I came home late from work last night and, feeling stressed and tired, I raided the kitchen cupboards and scoffed at a bowl of coconut popsicles, two pieces of toast and all the Tunnock’s milk chocolate caramel biscuits in the biscuit tin.
I knew what I was eating was highly processed and unhealthy, but the temptation of the short-term hit was too great for me to worry about the health implications.
As a doctor, I always give advice on how to eat this or that, exercise, quit smoking, reduce alcohol consumption and things like that. I give this advice to my patients, to my family and in this same column.
But following advice is much more difficult than giving it.
I’d be lying if I said those caramel cookies weren’t delicious, but as delicious as they are, we all need to try harder when it comes to ultra-processed foods (UPF).
Basically, these are processed foods full of sugars and fats, with many additives, such as artificial sweeteners, emulsifiers, and similar additives.
In recent years, the noise about UPF has become much louder. But I was never sure how much was exaggeration and how much was actually fact.
However, unlike my previous nightly teasing, this time I feel more worried about it. Last week, a study published in the BMJ by world-renowned epidemiologists from every continent changed everything.
The article, published in the BMJ, conclusively showed that people who ate the most ultra-processed foods had a 21 percent increased risk of death from any cause (file image)
In the future, it will be considered one of those landmark studies that changes the advice we give to patients. Once and for all, it confirms the truth about the risks of ultra-processed foods: they are literally killing us.
This article conclusively showed that people who ate the most ultra-processed foods had a 21 percent greater risk of death from any cause, a 66 percent greater chance of dying from heart disease, and a 12 percent greater risk of dying from heart disease. more chances of getting cancer.
There were also increased risks of obesity (36 percent) and type 2 diabetes (40 percent).
But the biggest impact was on mental health, with a 48 percent higher risk of anxiety and a 22 percent higher risk of depression during the study period.
Previous research has shown there could be a link, but this review of studies brought together many smaller studies comprising data from more than nine million patients. With these figures, the links between UPF and poor health could be demonstrated without a doubt and with almost statistical certainty.
And working in the ER I see the impact of the UPF. I estimate that more than 50 percent of patients would not have gotten sick if it were not for a diet full of UPF. Strokes, cancer, heart attacks, and diabetic complications are much more common in those who have more UPF in their diet.
Innovative, pioneering, historic, whatever we call this document, you can be sure that food manufacturers will not sit idly by.
This industry is a multi-trillion pound business and companies with vested interests will try every trick to delay the reforms we need.
We only have to look at the history of smoking to see the manual for what will happen.
100 years ago, many doctors supported smoking and even claimed it was beneficial. They were paid handsomely to participate in tobacco marketing campaigns.
However, in the 1950s, two now famous British epidemiologists, Sir Richard Doll and Sir Austin Bradford Hill, published a landmark study showing that smoking was associated with cancer.
The tobacco industry spent the next 50 years questioning the validity of the study, saying it was not proof and arguing that “being associated” with cancer does not mean it caused it. The manufacturers argued that the only way to answer the question of whether smoking was dangerous was through a randomized controlled study. Half of the trial volunteers would smoke cigarettes and the other half would not: research that was clearly unethical and also impossible to carry out.
The effect was to delay the introduction of public health measures, such as bans on smoking in the workplace and elsewhere. Meanwhile, tobacco companies continued to make profits while millions of people around the world died from smoking-related diseases.
I see similar arguments about research on ultra-processed foods. For example, people who consume UPF die younger and get more cancer, but there are other factors, such as lack of exercise.
Just because something is marketed as healthy doesn’t mean it is (stock image)
But as his tobacco research showed, there were other ways to prove that smoking caused cancer, most notably by showing a strong statistical association. In the case of UPF, the researchers found a 12 percent increased risk of cancer, demonstrating without a doubt that UPF directly affects health.
There also needs to be a “biological gradient”; In other words, the more UPF you eat, the sicker you will feel.
The new study also showed this: For example, with every 10 percent increase in UPF consumption, there was a 12 percent increase in the risk of developing type 2 diabetes.
There also needs to be consistency in results, as there was with results coming from more than nine million people from multiple studies, each of which provided the same results: UPFs are linked to poor health. But most importantly, to prove the cause, there needs to be a scientific explanation for the findings. And now we have it.
You won’t be surprised to learn that ultra-processed foods are nutrient deficient but high in added sugars and unhealthy (but tasty) fats. Lacking protein, they often don’t fill you up and so you eat more calories. But that’s only half the problem.
Foods often contain what are actually edible chemicals, something our bodies have never experienced before in human evolution.
Studies have shown that chemicals, such as emulsifiers and artificial flavors, can cause inflammation, triggering a host of harmful effects. These include increasing damage to DNA that can lead to cancer and help create plaques in the arteries that cause heart attacks.
But I think the most worrying thing is the alteration of intestinal bacteria and may explain the effects on mental health.
The gut-brain axis is a two-way communication system between the brain and the gut: changes in the bacteria in our gut caused by UPFs disrupt signaling from the gut to the brain via the vagus nerve (as well as the change in hormones created by the intestine). Here’s how UPFs can increase the risk of depression and anxiety.
The problem is that it is not easy to make changes, firstly, because these foods are very addictive and, secondly, because sometimes it is difficult to know exactly what an ultra-processed food is.
A rough rule of thumb is: If you had all the time in the world, could you personally grow the ingredients or use an animal to prepare the food in front of you? If not, it is a UPF.
This includes breakfast cereals and snacks that you used to consider healthy: protein bars, frozen meals and prepared meals (even low-fat and low-sugar versions), mass-produced bread, baked goods, and margarine.
Just because something is marketed as healthy doesn’t mean it is: The coconut popsicles I ate were labeled “rice with added goodness, no artificial colors or flavors and 30 percent less sugar,” and the “traffic lights” ” health were mainly green.
But the cereal also contains 16 different ingredients, including glucose syrup, malt extract and cocoa mass.
Addressing UPF is partly about individual responsibility, but also about legislation and policy. As it did with smoking, the government has to take responsibility for pushing us to eat foods that do not harm us.
For example, with taxes on ultra-processed foods, with subsidies to make non-ultra-processed foods affordable; and, above all, ensure that public places such as leisure centres, hospitals and schools serve and sell healthy dishes.
The question for me is: will my late-night snacking choices end up killing me? The answer, based on this new study, is quite possibly yes. And that should ring alarm bells not just for me, but for all of us.