Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/01/health/ultraprocessed-food-dementia-study-wellness/index.html

by smn1234 • 4 years ago

70 133 4 years ago

There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits. The only downside is that relying only on 'real food' ingredients requires a fair amount of cooking, but the effort is well worth the payback.

There's no snappy one-word term for this dietary choice, maybe someone could come up with one.

oh_my_goodness• 4 years ago

I've heard "Eat food. Not too much." as a slogan for this.

jonah• 4 years ago

The full quote is:

“Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants.”

― Michael Pollan, In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/18508-eat-food-not-too-much...

omginternets17• 4 years ago

Incidentally, I think this is also why many extreme diets seem to have some evidence in favor of their health benefits. From where I'm standing, it seems like veganism/paleo/etc start being linked to various problems right around the time the agro industry starts cranking out specialized (read: highly-processed) products.

Relatedly: I'm taking bets regarding lab-grown meat.

garettmd2• 4 years ago

Which direction are you betting on lab-grown meats?

drooby3• 4 years ago

I believe a Whole-Food Diet is the term for a non-processed diet.

nonethewiser3• 4 years ago

There are a wide variety of heavily promoted dietary identities - from vegan to carnivore - but I'm convinced that in terms of one's health, eliminating these processed food items from one's diet is the one that has the most long-term benefits.

What has you convinced?

I wouldn't be surprised, but I'm curious if you're relying on anything more than intuition. I don't think intuition is worthless, for whatever it's worth. Seems like a pretty common-sense idea that non-fresh foods could have adverse effects.

I wouldn't be surprised if it's a major factor in increased rates of cancer, which is surely a combination of many mild factors that accumulate over a long period of time.

pessimizer• 4 years ago

“People need to know they should cook more and prepare their own food from scratch. I know. We say we don’t have time but it really doesn’t take that much time,” Suemoto said.

This is bullshit in a very important way: you have to know how to cook. Bring back home economics classes.

mjburgess3• 4 years ago

I think that required housewives. We're missing a full day's domestic labour.

omginternets17• 4 years ago

Nah. I work long hours and still find time to cook. Dinner takes about 15 mins to prepare, on average. I think the issue has more to do with people not knowing how to cook things that are both simple and nutritious.

I really feel for people who are trying to learn; every beginner's cookbook is full of things that require specific ingredients, complicated prep work, or a shit-ton of chopping.

I've toyed around with the idea of writing a cookbook of my own, but _that_ is something I truly do not have time for. Ah well :/

bobkazamakis• 4 years ago

yeah lets gender cooking now too in the effort to...?

omginternets17• 4 years ago

This. I'm one of the fortunate ones who learned to cook from my mother. Teaching me to cook is truly one of the greatest favors she did for me, bar none. This is not only because cooking is an essential part of eating well, but also because it's such a goddamn joy (if you're not following a recipe).

lezojeda• 4 years ago

And tbh, it really does take time to prepare a good meal, including washing dishes and all that. For those of us living alone it takes a good chunk of our free time after work.

ok123456• 4 years ago

Get instapot. Throw ingredients into instapot. Press button. Put contents into bowl. Rinse out instapot. Eat. Rinse out bowl.

cortesoft7• 4 years ago

For those of us living alone it takes a good chunk of our free time after work.

It takes even more time for people preparing food for a family. Throw in kids who are picky eaters, and it is even harder.

garettmd2• 4 years ago

Not arguing with you that it takes a considerable amount of time to prepare and clean-up a home cooked meal. But as someone who is not living alone (have a wife and kids), I'd say you probably have a lot more free time than you think you do, and I'm not sure that cooking just for yourself takes up any more time than it would cooking more food, for more people with varying tastes, allergies, etc. Add to the fact that most of the people being cooked for (kids) are basically freeloaders, I think that people living alone really have less excuse to eat healthy.

sudden_dystopia4• 4 years ago

No doubt. But how much time and money could obesity and cognitive decline cost you?

There are plenty of less complicated, one pot meal recipes littering the internet. Have you tried an Instapot or a nice air fryer?

antisthenes• 4 years ago

Having a sharp knife and preparing food in bulk for at least 3-4 meals is key to time savings. Most single men that I know like to prep food for the entire work week in advance.

If you're making a single serving (e.g. single dinner for yourself), then the overhead of cleaning dishes and pans makes it uneconomical to do so.

Also, certain things in cooking don't need supervision and you can perform other chores during that time (e.g. making beef/chicken stock in a pot, baking a roast, etc.)

Claudus• 4 years ago

Depends on how efficient you are, I prepare 18/21 meals a week at home, and have been doing this for years).

I spend 1 hour every two weeks getting groceries for ~$120. I spend 1.5 hours every two weeks (5 minutes a day + 20 minutes to prep 14 “containers”) preparing breakfast and rinsing dishes from the previous day for the dishwasher). My breakfast is cooked oat bran with walnuts, flax seed, wheat germ, Ceylon cinnamon, cacao, blueberries, raisins, chia seeds, pumpkin seeds, 4oz orange juice, fish oil, vitamins d3, k2.

I spend 2.5 hours a week (5 to 15 minutes a day) preparing lunch, typically steamed vegetables + 150 grams chicken + 1 cup dry instant brown rice cooked OR salmon + simple salad + sweet potatoes OR 8oz unsalted black beans with fresh guacamole OR lentils OR potato and egg tacos with homemade salsa OR “fried” rice, etc.

I spend the same preparing dinner with same / similar dishes as lunch.

I also snack on fresh fruit / vegetables between meals sometimes.

Roughly $240 and 15 hours a month (30 minutes a day) for all food prep + cleanup, and yes, the numbers are accurate as I have timed myself over a two week period in the past, if anything I’m probably faster now. I’m sure there are other factors that can add extra time, but for me, a single guy in the US, I spend less time and money cooking healthy delicious meals at home than I did going out to eat, and only slightly more time than heating up frozen dinners, which I think is more than compensated for by the resulting health benefits.

beej71• 4 years ago

There's plenty of how-to-cook information on the internet. I'm a passable cook from what I've learned online. It's easy to learn a new thing every meal, and after a month, you have quite a toolkit.

So I don't disagree with you, but I think there's a faster, easier way now than home ec.

And to Suemoto, every nontrivial thing you cook takes waaaaay longer than getting a $9 burrito.

the_doctah• 4 years ago

Cooking is literally as simple as following a recipe.

hypertele-Xii2• 4 years ago

Like playing an instrument is just following the notes?

You can do it, but the result won't be good until you practise some. Mistakes will be made. Results may have to be eaten due to financial constraints, good or not.

brightball2• 4 years ago

I've long been an advocate for a 4 year program that coincides with the entire high school experience.

Students should grow, harvest and cook their own food. While doing so, every subject should be involved.

Chemistry and Biology are the more obvious ones for sake of soil testing, plant biology, cross pollination, and composting. Chemistry also should be involved in cooking.

Math and science classes for sake of grids, spacing, growth charting, control groups, etc as well as conservation.

Economics for understanding all of the costs involved from planting, to harvesting, to buying equipment and hiring labor, shipping to grocery stores, disposal of food that isn't purchased. Additionally, budgeting for ingredients to prepare meals.

History can bring a lot of this to life by studying agricultural history and the accompanying economics, including the world events surrounding them. I'm sure there's plenty of literature go to along with it as well.

And you can even get into computer science, engineering and robotics by setting up FarmBot's in schools, which are open source. Students can learn to use them as designed as well as program new functionality.

Help students learn by making it both beneficial, relatable and connected.

drewcoo• 4 years ago

My high school had vocational agriculture classes that included much of that. Well more mechanics and weather science than history or lit, but still . . . that exists.

Pro tip: If they teach Vo-Ag in your area, look for the FFA (Future Farmers of America) kids. They fund-raise by selling wonderful produce.

proc0• 4 years ago

I've noticed people are afraid of cooking for no reason. Everyone needs to eat, so it's an obvious skill to pick up. It doesn't take much to learn the basics and cook for yourself by trial and error. Cooking for others is on another level though.

zarriak• 4 years ago

I don’t think that it’s that they can’t cook at all. I do agree you should learn more about it in general for reduction of waste and food safety. A lot of the problem however is people don’t ever get over the hump where the time investment pays off and you become more proficient, faster and a better cook in general.

dvh• 4 years ago

Is there an official scale of processednes? NVM found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-processed_food

omarhaneef• 4 years ago

I wish I knew what was ultraprocessed.

"Ultraprocessed foods are defined as "industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives," according to the study.

But if I have a package that says it is whole grain or whatever, how do I know if it is or isn't ultraprocessed or just, you know, regular processed?

arnejenssen2• 4 years ago

The sorry state is that a chain is not stronger than the weakest link. And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives.

Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup.

It is more important to avoid the bad anti-nutrients than to eat a particular food for a certain "miracle" nutrient.

cortesoft7• 4 years ago

And a food is not healthier than the worst ingredient/compound. A "good" nutrient does not make up for the bad/ultra processed additives.

This can't be true in an absolute sense. There is no way that adding a single drop of high fructose corn syrup to a meal would completely ruin any health benefits of the rest of the meal. There is also no way that adding a bit of corn syrup to a plate of broccoli would be equally as unhealthy for you as a bowl of lucky charms. Obviously the mix of ingredients matters.

Where do you get the idea that a single bad ingredient ruins the entire food?

positr0n• 4 years ago

Stay off the granola bar with high fructose corn syrup.

Would a granola bar sweetened with the exact same number of sucrose/fructose molecules from organic coconut sugar (or palm sugar, or date juice, etc) be any more healthy?

I currently do not believe it would be. Sugar is sugar. But I'm not 100% sure.

omginternets17• 4 years ago

Rules of thumb:

1. Don't buy meals; buy ingredients.

2. The longer the list of ingredients, the more likely it is to be "highly" processed

3. The way you avoid 'highly' processed stuff is to avoid processing altogether. Buy corn you have to husk, meat you have to cut, fish you have to filet, wine you have to uncork, bread you have to slice, etc.

cortesoft7• 4 years ago

Buy corn you have to husk, meat you have to cut, fish you have to filet, wine you have to uncork, bread you have to slice, etc.

Ok, this is just silly. Cutting your own meat doesn't make it healthier than having a butcher cut it for you. Box wine is no more or less healthy than bottled wine with a cork. Slicing bread yourself doesn't change its health contents.

Its statements like these that make the whole argument seem like nonsense.

nonethewiser3• 4 years ago

Don't buy non-spoiled. Buy fresh.

doliveira3• 4 years ago

Ultraprocessed for me means "truly delicious and dopamine-inducing". Not that I don't find other food tasty, but something that feels engineered to please your tongue is usually ultraprocessed.

vkk83• 4 years ago

"People who consumed more than 20% of daily calories from processed foods had a 28% faster decline in global cognition and a 25% faster decline in executive functioning compared to people who ate less than 20%,"

I wish they just showed a graph of "decline in cognition" vs "percentage of calories from processed foods" instead of making me try to parse the relevant information out of sentences like that. What 10% of my calories come from processed foods? I'm I completely safe or is the effect linear in percentage of calories or what?

gruez3• 4 years ago

but something that feels engineered to please your tongue is usually ultraprocessed.

That describes nearly all modern cultivars of fruits/vegetables.

vkk83• 4 years ago

Indeed. I hate the term "ultraprocessed" so much, because I have no idea what to look for if I try to avoid it.

If I chop my potatoes before boiling them, is that processing? If not, which steps in cooking count as "processing"? And how many of those steps need to be included for the food to be "ultraprocessed"? How can I avoid accidentally "ultraprocessing" my food when I cook it at home?

helmholtz3• 4 years ago

Why are you seeking absolute definitions where none exist? If you have to ask, its probably bad for you. Edges of the grocery store, avoid the aisles, ingredients-not-meals, things not in packaging.... Rules of thumbs abound. Next, a bit of ultra processed stuff is obviously not going to kill you. Some soy sauce, or the ocassional frozen pizza is obviously OK. And its obvious that your example is needlessly contrived. No, its not processing.

This whole thread reads like pedantry for the sake of it.

prewett• 4 years ago

The definition I heard (apparently by the Brazilian woman that did the first research) was "any ingredient that wouldn't be found in a regular kitchen". Not meaning things like rutabagas or mangosteen, but rather things like xantham gum, soy lecithin, and things with organic chemical names. So by definition you cannot ultra-process your food in your home kitchen.

I think the name is lousy, but I think the reason is that things like xantham gum and soy lecithin are there to provide texture. For example, low-fat yogurt has some of these in it because if you take the fat out, it doesn't have the same texture (probably isn't even solid), so you need to do some processing to get it to the same place. See [1] for a summary.

There's a podcast on the BBC where a doctor tries to get his twin doctor brother of ultra-processed food. Unfortunately, most of the episodes involve emotional issues, but they do have a few minutes of interviews with major researchers. [3] is sort of a summary.

[1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_...

[2] https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m0017tcz/episodes/player

[3] https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/van_tulleken

open-source-ux• 4 years ago

This page from the BBC explains the diffrences between unprocessed and minimally processed foods, processed culinary ingredients, processed foods, and ultra-processed foods.

"Ultra-processed foods usually contain ingredients that you wouldn’t add when cooking homemade food. You may not recognise the names of these ingredients as many will be chemicals, colourings, sweeteners and preservatives."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/food/articles/what_is_ultra-processed_...

kristjansson• 4 years ago

"packaged" alone should be you first indication.

clairity• 4 years ago

you could distinguish a loaf of bread, which is processed, from boxed bread products like crackers or cookies (ultraprocessed), but i doubt that distinction matters much for our health, as they'll both likely include said additives in varying amounts. in shopping and food prep, i'd consider them synonyms--as in, things to avoid (but not dogmatically, sometimes you want some potato chips).

processed foods only comes in a box, bag, or can; that is, most of the center aisles in a grocery store. buy mostly fruits, vegetables, meats, seafood, and dairy--things found on the outer ring of the store. if you want grains or beans, prefer buying the grains/beans directly, not the boxed form of them.

wolfi1• 4 years ago

if you put the cut potatoes yourself in the deep fryer I guess that that wouldn't be that beneficial

4pkjai• 4 years ago

I think I sort of know what they are, but a definition of "ultra-processed" foods would be good.

criddell• 4 years ago

The article says they are “industrial formulations of food substances (oils, fats, sugars, starch, and protein isolates) that contain little or no whole foods and typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives”.

I take that to mean milk may be a whole food, yogurt might be a processed food, and spray cheese in a can would be ultra-processed.

rendang2• 4 years ago

As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later.

What would prevent us from doing a study like this: take 1000 diverse subjects, assign each of them a lab assistant, and for 2+ years, diligently track everything they eat, their exercise, sleep, etc. You could pay each participant and staff $100k/each, and the cost would be on the order of $400MM.

May not be epistemologically perfect given that people change their behavior when observed, but still superior to plenty of the stuff getting published now, and likely the knowledge gained for humankind would be worth many billions.

sideshowb• 4 years ago

What you describe is still an observational study, just a very expensive one now. It's still quite possible you'd fail to measure something important you hadn't thought of.

Better to spend some of that budget instead on a randomised controlled trial but there are likely issues with getting people to follow their prescribed diets to the letter

vkk83• 4 years ago

As a layman non-scientist, I wonder why we see so many relatively low-value observational studies in diet/nutrition, often with results that get contradicted or fail to replicate a few years later.

On my peak fitness enthusiasm I kept a rigorous food diary for some time and it was such a pain in the ass that I don't believe for a second that food diaries coming from people who are not 100% committed and interested in keeping one are accurate at all. People would often forget to log small snacks they have, or estimate portion sizes completely wrong, or neglect logging sauces, oils, condiments, etc.

s1artibartfast2• 4 years ago

What do you think you could learn from such an expensive study?

It seems too short and unfocused to learn anything meaningful.

rendang2• 4 years ago

Really? I would think weight loss, inflammation, and psychological health measures would at least be affected on a timescale of a couple years, if not risks for things like cancer and heart disease.

mjevans• 4 years ago

I'd like to hear more about the study design / quality of the science.

How are they correcting for correlation between the ability to afford the more money-expensive or more time-expensive ends of rich people with experts that cook for them, and health nuts (or suffers of seriously annoying allergies) that cook for themselves even though it's more time expensive?

allturtles• 4 years ago

I'm always pretty skeptical of correlative nutrition science studies, and this one is no different.

I would posit that anyone who studies "ultraprocessed" foods is unlikely to ever release a study showing they are good for you. The very category of ultraprocessed foods was invented to be a "bad-for-you" food category, and so the research program is "find more evidence that they are bad."

Categorizing food based on whether it's industrial or home-made may be a useful heuristic for lifestyle choices, but it seems unlikely to me to be useful for getting a deep understanding of nutrition and health.

Animats• 4 years ago

It's not clear that "ultraprocessed" is the issue. The article says "they are usually very high in sugar, salt and fat". Too much salt and sugar are known to be problems. That has nothing to do with processing. Although it does have to do with what will sell.

The author has a "natural" bias.

helmholtz3• 4 years ago

This seems like unnecessary nitpicking. What would you say are examples of ultraprocessed food that's not full of salt, sugar and fat?

nonethewiser3• 4 years ago

That misses his point. You can have too much sugar/salt/fat without eating a single "ultra" processed food. So if the root of the problem is sugar/salt/fat it doesn't simply follow that "ultra" processed food is the problem.

tootie• 4 years ago

The point here is that they are essentially defining "ultraprocessed" as being full of salt, fat and sugar. I can go buy a frozen pizza at Trader Joe's that contains organic flour, yeast, tomatoes and cheese. Nutritionally identical to what I'd make at home. I can also grind sugar cane and wheat berries and churn butter in my kitchen to make a cake that is just as unhealthy as a Twinkie.

giantg23• 4 years ago

Well... salt is generally used to preserve texture and flavor. At least that's from my canning background. It's possible to reduce some salt, but really depends.

There's emerging evidence that consuming potassium with salt tends to reduce the negative effects of higher salt intake. Basically, that many of the prior sodium studies ignored the sodium/potassium balance. Of course you could still have too much sodium while staying in balance, but just thought that's worth pointing out. If nothing else, it illustrates how complex it nutrition science can be, and how much we still have to learn (or at least dispel popular half-truths).

nerdjon• 4 years ago

This is something that often bothers me about the "real food" or similar debate that is largely emotional more than anything else.

What this should all build down to is the nutritional content of the food. Just because I go to a local farmers market and buy the greatest "organic" or "non-gmo" (or insert some other mostly meaningless thing that has been turned into a way to scare consumers to spend more money) and buy the greatest looking apples I can find.

That isn't going to do a damn thing if I turn around and try to replicate the McDonalds (or I guess Popeyes now?) fried apple pie. It is still horrible for me and I highly doubt there is much if any difference in the little bit of vitamins I would get from the apples still in the pie.

Meanwhile I can go for about as processed as you can get, and do Soylent or Huel and have a pretty damn balanced diet if I could somehow sustain myself entirely on that (more of a willpower thing and not an issue with the food itself).

This also ignores the major clasism that has made its way into how people eat and what food they have access to. There is a reason it tends to be urban well off white people going on and on about this stuff.

I cringe anytime I hear the words "real" or "whole" food as if that has any real meaning outside of a marketing term.

If anything this tells me that we need to do better with how we process food, not that processed food itself is the issue.

semerda• 4 years ago

Salt is a preservative and a key ingredient behind "ultraprocessed products". Are there ultraprocessed products with minimal amount of salt?

xchaotic• 4 years ago

I (and other) call Bs on classifying something as processed or ultra processed as inherently bad. Baby formulas, workout premixes, and also home cooking are all forms of processed food. It’s what you put in it and also at what ratio is what matters most. If you get processed food that has all the good oils and fiber and proteins like YFood or Soylent that’s actually more healthy than say eating “unprocessed” fried potatoes for example.

giantg23• 4 years ago

"...typically include flavorings, colorings, emulsifiers, and other cosmetic additives,"

I'm thinking it's probably relates to all the additives in foods today. I would love to see some sort of study comparing these commercially processed foods containing additives to more traditional processing (like my grandparents eating tons of homecanned and home processed foods).

colordrops• 4 years ago

It would help if the exact factors that cause health issues in ultra-processed foods could be identified. "Ultra-processed" is too crude a heuristic. sugar and fat? refined seed oil? calorie density? Food coloring and other toxic ingredients?

mattmcknight2• 4 years ago

Whenever I see any nutrition article like this, I am extremely skeptical. The definition of "ultra-processed" is completely arbitrary as I read it [1]. The control diet is generally worse on non-processing related attributes. The processing angle really only serves to confuse the nutrition debate as the attributes of ultra-processed food (excess sugar, use of partially hydrogenated oils) are already well established health risks. By putting things in the context of the processing, it ignores the possibility of processed foods that avoid these ingredients. By limiting the processing concern to an arbitrary definition of ultra-processing, actual causes might be left uncovered, while non-causes are left in. Whey protein, which I know many very healthy people eat, is considered ultra-processed. Meanwhile, pasta is considered merely processed, while if the pasta is ready to eat, it is ultra-processed. This distinction doesn't seem to be a useful way to make intelligent decisions, and is simply a spurious correlation actually caused by the food ingredients, or just some side effect of people eating less when food isn't ready-made, because they have to do more work to consume it...

[1] https://www.fao.org/publications/card/en/c/CA5644EN/

linsomniac• 4 years ago

Ultra processed foods are defined by the "NOVA" classification system. https://world.openfoodfacts.org/nova

mattmcknight2• 4 years ago

Yes, the definition is at the link I posted. I find it arbitrary.

Bancakes• 4 years ago

Your body doesn't need ultra processed foods. It hasn't evolved to needing them. It has, in fact, evolved to surviving well on food within the horizon.

If you don't drink protein shakes, you will get as big as nature intended for your natural diet and genetics.

Cutting out ultra processed foods because they are not part of our evolutionary diet allows us to omit six or seven figures worth of grant money for science we don't need. Saves time for readers, too.

legulere• 4 years ago

A thing common in ultra-processed foods is that they are heavily optimized to be palatable while also often losing its satiating effect. Those are things that can be measured only difficultly.

jhot• 4 years ago

Sounds similar to this paper [0] that compared the types of dietary fats eaten with cognitive decline in adults 65+.

"higher intakes of saturated fat (p for trend = 0.04) and trans-unsaturated fat (p for trend = 0.07) were linearly associated with greater decline in cognitive score over 6 years. These associations became stronger in analyses that eliminated persons whose fat intake changed in recent years or whose baseline cognitive scores were in the lowest 15%."

I, for one, am hoping it's largely to do with cheap, high-calorie ingredients and not to do with actually processing as I'm a big fan of Soylent (largely monounsaturated fats FYI) for its convenience and it doesn't get much more "processed" than that.

0 - https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15136684/

EricE2• 4 years ago

One of the best thing about the "meal in a box" companies is they remove a lot of the friction from cooking from scratch. I use Blue Apron and love the convenience. They gather ingredients that aren't practical for a single person to normally source/maintain yet I get to have interesting and tasty meals. When it comes to a lot of fresh herbs or specialty items, the cost of meals through them can actually be lower since you have far less waste.

They also help force me out of my comfort zones. There are a lot of recipes that would never try cold out of a cook book, but because they are bundling everything needed the risk/reward tilts more firmly into the "why not try it" column.

Even if every meal was at a premium it's still worth it to me for the connivence.

I've shared free meal codes with friends/family - had a co-worker who's teenage daughter wanted to cook more but was overwhelmed. They tried the service, used it for a year and after she got her skills and confidence up they ended up dropping it, but remade their favorites from the last year and used those for ideas of other recipes to try that they probably otherwise wouldn't have.

You don't have to take them every week too - I currently skip around and do it maybe one or two times a month just to supplement my other cooking. The variety is nice. It is a bit of a pain requiring some micromanaging since they are obviously motivated to keep you on the weekly treadmill.

bvoq• 4 years ago

If you don't have a partner/parents at home you are less likely to cook yourself and eat more processed foods. People are getting more lonely and eat more ultraprocessed foods because of it.

UUID_KING2• 4 years ago

High glycemic index foods, full of chemicals / salt / etc linked to cognitive decline and other health problems? Shocker.

Are food companies incentivized to create addictive products that exploit human biology? 100%

UUID_KING2• 4 years ago

Search for the following food industry term “Bliss Point”. Related.

ryandvm• 4 years ago

"TV dinners bad for you" sounds an awful lot like "Walmart shopping liked to early mortality". Entirely believable, but I have my doubts anyone could untangle the confounding sociological factors.

tpoacher• 4 years ago

It always amuses me whenever the crux of an argument is "too much X is bad", where the definition of "too much" is assumed to be commonly accepted, but when pressed for a definition it decays to precisely that amount for which X is bad (i.e. a tautological argument).

Cognitive decline linked to ultraprocessed food, study finds

Related Stories