The hard sell of ultra-processed foods in developing countries as being ‘good for you’ gives children a taste for sugar and salt that could have lasting effects on their health
The hard sell of ultra-processed foods in developing countries as being ‘good for you’ gives children a taste for sugar and salt that could have lasting effects on their health
I always see a lot of misunderstanding in discussions about this stuff, so here is some related reading for anyone who wants to understand why scientists are saying ultra-processed food leads to health problems:
Ultra Processed People by Chris van Tulleken
The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzer
tl;dr?
From the links I provided above:
Ultra Processed People by Chris van Tulleken
The Dorito Effect by Mark Schatzer
Ah thanks! But I did read the blurbs.
I got curious about the big conclusions of the books — where do the solutions lie, and how do we get tasty over-farmed food? And what was Chris’ health like after that month?
So, the broad recommendation of both books is just to go back to eating real food, that is, home-cooked, minimally-processed, and preferably organic labeled.
I like Ultra Processed People because the author is a medical doctor and a researcher, so he does a good job of getting into some of the research, but the 30 day diet was mostly a publicity stunt, in my view. That said, here are some outcomes:
Why do they recommend organic labeled food?
The organic labeling is largely bs to justify charging more for a similar product imo. I can’t really say any of the organic labeled produce I’ve gotten is notably better than the “normal” version.
That’s a dangerously unqualified statement
Turns out there are substantial chemical / nutritive differences between ‘conventional’ and organically grown food. There’s actually more nutrition, more food, per unit volume in organic food. If you’d like to understand why, then you should read the books, as well as In Defense of Food, by Michael Pollan.
This is a pretty bad take, and definitely not one endorsed by scientists. One person represents a case report, not a study. In the world of academic medicine, you can find case reports on nearly anything, and people cite them as if they represent peer-reviewed scrutiny. If we’re to get anywhere on the matter, we need larger studies based on randomly assigned cohorts with controls to evaluate dietary influences on health, not whatever this is masquerading to represent.
Damn I guess nobody thought about doing it scientifically. Oh well. Back to the Doritos I suppose.
Oh wait:
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/processed-foods/
https://www.science.org/content/article/ultraprocessed-foods-may-make-you-eat-more-clinical-trial-suggests
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/318630
https://www.nyu.edu/about/news-publications/news/2021/october/ultra-processed-foods.html
Is… is that enough? Should I keep going?
Literally no one is saying this was anything else, it’s not even really a case report, it’s a pop-sci book… which is why the book covers a bunch of the more rigorous academic research.
Here’s some for you, if you’re up for it. Full article linked here.