Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Kevin Hall with some questions:
-
Please Remember: Members are only permitted to share their own experiences. Members are not qualified to give medical advice. Additionally, everyone manages their health differently. Please be respectful of other people's opinions about their own diabetes management.
-
Learn more about joining the Diabetes UK Support Forum team here: https://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/volunteering-opportunities-why-dont-you-join-us.112862/
British Nutrition Foundation position statement on ultra-processed food
- Thread starter Eddy Edson
- Start date
- Status
Kevin Hall with some questions:
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
I think it's interesting to read this in conjunction with the 2021 opinion piece by Hall & Deirdre Tobias, Eliminate or reformulate ultra-processed foods? Biological mechanisms matter https://www.cell.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1550-4131(21)00483-6
... which makes some similar baby-&-bathwater points: Aggressive targeting of all UPFs makes zero sense particularly when nobody actually knows the mechanisms involved in some UPF causing harms.
... aggressive public health policy targeting UPFs that fall into the category of ready-to-eat or heat meals would arguably be inappropriate and counterproductive. In fact, consumption of ready-to-eat or heat UPFs has more than doubled in US children in recent years (Wang et al., 2021), while over the same period the average diet quality of US children has actually modestly improved, according to the American Heart Association diet score and the Healthy Eating Index (Liu et al., 2021). Further, the increased popularity of ready-to-eat or heat UPFs also reflects important changes in food utilization and home economics. Rather than eliminating such foods, we should acknowledge their utility and consider that their reformulation, rather than elimination, might have a more meaningful impact on improving the nutritional quality and health on a population level
While some UPF categories (e.g., SSBs) should be targeted for reduction, policies targeting elimination of UPFs as a broad category ignore the substantial time, skill, expense, access, and effort required to safely procure enjoyable meals without UPFs—resources that are already in short supply across large swaths of the population. Alternatively, many common UPF products may be amenable to effective reformulation. More mechanistic UPF research is urgently needed to identify the precise attributes of UPFs that elicit harm and optimize effective reformulation strategies to improve human health.
Hall's group is running an RCT investigating hypotheses about "hyperpalatable food (HPF)" and energy density mechanisms. (HPF in this work has a precise definition based on level of fats + sodium, fats + simple carbs and carbs + sodium, in combinations rarely if ever seen in nature.)
Others (including Tobias) suggest also making the food companies open up their kimonos to reveal what they have learned, rather than just trying to reverse-engineer it.
... which makes some similar baby-&-bathwater points: Aggressive targeting of all UPFs makes zero sense particularly when nobody actually knows the mechanisms involved in some UPF causing harms.
... aggressive public health policy targeting UPFs that fall into the category of ready-to-eat or heat meals would arguably be inappropriate and counterproductive. In fact, consumption of ready-to-eat or heat UPFs has more than doubled in US children in recent years (Wang et al., 2021), while over the same period the average diet quality of US children has actually modestly improved, according to the American Heart Association diet score and the Healthy Eating Index (Liu et al., 2021). Further, the increased popularity of ready-to-eat or heat UPFs also reflects important changes in food utilization and home economics. Rather than eliminating such foods, we should acknowledge their utility and consider that their reformulation, rather than elimination, might have a more meaningful impact on improving the nutritional quality and health on a population level
While some UPF categories (e.g., SSBs) should be targeted for reduction, policies targeting elimination of UPFs as a broad category ignore the substantial time, skill, expense, access, and effort required to safely procure enjoyable meals without UPFs—resources that are already in short supply across large swaths of the population. Alternatively, many common UPF products may be amenable to effective reformulation. More mechanistic UPF research is urgently needed to identify the precise attributes of UPFs that elicit harm and optimize effective reformulation strategies to improve human health.
Hall's group is running an RCT investigating hypotheses about "hyperpalatable food (HPF)" and energy density mechanisms. (HPF in this work has a precise definition based on level of fats + sodium, fats + simple carbs and carbs + sodium, in combinations rarely if ever seen in nature.)
Others (including Tobias) suggest also making the food companies open up their kimonos to reveal what they have learned, rather than just trying to reverse-engineer it.
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
SSBs being sugar sweetened beverages I assume?
One unfortunate and I am sure unintended consequence of the sugar tax / re formulation of SSBs is that there are no longer good carbonated options at a reasonable price for me to treat hypos with ‘full sugar drinks’. The carbonation seemed to speed action over fruit juice.
They added lots of artificial sweeteners and removed rapid-acting carbohydrate such that the drinks are now more than twice as expensive per hypo treatment and, in the case of Pepsi, the most recent to tumble I’d need almost a whole 380ml bottle to be sure.
From public health perspective I completely agree with the move, but on a personal level it has been really frustrating that they couldn’t leave just ONE option (eg Lucozade original) alone for the benefit of those needing a hypo treatment.
There are plenty of options, of course. But carbonated SSBs I do miss 15-30g of sugars per 100ml. Most are now 5 or 6. 😱
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Errrk!
Maybe you could make your own? Guaranteed non-UPF, because not made in a factory, according to NOVA 🙂
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Nicola Guess has a blog post covering some of the same territory:
So these grey areas are legitimate barriers to developing a logical, defensible, and implementable food policy. Just as important (if not more so): these grey areas are ripe for exploitation by the UPF industry. So, we can whinge all we want about how awful they are, but the only way we’re going to change anything (it’s boring and predictable I know) is more research.
The primary thing we need to understand is the mechanism of action. What is it about these products that causes us to eat more? And are there components of these products which – independent of their effect on energy intake – harm our health in other ways?
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Breakfast cereals is an interesting ‘accompanying photo’ choice.
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
? Seems like a straightforward "wall of UPF crap" image to me ...
She's certainly not saying that these are good food.
Although the labelling with all the usual "heart healthy" nonsense would appear to contradict that.
Just a very small part of the huge problem that food manufacturers have created.
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Well I’d agree, and I think she is implying we should avoid these too.
But many of the products in that shelf position themselves as part of the “eat more whole grain” general government recommendations.
So while many folks here are very cautious of breakfast cereals by experience - that’s not always their reputation in the wider world, and in official advice people are receiving.
It’s the clarity and loopholes nature of the debate isn’t it.
And I suggest she chose a good example.
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Straight from the Big Tabacco Playbook.
UPF's are soooo massively profitable manufacturers are going to fight tooth and nail to keep this gravy train going as long as possible and by whatever means necessary. Am still floored when seeing refrigerators full of 500ml plastic bottles of coke at £1.65. A product that costs pennines to make.
There's a fantastic podcast by Zoe Science & Nutrition entitled "How ultra-processed foods wreak havoc on your body" that should be required listening in my view.
Inka
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
SSBs being sugar sweetened beverages I assume?
One unfortunate and I am sure unintended consequence of the sugar tax / re formulation of SSBs is that there are no longer good carbonated options at a reasonable price for me to treat hypos with ‘full sugar drinks’. The carbonation seemed to speed action over fruit juice.
They added lots of artificial sweeteners and removed rapid-acting carbohydrate such that the drinks are now more than twice as expensive per hypo treatment and, in the case of Pepsi, the most recent to tumble I’d need almost a whole 380ml bottle to be sure.
From public health perspective I completely agree with the move, but on a personal level it has been really frustrating that they couldn’t leave just ONE option (eg Lucozade original) alone for the benefit of those needing a hypo treatment.
There are plenty of options, of course. But carbonated SSBs I do miss 15-30g of sugars per 100ml. Most are now 5 or 6. 😱
I tend to get the 150ml cans of Coke. Also, Appletiser in a 150ml can has 11g carbs per 100ml. Slightly more than Coke.
I totally agree about Lucozade and similar drinks. Lucozade is a glucose drink! It should be sugary, that’s the whole point! The government should have allowed a few exemptions. The teens only buy the luridly coloured Lucozade flavours anyway, so leaving the original full glucose/sugar wouldn’t have affected them.
The Lift Glucojuice bottles are good too but pricey.
Northerner
Admin (Retired)
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 1
I'd highly recommend listening to the BBC Sounds series 'A Thorough Examination with Drs Chris and Xand' (Series 1 - Addicted to Food). Dr Xand got much fatter than his identical twin Dr Chris after living in the US and it was all basically down to UPF. The series examines the food industry and Xand's efforts to wean himself off his addiction to UPF 🙂
Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Kevin Hall & Deirdre Tobias talking about UPF:
- Status