Part 4 – Watt?

Kip Hansen's guest paper – February 15, 2025 – 1400 words

prelude: This will be the last of a series of five sections that discuss the ongoing scientific controversy surrounding superprocessed foods – UPFS.

The previous paper was:

The scientific appearance of garbage nutrition

Modern Science Controversy: Food War: Part 1

Modern Science Controversy: Food War: Part 2, What is UPFS?

Modern Science Controversy: Food War: Part 3 – UPFS: What are they measuring?

Typical news media articles about superprocessed foods often start with something similar, which is used in the New York Times with the title “How bad are super popular foods?” Alice Callahan:

“Are super popular food harmful?

“Most studies that compare UPF with poor health are based on observational studies in which researchers ask people about their diet and then track their health over the years. In numerous studies published in 2024, scientists report that consumption of UPFS is associated with 32 health issues, with the most convincing evidence of common mental health problems associated with heart disease, type 2 diabetes, and anxiety and depression. . ”

Indeed, through the Office of Epidemiology, UPF consumption is “associated” with many health issues. remember:

World-class statistician William “Matt” Briggs, author of “Book”Uncertainty: The soul of modeling, probability and statistics”, tell us No doubtThat: “Epidemiology is the area that formally mistakes for causality.”

This is the most basic statement we can make about fighting lightly Super popular food.

Let's make a basic assumption first:

The basics of a “good diet” are A) enough, meaning protein, carbohydrates, fats, and essential vitamins and minerals. b) There is not much more in any thing, especially with too much sugar (all types), too much fat (all types), too much protein (all types), and Some People, too much salt. c) Defining “too much” and “enough, enough” is tricky, but you get it. d) A wide variety of species, including all types of whole grains, fruits and vegetables.

Feel free to have some objection to this assumption, and almost everyone can find something they don't like, but our knowledge of dietary science supports this very basic assumption.

What does this have to do with super popular foods?

Almost nothing. Super popular food (hereinafter referred to as UPF) is a food category based solely on “the degree and purpose of food processing”. Biologically speaking, nutrition is the purpose of diet. However, Nutritional value Not part of UPFS defined features.

Remember, UPFS does not mean “junk food”. UPFS doesn't mean sugary soda, hamburgers, fries, candies and snacks. These are a concern in modern society, but, although they are usually included in UPF, they are not the core of UPF.

What is the core of UPF? “Almost everything on the shelves, aisles, grocery stores In your cabinets and refrigerator. ”

Another point of view:

In Times Times (“What really? [a nutrition scientist and epidemiologist who researched this topic as a former USDA and NIH employee] It's like saying:

“There is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, but that doesn't mean that UPF directly leads to poor health,” she said. “O'Connor questioned whether it would be helpful to divide this “strikingly different” food (such as Twinkies and Breakanc Jeteals) into a category. Some types of super popular foods (such as soda and processed meat) are more popular than Other foods are more harmful.”

This sentence seemed a bit “purpose” to me, so I wrote to Dr. O'Connor and asked her “You really say “apparently more harmful”? (This means that UPF itself is harmful, some are more harmful than others.) Or is it the opinion of the reporter?”

Dr. O'Connor is very kind to provide an extended, more subtle clarification and re-written below, previously acknowledged “to Alice's [Alice Callahan] Credit, we spoke for nearly an hour, so I might get sloppy in my language”:

“It is true that there is a correlation between these foods and chronic diseases, but that doesn't mean that foods classified as superprocesses directly lead to poor health. Relevance does not equal causality. We need more random controls trials, in which causality can be determined. Currently, only a few small RCTs have been published, but more work is underway.” (You can find them on ClinicalTrials.gov or NIH’s reporter website)

Dr. O'Connor questioned the practicality of dividing this “straightly different” food into one category. Typical images of super processed foods (Google It!) are images of hot dogs, candy and candy drinks. However, this image is misleading because in the United States, a super-severe group of foods varies greatly, including many fortified whole grain products and plant-based proteins (as well as infant formula). This is problematic for developing dietary guidelines for superprocessed foods and communicating with the public because processed meat and powdered sugar beverages, for example, we recommend that food be consumed in small to medium quantities. However, the public has been encouraged to increase whole grains and plant-based proteins to improve their health. ”

Those who have read the entire series will know that the only reliable evidence for any harmful effects of so-called UPF is limited to the results of two subclasses of UPFs, such as those of Cordova et al. (2023)”Consumption of super processed foods and risks Multiple diseases of cancer and cardiac metabolic diseases: a transnational cohort study”:

Even if these effects are small, they may not belong to Clinically important differences are small (MCID) for Most people.

Bottom line: