Kip Hansen's News Brief — September 6, 2024 — 1100 words
grateful new york timesin an article eat In part, we have news that “people who consumed the most ultra-processed foods were 11% more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 16% more likely to develop coronary heart disease during the study period.”
This article is written by Alice Callahan and titled: “Are some ultra-processed foods worse than others?”
Callahan's summary of the “Lancet” research paper is:
“The researchers also combined their findings with those from 19 other studies, conducting a separate analysis of about 1.25 million adults. They found that those who ate the most ultra-processed foods compared with those who ate the least People are 17% more likely to have cardiovascular disease, 23% more likely to have coronary heart disease, and 9% more likely to have a stroke.
What is the evidence presented in the Lancet paper? [Mendoza et al. 2024]? Here is the money chart:
Now, before I talk further about the study, the results, and these risk ratios, the original study states the following in its abstract:
“explain
Total UPF intake is inversely associated with CVD and CHD risk in US adults, which has been confirmed by prospective studies in multiple countries and also showed a modest increase in stroke risk.
With this explanation in mind, look at the hazard ratio chart again. What do you think?
Let us know what you think in the comments section – Now — before I comment on the findings.
######
Let me start over.
There is a new one lancet The study, titled “Analysis of three large prospective cohorts in the United States and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies,” looked at the relationship between “ultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease.”
Here are the results of their study, graphically showing the risk ratios for adverse conditions based on the intake (consumption) of various types of ultra-processed foods (UPF):
CVD – Cardiovascular Disease CHD – Coronary Heart Disease ASB – Artificially Sweetened Beverages
If this were a display on a digital whiteboard, projected on a large screen in a meeting, I would do the following:
I circled the only findings that came close to being clinically significant.
Note that for most UPF categories, most risk ratios are less than 1 – In this context, it is often interpreted as beneficial – preventing harm. Many uncertainty/error bars greater than 1 contain “1”, which is correctly interpreted as “no effect”. Only those circled in red are considered statistically Harmful, associated with adverse effects, in any way.
According to the logic of the author of this article, all the contents in the blue boxes below can be considered to prevent “bad things”—— Cardiovascular disease, coronary heart disease, stroke:
To complete the image set:
The highlighted values, although positive, include “1” (unit) and fall under this general rule:
“Statistically significant risk ratio Cannot contain unity (1) within their confidence intervals. [ source ]
As for the last two, ASB – artificially sweetened drinks, it seems the failure to find a sufficiently positive risk ratio may have led them to recalculate the HR “adjusted for dieting behavior and changes in BMI over time”. they still end up being nothing done.
Now, consider again the author’s statement—plain language explain their findings:
“Total UPF intake is inversely associated with CVD and CHD risk in U.S. adults, as confirmed by prospective studies in multiple countries, which also showed a modest increase in stroke risk.”
######
Junk Science:
Only “sugar-sweetened beverages” and “processed red meat, poultry and fish” had any adverse associations with cardiovascular disease and coronary heart disease. The study's lead author is cited in era “When these two categories are excluded from the data, much of the risk associated with ultra-processed food consumption disappears…” This is absolutely correct. In fact, whatever “risk” is left will be small, with uncertainty overlapping with “1” and unevenly Statistically Significant, and can never properly be considered clinically significant or a “minimal clinically important difference.”
Therefore, the explanation provided by the study's authors is incorrect in plain language—they found no association between UPF consumption and CVD and CHD, but only in consumption in two of the ten categories.
Scientific controversy:
The two categories themselves were found to have relevant adverse effects modern scientific controversies: The war on sugar and the war on meat.
This means that the studies included in the meta-analysis are more likely (or stronger, likely) problematic and may simply be “an accurate measure of widespread prejudice.”
Bottom line:
this new york times Articles and Research this lancet These are prime examples of how junk science findings can be turned into actionable science. Findings with small questionable effects were promoted to broad application by the study authors (in the interpretation, applying to all UPF as a broad food category), and then again promoted to important into people's daily lives.
Studying UPF is a new scientific fad, with study after study desperately trying to find out “UPF is bad for you.” UPF isn't even a distinct food category by ingredient or type – just the fact that how they are produced (yes, really).
######
Author comments:
I have been collecting information on UPF for several years in preparation for writing a section on the new modern scientific controversies on the subject. coming soon.
There yes A total diet that is not conducive to health. These, of course, include various diets that contain excessive amounts of sugar. The case against excess sugar rests entirely on its relationship with diabetes and obesity, both of which are controversial. Exactly what constitutes an “overdose” is an open question, but you've seen men and women walking and driving drinking from giant refillable convenience store soda cups, 44-52 ounces filled with what is essentially syrup something. Big box stores have hundreds of feet of shelf space dedicated to oversized containers of candy in large bags and large square plastic jars.
The case against meat and processed meat is far less clear-cut and may not even exist at all—perhaps entirely an example of widespread prejudice.
I have long believed that diet is a personal and cultural choice and that it should be well rounded and varied, including a wide range of vegetables, fruits and grains. Personally, my religious health rules call for eating meat “in small amounts.”
Thank you for reading.
######
Relevant
