[const_cast]

These studies are legitimately worthless, and I'll explain why.

1. Ultra-processed foods contain a lot of hyper-palatable foods. You have to understand that UP foods is an absurdly broad category.

When you measure the harm of UP foods, you're not measure the harm of UP foods - you're measuring the harm of hyper-palatable foods, because naturally those are the foods people gravitate towards. Because they taste good and are easy to eat and overeat.

You also have to understand that UP foods are associated with poorer people, which get significantly worse medical care and just have overall worse lives. What you could be measuring is that poor people are more depressed - which, yeah duh.

The key problem here is that nutritional studies are almost always observation, NOT double-blind. Because following people for decades in a double-blind study where you control their diet is very, very, very hard and expensive.

If you just replaced all the UP food with burgers and fried chicken, would those people be better off? No. So you shouldn't be so confident you're measuring what you think you're measuring.

2. All sugar is bad, period. It's not HFCS that's causing liver disease, it's sugar in the absence of fiber. We know sugar causes liver disease.

If we want to decrease this, we must lean into Aspartame and other artificial sweeteners. They are better than sugar, period. Straight up, Aspartame is healthier than any sugar, including table sugar you put in your morning coffee.

[Saline9515]

1. If you had read the study, you'd know that they control for sociodemographic factors, lifestyle and health-related behaviors. So your point doesn't hold.

2. Second article says it's fructose specifically. And the ultra-processed form allows instant assimilation of it, far from the classic forms found in nature. They also allow to add much more of it. See: https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/how-hig...

[const_cast]

1. No actually it does hold - these are still observational studies.

Which means they are looking at people who already don't eat UP foods and comparing them to people who do. But UP foods are more likely to be hyper-palatable.

So you're comparing foods that are likely to be hyper-palatable to those that aren't. That's what you're measuring.

If you conduct a double-blind study where you compare UP foods that are NOT hyper-palatable to non UP foods that are NOT hyper-palatable you won't find a difference. Such a study does not exist, because it's almost impossible to do.

People who are already health conscious will be healthier. You're not forcing anyone to eat healthier, so you're not measuring anything valuable.

2. HFCS is 60% fructose, sugar is 50% fructose. Does that 10% increase make a difference? Yes. But it's miniscule. If you replace all HFCS with sugar, you lower your fructose intake only a tiny bit.

Also appeal to nature is stupid. It's just dumb and nobody cares about that.

[Saline9515]

1. If most UP foods are hyper-palatable and this is the problem (not for instance, the fact that most have very high glycemic indexes, among other things), then it's fair to use UP as a proxy. It's fair to say that, when addressing obesity, it's better to avoid UP foods as they are too palatable for our archaic body.

Besides the study doesn't studies obesity (it is a control), but depression, which isn't linked to food being palatable or not.

2. Sugar is itself a highly processed food. HFCS contains more fructose, which saturates faster the intestine's absorption capacity.

Sugar is mostly derived from beetroot and sugar cane. Of course you can get diabetes from fruits or sugar beets alone, that said it's much harder than from eating UP foods.

[seec]

What you say is nonsense because by this definition pretty much everything we eat since MULITPLE millennia is ultra processed.

Since we started agriculture in the fertile crescent, we have been making stuff like beer and flour-based bread which are based on processing of various cereals.

Depending on the variable, the glycemic index isn't that good. And yes, it is pretty easy to overeat bread, as long as you have something decent to use with (it can be as simple as dipping it in olive oil).

Your opinion is just hysteria indeed, and it is just that. There is absolutely no logical explanation/evidence that all the problems linked to food come from "ultra-processing" instead of just good old regular abuse and mis-use.

In all the studies you talk about, if you were to correct for exercice/activity and lifestyle you would find a nothing burger (sometimes just living in a poorer neighborhood will give worse outcome, because of the water quality).

The problem is mostly abundance, which is very often something other species also have to deal with. If you leave a pony/donkey in an area with lots of young sugary grass and don't make him work for it, he will overeat until he is so fat that it becomes a problem for his health. But I guess the grass is too "ultra-processed" or something...