What are ultra-processed foods? What should I eat instead?

[56harrisond]

What are ultra-processed foods? What should I eat instead?

Ultra-processed foods are extra tasty concoctions that we eat every day. They are also linked with chronic diseases and a higher risk of early death.

The Washington Post, By Anahad O'Connor, September 27, 2022 at 5:57 a.m. EDT

Is your diet ultra-processed?

In many households, ultra-processed foods are mainstays at the kitchen table. They include products that you may not even think of as junk food such as breakfast cereals, muffins, snack bars and sweetened yogurts. Soft drinks and energy drinks count, too.

Sign up for the Well+Being newsletter for weekly tips on food, fitness and mental health
These foods represent an increasingly large share of the world’s diet. Almost 60 percent of the calories that adults in America eat are from ultra-processed foods. They account for 25 to 50 percent of the calories consumed in many other countries, including England, Canada, France, Lebanon, Japan and Brazil.

Every year, food companies introduce thousands of new ultra-processed foods with an endless variety of flavors and ingredients. These products deliver potent combinations of fat, sugar, sodium and artificial flavors. They are what scientists call hyper-palatable: Irresistible, easy to overeat, and capable of hijacking the brain’s reward system and provoking powerful cravings.

Yet in dozens of large studies, scientists have found that ultra-processed foods are linked to higher rates of obesity, heart disease, hypertension, type 2 diabetes, and colon cancer. A recent study of more than 22,000 people found that people who ate a lot of ultra-processed foods had a 19 percent higher likelihood of early death and a 32 percent higher risk of dying from heart disease compared with people who ate few ultra-processed foods.

So how do we break our dependence on ultra-processed foods? You can start by learning which foods in your diet count as ultra-processed. You don’t necessarily have to give them up. But once you know how to spot an ultra-processed food, it’s easy to find a less-processed substitute.

This is your body on ultra-processed foods
The growing focus on ultra-processed foods represents a paradigm shift in how the scientific and public health community is thinking about nutrition. Instead of focusing on the nutrients, calories or types of food, the emphasis instead is on what happens to the food after it’s grown or raised and the physical, biological and chemical processes that occur before we eat it.

The best foods to feed your gut microbiome

Foods can be unprocessed or minimally processed — like the whole fruits and vegetables, chilled or frozen meats, dairy products and eggs that we buy. Other foods go through a moderate amount of processing — you can usually spot these foods because they have only a few ingredients on the label. Think freshly made breads and cheeses, salted peanut butter, pasta sauce, bags of popcorn and canned fruits, fish and vegetables.

Then there are ultra-processed foods. At their core, they are industrial concoctions containing a multitude of additives: salt, sugar and oils combined with artificial flavors, colors, sweeteners, stabilizers and preservatives. Typically they’re subjected to multiple processing methods that transform their taste, texture and appearance into something not found in nature. Think Frosted Flakes, Hot Pockets, doughnuts, hot dogs, cheese crackers and boxed macaroni & cheese.

Research shows that our bodies seem to react differently to ultra-processed foods compared with similar foods that are not so highly processed.

In a rigorously controlled clinical trial that was carried out by the National Institutes of Health, scientists compared what happened when they fed a group of people a diet of ultra-processed foods for two weeks and, on a separate occasion, a diet of matching meals that were mostly made from scratch.

Both diets contained similar amounts of fat, sugar, sodium and fiber, and everyone was allowed to eat until they were satisfied. But to the researchers’ surprise, people ate substantially more calories when they were fed the ultra-processed foods. On average they ate about 500 more calories a day — roughly the amount in a large order of McDonald’s fries.

On the diet of ultra-processed foods, the participants quickly gained weight and body fat. But on the unprocessed, homemade diet, the reverse happened: They lost weight, and they had reductions in cholesterol and an increase in their levels of an appetite-suppressing hormone called PYY. They experienced a drop in their levels of ghrelin, what is known as the hunger hormone. It’s not clear why the unprocessed and ultra-processed foods had such differing effects.

“We can’t explain it yet,” said Kevin Hall, the lead author of the study and a scientist at the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases. “We have a dozen theories or more about what it is about ultra-processed foods that caused these effects.”

Just one hour of extra sleep each night can lead to better eating habits

Some experts argue that ultra-processed foods hook our brains and overwhelm our biology because they contain unnatural combinations of fat and carbs along with sodium and other flavor enhancers.

Some nutrition scientists point to the texture of ultra-processed foods: They often contain little or no fiber and are easy to chew and digest rapidly despite being high in calories. Think of how easy it is to scarf down fast-food chicken nuggets or a moist blueberry muffin packed with sugar, flour and vegetable oils. These foods are quickly absorbed when they leave the stomach and enter the small intestine, which causes a spike in blood sugar, insulin and other hormones.

“All the bad things happen from big rushes of nutrients into our bloodstream,” said Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and dean of the Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy at Tufts University.

Many ultra-processed foods are made in industrial machines that subject grains, corn and other raw ingredients to extremely high pressures and temperatures. This can destroy micronutrients and create new compounds that can be harmful, including carcinogens, said Carlos A. Monteiro, an expert on ultra-processed foods and a professor of nutrition and public health at the School of Public Health at the University of Sao Paulo in Brazil.

“These foods contain many chemical compounds that are not nutrients,” he added.

Ultra-processed foods often contain an array of additives whose effects on our health we don’t yet fully understand, said Mozaffarian. “It’s not just the salt and sugar, which are the obvious ones, but the artificial sweeteners, artificial colors, emulsifiers, stabilizers, guar gum and xanthan gum,” he said. “We don’t know that they’re innocuous.”

Get one quick, adaptable and creative recipe in your inbox Monday through Thursday to inspire delicious meals.

Finding less processed substitutes

The simplest way to cut ultra-processed foods from your diet is to buy fewer prepared and packaged foods and to consume more whole and minimally processed foods. Instead of buying sweetened fruit yogurts loaded with additives, buy plain yogurt and add berries, nut butter and honey if you like. Consider skipping the frozen chicken nuggets and making these baked nuggets at home, which don’t take much more time.

You should also eliminate sugary sodas and sports drinks, which have many additives and little or no nutritional value. Substitute with sparkling water with lemon or lime, unsweetened teas, and plain water or water flavored with real fruit.

If you need the convenience of ultra-processed foods, you can check labels and comparison shop. Try to pick the products with the fewest ingredients. For help while shopping, you can pull up a website on your phone called truefood.tech. On the site you can type in a food that you want to buy — such as chicken nuggets or breakfast cereal — and in response the site will show you dozens of brands and recommend the least processed versions. The site uses machine learning to rank foods on a scale of 1 to 100 based on factors such as how many additives they contain and their degree of processing. The lower the score the better.

The site was created by Giulia Menichetti and Albert-László Barabási, two scientists at Northeastern University who study ultra-processed foods and developed a database of over 50,000 foods sold in grocery stores. You may be surprised by the wide variation in processing among different types of macaroni and cheese or that your favorite organic gluten-free chicken nuggets score higher than a standard recipe.

Menichetti said that replacing some of the ultra-processed foods that are staples in your diet with unprocessed or less processed versions could lead to health benefits. “We’re not suggesting that you drastically change your diet,” she said. “We’re nudging you toward healthier eating patterns.”

In the meantime, other experts have called for aggressive public policies such as stricter food labels and health warnings that might push the food industry to make healthier products.

“It will take some time for people to change their diets,” Monteiro said. “But if people start to consume fewer ultra-processed foods, the food industry will be forced to produce more minimally processed foods.”
 

[Guest]

Although a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, and seafood leads to a more salubrious life, I would caution that you get your diet information from consensus statements drawn up by reputable organizations (especially the US Preventative Service Task Force), which have been vetted by national experts, rather than from newspaper articles, even if said articles are written by and/or quoted from educated scientists. Opinions by individual scientists are bound to be slanted by their own biases and/or research projects. Groups of experts who write consensus opinons take the time to go over all the data: how well the studies were carried out, number of supporting studies, consistency of data, and so on. 

There are many opportunities for foods to become less healthful upon processing. These include removing whole grains (white bread, white rice), adding simple carbohydrates (including sugar), removing fiber, adding salt, and so on. Overall, the advice to minimize processed food is sound. I'm only cautioning you on being careful from where you get your information. 

[pubic_assistance]

On 9/27/2022 at 11:02 AM, 56harrisond said:

So how do we break our dependence on ultra-processed foods?

Stop buying them.

We rarely buy processed food at my house.

I'm sure the once or twice a week we eat at a restaurant, we are consuming some. But also making choices there that are less likely to not be fresh.

Americans eat like shit.

They all die of cancer at a rate that coincides with the consumption of processed food.

Just say no.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

...Americans eat like shit.

...

 

 

[Rudynate]

On 10/5/2022 at 11:35 AM, Unicorn said:

Although a diet rich in fruit, vegetables, and seafood leads to a more salubrious life, I would caution that you get your diet information from consensus statements drawn up by reputable organizations (especially the US Preventative Service Task Force), which have been vetted by national experts, rather than from newspaper articles, even if said articles are written by and/or quoted from educated scientists. Opinions by individual scientists are bound to be slanted by their own biases and/or research projects. Groups of experts who write consensus opinons take the time to go over all the data: how well the studies were carried out, number of supporting studies, consistency of data, and so on. 

There are many opportunities for foods to become less healthful upon processing. These include removing whole grains (white bread, white rice), adding simple carbohydrates (including sugar), removing fiber, adding salt, and so on. Overall, the advice to minimize processed food is sound. I'm only cautioning you on being careful from where you get your information. 

 Staying healthy and fit isn't rocket science - common sense, implementation and consistency.

[+ BenjaminNicholas]

On 10/12/2022 at 12:29 PM, Rudynate said:

 Staying healthy and fit isn't rocket science - common sense, implementation and consistency.

This.  And let's not forget some semblance of self-control.

Many people have unhealthy mental relationships with food.  They eat to feel better. 

While I enjoy food, I look at it, bottom line, as fuel.  The internal question I tend to ask myself is 'do I want to put shit into my body or do I want ultra-premium fuel?'

 

 

[pubic_assistance]

47 minutes ago, BenjaminNicholas said:

Let's not forget some semblance of self-control.

There are entire aisles of the grocery store where I never visit.

I am always astounded at the "snack aisle"...miles of chips, crackers, pretzels, and cookies that I never buy.

We eat MEALS at my house.  If you need a snack, there's fruit in the bowl.

The most my kids eat crap is around Halloween when we let them indulge in some candy for the holiday so they don't feel left out.

[Rudynate]

On 11/2/2022 at 3:58 PM, pubic_assistance said:

There are entire aisles of the grocery store where I never visit.

I am always astounded at the "snack aisle"...miles of chips, crackers, pretzels, and cookies that I never buy.

We eat MEALS at my house.  If you need a snack, there's fruit in the bowl.

The most my kids eat crap is around Halloween when we let them indulge in some candy for the holiday so they don't feel left out.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater - the snack aisle also has rice cakes, peanuts, raw almonds, walnuts, etc.   The fruit aisle also has items of questionable value such as bananas and pineapple.   It took my husband forever to learn that fresh fruit is not a  "free" food.  I finally managed to convince him that he couldn't eat all the fresh fruit he wanted and he dropped a couple inches from his waist effortlessly.

[Rudynate]

1 hour ago, arnemgreeves said:

it may be extreme, but we need to make junk foods as socially discouraged as smoking. If this means ultra-high taxes like we have on smoking, so be it. 

 

How would you decide what is to be taxed?  What exactly is "fast food?"  Food from certain purveyors?  Food with a prescribed nutritional content?  Would you tax all take-out food no matter what it is?  Would you tax Mexican food, Chinese food, Thai food, burgers, pizza?   Would you exclude providers like Chipotle, whose food is arguably healthy? 

Education is the only answer. Dry up demand and the supply will also dry up. 

 

[MscleLovr]

On 9/27/2022 at 4:02 PM, 56harrisond said:

What should I eat instead?

I recommend to anyone interested that they read a short book “Food Rules: An Eater’s Manual” by Michael Pollan. It’s a simple and easy read in under an hour.
 

His advice is very pithy. It could be summarised as Eat food your grandparents would recognise; Mainly plants; Don’t eat too much. 

[pubic_assistance]

I believe it was Julia Child who said. Eat well but eat in moderation.

[pubic_assistance]

21 hours ago, arnemgreeves said:

We’re conditioned to see fast food as better.

We are ?

I always understood that McDonalds is where poor people, who can't afford real food, eat.

Where does one receive this conditioning that fast food is "better" ?

You can fool a kid by sticking a toy in his happy meal..but no intelligent adult believes fast food is good for you.

[pubic_assistance]

3 hours ago, arnemgreeves said:

I don't even live in the USA. Fast food became big for a reason, and in my country (which I recognise has its own norms which don't apply everywhere....) people of all classes eat fast food.

Ah. Yes. I've heard this from friends who grew up outside the US.  But here fast food has always been cheap food, not good food.

Marketing draws people into the Golden Arches but nobody who has access to fresh food would think that Micky D is anything but a cheap copy of the actual American Burger n Fries menu.

Maybe that differs in other countries where they've never HAD the real stuff.

[Rudynate]

It was in the early 60's that the health profession started sounding the alarm about the danger of excessive cholesterol in the diet and started recommending cutting back on eggs, dairy fats and meat. As new knowledge became available, the recommendations evolved.  At first it was cut cholesterol  - you were supposed to replace butter with margarine and not eat more than 3 egg yolks in a week.  

After that, it was thought that excessive fat was the problem and the American Heart Association recommended a diet containing no more than 30% total fat. Eventually, it was decided that 30% fat wasn't low enough and you started seeing recommendations to cut total fat to 20% or even as low as 10%, with the result that people tried to cut their fat intake to ridiculous levels while stuffing themselves with foods high in sugar, salt and refined carbs and waistlines started to grow.

After that, it was thought that total fat wasn't the problem but saturated fat, so red meat and dairy fats went on the chopping block, and people were encouraged to consume healthy fats like olive oil. nuts and avocados.

After that, it was thought that saturated fat wasn't the problem, only certain saturated fats, so then you were supposed to not eat red meat or dairy but chicken and fish were OK. 

After that, eggs were rehabilitated when it was found that only certain individuals responded poorly to large amounts of dietary cholesterol.

After that carbohydrates were indicted.  After that it was thought that only sugar and refined carbs were bad.

The newest information, which I read only a few weeks ago, is that dairy fat is not nearly the hazard that they once thought it was, so butter, cream and cheese are being rehabilitated.

I am not a professional scientist but I have science background and I appreciate that our understanding evolves as the science evolves and that the healthcare profession is doing the best it can with the information it has at any given time, so I just roll with the punches.

[Rudynate]

On 11/5/2022 at 7:27 AM, pubic_assistance said:

Ah. Yes. I've heard this from friends who grew up outside the US.  But here fast food has always been cheap food, not good food.

Marketing draws people into the Golden Arches but nobody who has access to fresh food would think that Micky D is anything but a cheap copy of the actual American Burger n Fries menu.

Maybe that differs in other countries where they've never HAD the real stuff.

I don't know if that is true. When I was in high school, in Rochester, we went on a field trip to Utica.   There were no McD's in Rochester at the time and we were going to stop for lunch at a McD's in Syracuse.  Everyone was very excited that we got to try McD's.  These weren't children from underprivilieged homes - we were all students at a cushy suburban high school whose fathers were al Kodak executives.

[pubic_assistance]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:18 PM, Rudynate said:

It was in the early 60's that the health profession started sounding the alarm about the danger of excessive cholesterol in the diet and started recommending cutting back on eggs, dairy fats and meat. As new knowledge became available, the recommendations evolved.  At first it was cut cholesterol  - you were supposed to replace butter with margarine and not eat more than 3 egg yolks in a week.  

After that, it was thought that excessive fat was the problem and the American Heart Association recommended a diet containing no more than 30% total fat. Eventually, it was decided that 30% fat wasn't low enough and you started seeing recommendations to cut total fat to 20% or even as low as 10%, with the result that people tried to cut their fat intake to ridiculous levels while stuffing themselves with foods high in sugar, salt and refined carbs and waistlines started to grow.

After that, it was thought that total fat wasn't the problem but saturated fat, so red meat and dairy fats went on the chopping block, and people were encouraged to consume healthy fats like olive oil. nuts and avocados.

After that, it was thought that saturated fat wasn't the problem, only certain saturated fats, so then you were supposed to not eat red meat or dairy but chicken and fish were OK. 

After that, eggs were rehabilitated when it was found that only certain individuals responded poorly to large amounts of dietary cholesterol.

After that carbohydrates were indicted.  After that it was thought that only sugar and refined carbs were bad.

The newest information, which I read only a few weeks ago, is that dairy fat is not nearly the hazard that they once thought it was, so butter, cream and cheese are being rehabilitated.

I am not a professional scientist but I have science background and I appreciate that our understanding evolves as the science evolves and that the healthcare profession is doing the best it can with the information it has at any given time, so I just roll with the punches.

This evolution parallels one major control factor. EXERCISE.  Our ancestors worked their asses off, ate all the fat and dairy they wanted and lived a relatively long time, considering they did so without pharmaceutical interventions. By the 60's and 70's modern conveniences has most of us sitting on our ass. In the 90's and 2000's people started exercising again but this time at the gym, or at home in front of an exercise video. So I would point out that the movement to decrease various fatty foods, paralleled a few decades of aerobic laziness.

[Rudynate]

People are much fatter now than they were in the 60s and 70s.   In the 60s really obese people, commonplace now, were a rarity - they really stood out.   In my grade school, I can remember one fat girl - one in a student body of maybe 200 kids.  In high school, in a student body of 1500, there were a couple fat kids. Everyone else was normal size.  In the military, in the early 70s - nobody was fat.  Some of the older, career soldiers were on the chubby side, but nobody was fat.  Even in the 80's, although the tide was beginning to turn, really obese people were uncommon.

[Luv2play]

On 11/5/2022 at 1:18 PM, Rudynate said:

It was in the early 60's that the health profession started sounding the alarm about the danger of excessive cholesterol in the diet and started recommending cutting back on eggs, dairy fats and meat. As new knowledge became available, the recommendations evolved.  At first it was cut cholesterol  - you were supposed to replace butter with margarine and not eat more than 3 egg yolks in a week.  

After that, it was thought that excessive fat was the problem and the American Heart Association recommended a diet containing no more than 30% total fat. Eventually, it was decided that 30% fat wasn't low enough and you started seeing recommendations to cut total fat to 20% or even as low as 10%, with the result that people tried to cut their fat intake to ridiculous levels while stuffing themselves with foods high in sugar, salt and refined carbs and waistlines started to grow.

After that, it was thought that total fat wasn't the problem but saturated fat, so red meat and dairy fats went on the chopping block, and people were encouraged to consume healthy fats like olive oil. nuts and avocados.

After that, it was thought that saturated fat wasn't the problem, only certain saturated fats, so then you were supposed to not eat red meat or dairy but chicken and fish were OK. 

After that, eggs were rehabilitated when it was found that only certain individuals responded poorly to large amounts of dietary cholesterol.

After that carbohydrates were indicted.  After that it was thought that only sugar and refined carbs were bad.

The newest information, which I read only a few weeks ago, is that dairy fat is not nearly the hazard that they once thought it was, so butter, cream and cheese are being rehabilitated.

I am not a professional scientist but I have science background and I appreciate that our understanding evolves as the science evolves and that the healthcare profession is doing the best it can with the information it has at any given time, so I just roll with the punches.

I agree that over the last 30 years or so the scientific consensus on what constitutes healthy eating has evolved and circled back on itself in many respects. Over 20 years ago I decided to stick with stuff my mother practiced in our home, which was generally good nutrition and light on junk food.

If I had to find one area where she may have gone overboard, it was on her desserts, which she made from scratch but did contain a lot of sugar and fats. I tend to avoid them today but still yield to the odd cake or pie that comes my way.

But I mainly stick to unprocessed foods or mildly processed.  And as a result I weigh about the same at 75 as I did when I graduated from university 50 years ago, around 175 pounds on a 5'11"frame.

Edited November 6, 2022 by Luv2play

[Rudynate]

My mother was an avid reader of Reader's Digest - we always had an active subscription.  Sometime in the 60s she read an article in there about how bad sugary cereals and bread made from white flour were.  She switched us to whole wheat bread, shredded wheat and oatmeal.   We howled and protested, and she even had to work to get my father on board, but she stuck to her guns and the change was permanent - we never went back.

[pubic_assistance]

44 minutes ago, arnemgreeves said:

Since even poor countries are getting fatter, clearlty there is soething in global food production fucking us up. 

Fast food and snack foods use a tremendous amount of chemicals in their processing.

Virtually all snack foods have  hydrogenated corn oil as a primary ingredient. Likewise fast foods use preservatives and oils that are not only fattening but cause cancer.

The growth in cancer cases parallels the sales of snack food and fast food in every country it enters.

 

 

[Rudynate]

6 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

Fast food and snack foods use a tremendous amount of chemicals in their processing.

Virtually all snack foods have  hydrogenated corn oil as a primary ingredient. Likewise fast foods use preservatives and oils that are not only fattening but cause cancer.

The growth in cancer cases parallels the sales of snack food and fast food in every country it enters.

 

 

hydrogenated fats in foods were banned by the FDA several years ago.

[samhexum]

Highly processed foods are linked to early death, a new study finds

 

 

 

A growing body of evidence suggests that consuming too much highly processed food — items like hot dogs, chips, soda and ice cream — can have consequences beyond obesity and high cholesterol.

A study published Monday in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine estimated that in 2019, the deaths of around 57,000 Brazilian people between the ages of 30 and 69 were attributable to the consumption of ultra-processed food. That amounts to more than 10% of annual premature deaths in Brazil among that age group.

https://www.aol.com/news/highly-processed-foods-linked-early-050100263.html

Edited November 8, 2022 by samhexum
for shits and giggles

[pubic_assistance]

8 hours ago, Rudynate said:

hydrogenated fats in foods were banned by the FDA several years ago.

The FDA is not a world wide entity.

I am talking globally, not locally.

We know Americans are fat and full of cancer.

My point is that the growth in snack foods and fast foods OUTSIDE the US parallels the growth in obesity and cancer in those countries.

 

[Rudynate]

28 minutes ago, pubic_assistance said:

The FDA is not a world wide entity.

I am talking globally, not locally.

We know Americans are fat and full of cancer.

My point is that the growth in snack foods and fast foods OUTSIDE the US parallels the growth in obesity and cancer in those countries.

 

What are you suggesting we do about snack foods full of trans fats in Ulan Bator?

[Rudynate]

 

 

5 hours ago, pubic_assistance said:

The FDA is not a world wide entity.

I am talking globally, not locally.

We know Americans are fat and full of cancer.

My point is that the growth in snack foods and fast foods OUTSIDE the US parallels the growth in obesity and cancer in those countries.

 

Canada has banned trans fats; the EU has banned trans fats.  The UK is resisting govt. regulation of trans fats, but the food industry has proactively reduced levels of trans fats in the food supply. WHO has a goal of eliminating trans fats from the global food supply by 2023.  In fact, 32 countries around the world have adopted policies regulating trans fats in the food supply. 

The incidence of cancer has increased.  At least in the US, it is attributed to the fact that people are living longer - in any individual life, the time window for developing cancer has increased so that there are more opportunities to develop cancer.  The law of unintended consequences bit us in the ass - better habits and better healthcare has inadvertently exposed us to a greater cancer risk.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Rudynate
revise