The NOVA Food Classification scheme is so anti-scientific that it can't be allowed to play a part in any rational argument! Is there really nothing better? Consider:
--Remaining agnostic as to the current idea that seed oils are the literal work of the devil, how can "vegetable oils" possibly be considered "minimally processed"? They are doused with hexane, degummed, bleached and hydrogenated! What meaning does "processed" have if this doesn't count?
--Bread, cheese, and canned vegetables are in category 3 (processed), but the act of placing them on top of each other and calling it "pizza" moves it into the worst category. Hamburgers are treated similarly--beef (including ground) is in category 1 but place a bun (category 3) on it, and somehow it becomes highly processed.
--Two out of the ten examples of highly processed foods are infant formula, and they are listed first. Formula is indeed highly processed! But when it's placed first and second on the list, you can see a political bias in action.
One other way to guage the effects of UPF is through natural experiments where a country's market suddenly opens up to such products. Another way is to factor in how physicians see their patient's health change based on their dietary pattern change. And finally, looking at nursing homes and prisons and other closed systems where there is some more consistent food group ratios.
I don't know why the "Mediterranean" diet is so highly advocated. Define precisely what that means. The Japanese diet is the most healthy, especially if you look at the general population.
Eating five doughnuts a day would be bad for me just because it will make me obese...
I always get baffled by the "no sugar added" labels. And then when you read the small print you find out that it's full of honey or some other "fully natural" sugar.
Although observational studies likely are the best that can be done - practically - in large scale nutrition research, this approach is nevertheless notoriously weak. Confounding, recall bias, non-causitive associations, overstated conclusions/implications, and other issues plague this research. John Ioannidis - if I remember correctly - has addressed this in the past. So what ever you do, consider nutritional research with focused skepticism - and include a pinch of salt...
Healthy salt - Morton Lite Salt - a Na + K salt blend that I use for all my salted foods...
Also some years ago, the book Food Politics by Marion Nestle was useful to me. I believe she still publishes in this realm. I would be interested in a take on her spiel by our Sensible Medicine writer.
I tell my patients, first and foremost, about portion control. Then, from a CV perspective, to eat like Mediterraneans more often than not (it reflects the very few diet RCTs that I feel are…ahem….worth their salt).
Beyond that, I suggest (borrowed from one of my colleagues) they minimize what they eat that comes out of a bag, can, or box. And to peruse how many items on an ingredients list that they can pronounce.
I find “diet” guidelines to be like any other medical/scientific guideline in the 21st century: completely devoid of nuance in the pursuit of simplicity and ease of adoption. And quite often with some undeclared conflicts of interest besides.
I am also looking forward to this series of articles. It sounds like it may vindicate the advice I gave to patients over forty years of medical practice: Eat what you like. Food has virtually nothing to do with health and disease. If you are unhappy with your weight, eat less. I have often found that those who advocate various diets are not very well informed on the subject of digestion and absorption of nutrients---one of the most well worked out areas of human physiology. The demonization of sugar in recent years is a sure sign of such ignorance.
Interested and looking forward to the rest. I tend to ignore the nutrition headlines and try to look at how foods fit into the wider landscape. I’m wary of ultra processed foods and foods with a lot of added sugars mostly because they are developed and over-sold by large corporations that in my opinion do immense harm ecologically and economically. I’m quite sure that added sugars are an addictive substance coaxing me to pay money to companies that don’t have my welfare in mind. So I think it’s possible much of the hype and emotionalism is not about nutrition alone, but about Americans’ suspicion that we are being exploited, rather than fed. And my own suspicion only grows when I see the graph of how much UHP food different countries consume, with the US heading the list. While the analysis of the nutritional evidence is intriguing, the economic and environmental context is always going to be important to me.
Very interesting so far. Although this article is directed at the food enemies through the decades, we should also note that there are stars that also have been made by possible questionable evidence. Currently, protein has been named a champ. The definition of adequate protein has been expended and food companies are responding like they did with food enemies.
Well, this explains my dear friend bringing a large Tupperware of plain, cold chicken breast chunks to the last luncheon I hosted, and choking it down alongside the Neapolitan pizza, asparagus, green salad, and berries I had provided. :)
The NOVA Food Classification scheme is so anti-scientific that it can't be allowed to play a part in any rational argument! Is there really nothing better? Consider:
--Remaining agnostic as to the current idea that seed oils are the literal work of the devil, how can "vegetable oils" possibly be considered "minimally processed"? They are doused with hexane, degummed, bleached and hydrogenated! What meaning does "processed" have if this doesn't count?
--Bread, cheese, and canned vegetables are in category 3 (processed), but the act of placing them on top of each other and calling it "pizza" moves it into the worst category. Hamburgers are treated similarly--beef (including ground) is in category 1 but place a bun (category 3) on it, and somehow it becomes highly processed.
--Two out of the ten examples of highly processed foods are infant formula, and they are listed first. Formula is indeed highly processed! But when it's placed first and second on the list, you can see a political bias in action.
One other way to guage the effects of UPF is through natural experiments where a country's market suddenly opens up to such products. Another way is to factor in how physicians see their patient's health change based on their dietary pattern change. And finally, looking at nursing homes and prisons and other closed systems where there is some more consistent food group ratios.
I don't know why the "Mediterranean" diet is so highly advocated. Define precisely what that means. The Japanese diet is the most healthy, especially if you look at the general population.
Is weight ever taken into account?
Eating five doughnuts a day would be bad for me just because it will make me obese...
I always get baffled by the "no sugar added" labels. And then when you read the small print you find out that it's full of honey or some other "fully natural" sugar.
Wondering if similar examination of alcohol and exercise literature would produce the same skepticism with current recommendations??
Nina Teichholtz has done a lot of work in this area along with Zoe Harcombe.
Although observational studies likely are the best that can be done - practically - in large scale nutrition research, this approach is nevertheless notoriously weak. Confounding, recall bias, non-causitive associations, overstated conclusions/implications, and other issues plague this research. John Ioannidis - if I remember correctly - has addressed this in the past. So what ever you do, consider nutritional research with focused skepticism - and include a pinch of salt...
Healthy salt - Morton Lite Salt - a Na + K salt blend that I use for all my salted foods...
Also some years ago, the book Food Politics by Marion Nestle was useful to me. I believe she still publishes in this realm. I would be interested in a take on her spiel by our Sensible Medicine writer.
Looking forward to the rest of this series.
I tell my patients, first and foremost, about portion control. Then, from a CV perspective, to eat like Mediterraneans more often than not (it reflects the very few diet RCTs that I feel are…ahem….worth their salt).
Beyond that, I suggest (borrowed from one of my colleagues) they minimize what they eat that comes out of a bag, can, or box. And to peruse how many items on an ingredients list that they can pronounce.
I find “diet” guidelines to be like any other medical/scientific guideline in the 21st century: completely devoid of nuance in the pursuit of simplicity and ease of adoption. And quite often with some undeclared conflicts of interest besides.
I am also looking forward to this series of articles. It sounds like it may vindicate the advice I gave to patients over forty years of medical practice: Eat what you like. Food has virtually nothing to do with health and disease. If you are unhappy with your weight, eat less. I have often found that those who advocate various diets are not very well informed on the subject of digestion and absorption of nutrients---one of the most well worked out areas of human physiology. The demonization of sugar in recent years is a sure sign of such ignorance.
Interested and looking forward to the rest. I tend to ignore the nutrition headlines and try to look at how foods fit into the wider landscape. I’m wary of ultra processed foods and foods with a lot of added sugars mostly because they are developed and over-sold by large corporations that in my opinion do immense harm ecologically and economically. I’m quite sure that added sugars are an addictive substance coaxing me to pay money to companies that don’t have my welfare in mind. So I think it’s possible much of the hype and emotionalism is not about nutrition alone, but about Americans’ suspicion that we are being exploited, rather than fed. And my own suspicion only grows when I see the graph of how much UHP food different countries consume, with the US heading the list. While the analysis of the nutritional evidence is intriguing, the economic and environmental context is always going to be important to me.
Very interesting so far. Although this article is directed at the food enemies through the decades, we should also note that there are stars that also have been made by possible questionable evidence. Currently, protein has been named a champ. The definition of adequate protein has been expended and food companies are responding like they did with food enemies.
Well, this explains my dear friend bringing a large Tupperware of plain, cold chicken breast chunks to the last luncheon I hosted, and choking it down alongside the Neapolitan pizza, asparagus, green salad, and berries I had provided. :)