If you are not reducing your intake of UPF…

[maybein2022]

… with all the media attention on UPF at the moment and so much research coming out about it. Interested to know. If you’re NOT reducing your intake of it, is it because you’re not able to (finances/accessibility/time), because you don’t want to or don’t think it’s a problem, you and/or your kids are neurodivergent and a lot of ‘safe’ foods are UPF or other reasons.

YANBU: I am reducing mine/my family’s intake
YABU: I am not for reasons listed above (or other reasons)

Well in my opinion someone who, when they hears someone lives outside of the UK immediately jumps to the conclusion that they must live in Europe, is rather ignorant. If you didn't know where I lived there was no need to write a comment to lecture me on what happens in other parts of Europe - you could have just kept quiet.

the nature of upf is that eating it is easier, it takes away the need for humans to bite and chew (digestion should start in the mouth). For example eating an apple takes more to bite off a piece of it, chew it, swallow it and digest it. A glass of apple juice or eating some apple purée takes away most of that process. Similarly a piece of meat v a burger. It doesn't satisfy the hunger.

I do agree with you that foods should be bitten and chewed, but what gives you the idea that UPF foods don't require that? We are constantly being told UPFs are bread, sausages, ready meals, shop bought biscuits, cake etc., all of which require biting and chewing?

Generally they are a lot softer to chew. For example, a slice of shop bought cheap white sliced bread is a lot softer, quicker to eat, can get stuck to the roof of your mouth etc than a homemade sourdough which can make your jaw ache from chewing and you probably eat a lot less of!

i have read the "famous" upf book by the doctor/researcher. to be honest, i didnt find it very convincing.
the most convincing parts of the book were about upf vs satiety, as in the nature of most upf, because it makes us feel less satiated, will cause us to eat more, and that increase in calories will cause weight gain and health problems down the road.
but there was nothing particularly convincing about the idea that upf ITSELF is evil and killing us. there was even a part in the book where the author's brother looked at a ready meal, which didnt have any of the upf ingredients in it (hydrogenated fats, chemical ingredient extracts and the like) and the author STILL said that was upf........just because!
i admit im biased against the idea because it makes me remember the "fat is evil and killing us" and then the "sugar is evil and killing us" phases...

Linked doesn’t mean caused by

No, I eat what I want, I'm elderly now anyway so past caring

I think my UPF intake is low anyway but that’s because I’m lucky enough to be relatively well off. I wouldn’t read too much into nutrition research though, as it’s notoriously difficult (because you can’t randomly assign people to eating UPFs vs not) - this is why we regularly see silly findings such as “red wine reduces X” or “dark chocolate reduces X” in the news.

Yep. A diet that includes 100g of foie gras per day would probably kill you, but people who report eating foie gras regularly live longer than those who don't because the negative effect of the foie gras is more than outweighed by the longevity benefits of being wealthy, which is the reason you can afford to eat fois gras.

You also get situations like this, where both of the following are true:

• Obese people eat more biscuits than non-obese people
• Obese people drink more diet soft drinks than non-obese people

One of those is a direct cause of weight gain and the other is a change of behaviour (from full-fat Coke to Coke Zero) resulting from it. But you can't tell that from just looking at the associations.

lmao

You're comparing apples and oranges. Compare a shop bought white loaf with a home made white loaf. Compare a shop bought sourdough with a home made sourdough.

There is definitely a difference in mouth feel to some supermarket sliced bread and my homemade bread (not sourdough). But I could still overeat on it compared to the sourdough hence why I try not to make it too often!

Not everyone who eats these bad foods is fat, I'm certainly not and eat quite a lot of rubbish, the only cancer I have had so far is a BCC which is linked to the sun rather than what you eat. Many eat really well and still pop their clogs early or have serious illness

I think there have been cancer studies linking processed meat when that has been the only risk factor. They take obesity and other things out of the picture during studies and find processed meat is still linked to bowel cancer. I don't know the specifics but that's what Cancer Research says on their website. The arm with red meat but it's lower risk. I do still eat it though, but try and be a bit more conscious of how much. Not sure if other upf have been linked to cancer though?

My first sentence said: “The third largest cause of cancer “. The second sentence merely this expressed this as a % figure.

As far as I know there’s no robust evidence anywhere that shows a causal link either.

I think it's linked to and not causal at the moment. More studies needed. https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/242892/ultra-processed-foods-linked-increased-risk-cancer/

Yes it seems awfully vague at the moment.

You’re a high level research scientist familiar with all the data on cancer causation in the US? if so take it up with the NIH, CDC and IARC and let them know you disagree with their conclusions.

There are quite a number of mechanisms by which obesity can impact cancer: adipokines - which stimulate or inhibit cell growth; adipose tissue which can produce excessive oestrogen; inflammation; altered fatty acid metabolism; altered extracellular matrix; higher levels of insulin and insulin-like growth factors; and fat cells may directly impact some metabolic regulators and cell growth - to name a few.

I think it's linked to and not causal at the moment

The discussion was of the link between obesity and cancer not UPFs.

I think the issue might be that none of us are scientists and so can't really argue the point (although some on here might be scientists?). So, for me I just go with my intuition - does it sound logical to me. Of course I might be wrong but if it doesn't seem to do any harm I am relaxed. Giving up crisps is probably not going to do me any harm. I used to eat them every day and maybe twice a day.

I notice that scientists disagree on stuff. I see a lot of science supporting fasting and then I heard another scientist explaining that the only research done was on rats. Dunno. I suspect another scientist will explain there is more research in addition to the rat research but haven't heard that debate yet.

The BMJ published research does cover the correlation between intake of UPF and 32 medical conditions/diseases including cancer. It isn't clear how much (quantity of UPF), duration of time nor how frequently because no such detailed longitudinal studies have yet been run tracking health outcomes of people who either have a high UPF diet or not. That will require a significant research commitment over decades, all we have to go on is the links they've made so far.

as previously said, common sense needs to prevail, people have choices they can make based on what has been published and awareness raised.

Fair point, I thought those posters were specifically responding to my discussion with @BeretRaspberry

@Jewel1968 I don't think we need to be 'scientists' to be able to interpret what has been discussed in the scientific community about the prevalence and consequences of UPF, hence these kinds of discussions are helpful.

Your point that intuition has a part to play is relevant, what feels right, what we believe is right for us and our families. What strangers on the internet say or don't say, is irrelevant in the RW. The downside of social media is the scare mongering, the idiotic judgemental comments by the keyboard warriors. Outside of that, keeping a balanced perspective on UPF is the most helpful approach when we're all just doing our best and trying to survive and thrive.

@daisychain01 can't disagree with you there. The thing I see on social media is doctors or scientists saying X and then another doctor or scientists disagreeing and saying how wrong the first scientist is about X.

There are some areas where I see more of a consensus e.g. fasting but even with that there will be a counter view. That's where our own common sense needs to be triggered. And never forget money is being made by books and such like telling us all how to live our lives.

I wasn't lecturing you. I was sharing a graphic that I thought was interesting, not necessarily for you but also potentially for others.

Also, the UK is in Europe so I don't think it's 'ignorant' to first think of European countries when someone says they don't live in the UK or the US.