, Fig 3 above is Hazard Ratios, between “least consumption and most consumption” of UPFs, with tons of “adjustments”. — But more importantly, of course, as you say, they are not Absolute Risk. Almost no one reading here or in the media understands that very important point. Or the fact that these types of studies NEVER EVER show that the bad effect is caused by the claimed exposure.
and yes….Lactose sensitivity, diabetes (in general), salt sensitive high blood pressure, celiac (my wife was a childhood sufferer) …all those who made poor choices in parents or who were unlucky in the DNA sweepstakes will suffer from diet choices that most of us are not bothered by in the slightest.
My guess is that you are a doctor or have medical training?
Thanks for chipping in.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. The bottom line is how old you are and how healthy. Genetics is a factor but what you eat is what you are. I still mow my own yard, repair my own appliances, service my oil fired heating system and maintain a summer home in Lake George. I do take supplements which I have been since I was 65. I am now 93, sleep 8 hours per night and feel great. Of course I may die tomorrow because we’re all just penciled in.
Albert ==> Congratulations on a sensible life style. Longevity is, in the end, for most older people, a combination of luck and choosing the right parents and grandparents.
“Epidemiology is the field which officially mistakes correlations for causations.”
And it is a source for grabbing screaming headlines about how “we are all going to die!” Yes, we will but not from correlations.
Kip is here shilling for the big food monopoly’s—-
In the US, meat processing is in the hands of a few corporations. For beef, it is JBS, Tyson, Cargill and Marfrig that together control 85 percent of the market. JBS, Tyson and Hormel account for 66 percent of the pork, while Tyson, JBS, Sanderson Farms and Purdue handle 51 percent of the chicken. The same goes for processed and ultra processed foods.
What Big Sugar Doesn’t Want You To Know
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EPRONZPcew
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGeh7c56pJc
How Big Tobacco Intentionally Made Snacks Addictive
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5luwPNy85s
Processed Food Addiction with Dr. Joan Ifland
“Correlation does not equal causation” ????? That what big tobacco said
decades ago about smoking and lung cancer Kip
And that’s what’s being said about dead whales and off shore wind
projects
Mr Ed ==> Quite a collection of views. But what of the evidence presented in this series?
The funniest one is the Big Sugar riff — usually aimed at Big Soda, all of whole make as much or more profit on non-sugar sodas and all have major just plain water brands, which are far more profitable than sugar soda — no ingredients to pay for. Coca Cola and Pepsi are beverage companies and would rather not have to pay for sugar — it is expensive. Entirely a crock!
You ignored my comment again about the monopolies in our food companies.
If you look at history it was Stalin and Mao who put together food production
monopolies. So curious. Why would our processed food companies want to
copy Stalin and Mao and why would the FDA and USDA go along with that?
Aprox 30% of our adolescent children in this country are pre diabetic which started
after Big Tobacco entered the food business in the 90’s. My sources in the endocrinology
units claim that these patients area obese and they only need to loose weight to
get healthy but for some reason they can’t seem to loose weight. Correlation not being
causation???
The annual cost to treat this
in over $430 Billion per year. A tax on sugar has been suggested but the soda
and processed food companys stopped that.
Pepsi and Coke just beverage companies???
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_PepsiCo_brands
Mr. Ed ==> Many of those are beverages, including plain water brands. There is nothing inherently evil about manufacturing popular snack foods, fruit juices and beverages of other types.
I don’t get your point. My point is that Pepsi, Coke, etc are not Big Sugar and not Big Tobacco — they could careless about sugar or tobacco or nicotine — they just want to sell their products, like every other manufacturer, corporation and business.
Their success is based on the fact that they make products that people like, When they find a product doesn’t sell, they drop it.
Success does not equal Conspiracy.
You are totally clueless about the dynamics of our food supply.. Pepsi split off their fast food companies years ago but still own them, Taco Bell,& Pizza Hut among the group–look it up. Just Beverages?? BS
. 30% of our adolescents are pre diabetic, we have
an obesity epidemic in this country that started after Phillip Morris and RJ
Reynolds brought their business model of making their products addictive to our food production. The other processed food company’s copied that later.
As part of their tobacco/cancer legal settlement their research and methods records are stored at UC San Francisco, see the video linked above by Dr Joan Ifland where she examines in detail what has been done by these companies and detailed in those records. Big Tobacco is EVIL to the core.
Big Tobacco deliberately used a lot of chemicals to make cigarettes addictive.
The UPF food companies deliberately make their products addictive according
the book below, this is not some new subject, the book is from 2009 Kessler
was at the head of the FDA years ago.
The End of Overeating: Taking Control of the Insatiable American Appetiteby David A. Kessler
It’s not about the obese adults it’s about what they are doing to our children.
$430 billion/year medical costs from this just in diabetics.
And again there is a food monopoly of a few companies both controlling
our food production and forcing the small individual producers out of
business. The big food is working with the federal government to force
small individuals out of business with shady practices. I tried to explain
this to you in prior segments Legg Regs Try and get informed and discuss
this on an adult level.. War on Food??? Really??
What Big Sugar Doesn’t Want You To Know
https://babylonbee.com/news/the-babylon-bee-has-obtained-rfk-jrs-new-and-improved-food-pyramid
MSG ==> Not your fault,but disappointed…I thought it would be funnier. what’da’ya’think?
Yeah, not their best work.
Human nutrition is hard to measure.
There are many factors that need to be controlled. Many studies require participants to accurately and truthfully log their consumption, exercise sleep habits and lifestyle. Sometimes this needs to be done for years.
If only we could clone people and experiment on different regimens! Another compounding factor is testing more than one variable at a time.
MSG ==> It is far worse than that. Nutritional epidemiology does not even measure food intakes at all but, as you say, relies on diet recall questionnaires. Sometimes just a one-time questionnaire and then follows subjects for years, even decades. Epidemiology based on what people think they eat! Almost never measures dosages — how much of this and how much of that — which is the most basic requirement for studying effects of exposures.
Kip, Thanks for another well researched and thoughtful article. My take. UPFs are the crusade of the month. Lots of noise. Substance? Probably not so much. Unfortunately these crusades tend to waste resource and all too often lead to some stupidity or other being inflicted on the public. Worse, sometimes, not all that often, there’s a real problem that actually needs to be addressed. But it’s really, really hard to distinguish real issues from fantasy.
Don ==> “UPFs are the crusade of the month.” — that has lasted almost a decade, and picked up followers and sponsors like the WHO, Gov. Newsom, and some in the FDA. Same in Europe, which tends to latch on to any crazy idea.
One of the most important factors that is never talked about is the addiction factor of high glycemic index carbs. For many people they can best be described as the equivalent of alcohol addiction. Thus diets that want to limit the intake of junk carbs are doomed to failure. The only cure is total abstinence. You cannot suggest that a Heroin addict limit its use to a couple of times a week.
Very nice Kip as usual.