Eddy Edson
Well-Known Member
- Relationship to Diabetes
- Type 2
Kevin Hall yesterday presented prelim data from his long running follow-up to his original UPF study. See eg this post for some background: http://forum.diabetes.org.uk/boards/threads/hyper-palatable-food.105531/post-1249501
The prelim data:
So far seems to be suggesting that UPF with low energy density and absence of hyperpalatable elements is not significantly worse than minimally processed food for energy overconsumption. Energy density is the most important factor. "Processing" in itself isn't a major factor.
This research will be watched very closely, given the impact of Hall's original UPF study (main finding: UPF => 500 Cal/day excess consumption).
At face value, the data suggests what seems like a clear policy direction: discourage high energy density and hyperpalatable elements, both of which have straightforward objective metrics, while not interefering with the cost, convenience, shelf-life, safety etc of the main UPF culprits (apart from SSBs) = ie supermarket ready-meals.
The prelim data:
So far seems to be suggesting that UPF with low energy density and absence of hyperpalatable elements is not significantly worse than minimally processed food for energy overconsumption. Energy density is the most important factor. "Processing" in itself isn't a major factor.
This research will be watched very closely, given the impact of Hall's original UPF study (main finding: UPF => 500 Cal/day excess consumption).
At face value, the data suggests what seems like a clear policy direction: discourage high energy density and hyperpalatable elements, both of which have straightforward objective metrics, while not interefering with the cost, convenience, shelf-life, safety etc of the main UPF culprits (apart from SSBs) = ie supermarket ready-meals.
