‘Ultra-processed products are food that lies to us' : LC Research/Media Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#1 ^

Sun, May-19-24, 06:41

Demi

Choose Your Hard!

Posts: 26,917

Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"

BF:
Progress: 109%

Location: UK

‘Ultra-processed products are food that lies to us'

Quote:

Academic and doctor Chris van Tulleken: ‘Ultra-processed products are food that lies to us’

The author on how his mission to improve our national diet began – and where it needs to go

Chris van Tulleken has suggested we meet at his local pizza place, Sweet Thursday, in Hackney, east London. If the choice seems counterintuitive for a man with a mission to improve our national diet, he puts me right when we sit down. “Pizza has become emblematic of junk food,” he says, “but proper homemade pizza is very healthy.”

At Sweet Thursday, purist Italian chefs work their fresh sourdough bases in an open kitchen (rumour has it they are so purist in this vocation that they draw the line at making salad). But it is not just authenticity that counts, it is also community. Van Tulleken lives around the corner; the owner grew up nearby and this is where local families tend to come to catch up or to celebrate. “Above all, a restaurant should never be just a way of extracting money in exchange for nutrition,” Van Tulleken says. “Or for paying dividends to offshore investors. And I think these things are actually obvious even if you don’t live, like me, in a world of nutritional studies.”

The distinctions Van Tulleken makes go to the heart of his research into the damage that ultra-processed foods (UPFs) are causing to our physical and mental health. The contention of his bestselling book Ultra-Processed People is that food engineered by corporations with additives and emulsifiers and modified starches essentially “hacks our brains”, disrupting the normal regulation of appetite. It tricks us into eating more by being softer, slicker, saltier, sweeter than whole foods and it is that trillion-dollar fact, his evidence suggests, which is driving the obesity epidemic. In the course of his deep research, he acts as a guinea pig for these theories (with the occasional help of his twin brother, Xand, also a doctor and, because they share a genetic makeup, his built-in control group). His months of eating badly served to show that what he was consuming was not food, it was, as one academic colleague kept insisting to him, “an industrially processed edible substance”. Or “food that lies to us”.

As we order at Sweet Thursday – rustic chicken liver crostini and fried zucchini to start, spring risotto for him and pizza of the month – with artichoke and asparagus – for me, he makes a little prediction: “You won’t be able to finish your pizza here.” That is to say, it won’t slide down like a Domino’s deep dish and leave you wanting more. It may take some proper chewing and digesting, and fill you up.

As we share our starters, Van Tulleken apologises in advance for any fuzziness there might be in his thinking – his third child is six weeks old, and sleep is a memory. As well as promoting the paperback of his book, there’s the day job to consider – he’s a specialist in infectious diseases at University College London – and episodes of his latest podcast series (with Xand) to think about. He has spent the morning writing his submission to the Lords select committee on food, diet and obesity.

In the year since the book came out there has been strong pushback against his claims. In an afterword to the paperback edition, he offers a pretty devastating rebuttal of that criticism, a significant proportion of which, he reveals, comes from academics whose research has been sponsored by various multinational food conglomerates. “Tentacular” is the word he uses to describe the involvement of those companies in the committees devoted to debating their regulation.

He has had first-hand experience of that reach. “When the book came out, I half-imagined I might be on the witness stand against Nestlé or whoever,” he says. “But the way they do it is more subtle.” One large food company, for example, asked if he would be interested in giving a half-hour talk to its senior team, for a fee of £20,000. He said he would, but he’d pay his own expenses and give the money to a food charity.

When the contract came through, he changed his mind. Within it was a clause binding him not to disparage the firm in public statements, “throughout the universe and in perpetuity”.

In order to counter the detrimental effects of UPFs, Van Tulleken makes two recommendations. First, outlaw conflicts of interest on UK scientific and advisory bodies. And second, create effective warning labels on food products.

Much of the criticism of the idea of UPFs is that they are hard to define and therefore slippery to regulate. Van Tulleken argues that better enforcement of existing UK dietary guidance on fat and salt and sugar would “catch 95% of UPFs”, that a black warning octagon on those foods would mean that they could neither make health claims nor target children in their marketing. “Take Coco Pops,” he says. “Pick up a box in a supermarket and there will be half a dozen health claims on it. But if there was a warning octagon it couldn’t make those claims; it couldn’t put a jolly cartoon monkey on the front; it couldn’t be sold in hospitals or schools.”

The route that brought him to this evangelism is instructive. He grew up in Hammersmith, in west London. His early plan was to be a fighter pilot – he had watched Top Gun – but his first solo flight put him off. He then trained as a surgeon, but eventually followed Xand into the research of tropical diseases.

Working in central Africa he saw lots of kids dying of infections. “And the reason they died,” he says, “was not because we lacked antibiotics. It was that they were being fed baby food made up with filthy water … milk formula was directly marketed to families as aspirational.” The more he witnessed of this tragedy the more it became clear that “the solution should be to try to limit that corporate [marketing] power, rather than needing more antibiotics. What we now call the commercial determinants of health.”

His investigations have led him to expose how food multinationals work hard to make us eat more and more of ingredients that have less and less nutritional value. Their testing, he shows, concentrates on speed and volume of consumption. It is no accident, he suggests, that tobacco giants Philip Morris and RJ Reynolds acquired, respectively, Kraft and Nabisco in the 1980s: “They knew they had a set of technologies they could apply to food.”

In recent weeks much of the argument about UPFs has come down to our daily bread. I wonder what he made of the Guardian article by Giles Yeo, the Cambridge genetics professor, who, while acknowledging the evidence linking UPFs to 32 adverse effects on health, also appeared to argue that “taste aside, supermarket bread is no worse for you than fancy bread”.

“I’ve got a lot of time for Giles,” he says. “But for me, that article was very confused. If we look at a loaf of basic supermarket bread, versus a loaf of real bread, nothing fancy, the supermarket bread will be extremely high in salt and generally high in sugar, above the recommended level. It will have high energy density because it’s very dry, to promote shelf life – and we know energy density, the number of calories per 100 grams of food, is really, really important for weight gain. And then the supermarket bread will be extremely soft meaning you eat it quicker and consume the calories before you become full.”

Yeo’s wider argument against the imprecision of the UPF label touched on that other persistent claim, that whole food is an elitist concern; a four quid loaf is all very well if you can afford it. Van Tulleken has two rejoinders to that. The first is that the obesity crisis costs the NHS billions of pounds a year – why not tax elements of UPFs and use that to subsidise healthier, local food production? And second that much of the “snobbery argument” about proper food is, he believes, “industrially generated” by vested interests.

“I mean, the British Nutrition Foundation [whose members include corporations such as McDonald’s, British Sugar and Mars, with funding from firms including Nestlé, Mondelēz and Coca-Cola] had that quote: ‘We think it’s important not to stigmatise people in poverty [by advising them what not to eat].’ I completely agree! The real source of shame and stigma should be directed toward governments refusing to regulate this stuff…”

While he has been talking me through all of this, I’ve been making my way slowly through my fabulous pizza of the month. It is far from a double blind trial, but his prediction is right; it is, in fact, so very satisfying that I can’t finish it. But how about a scoop of homemade gelato, he asks.

Oh, go on then.

Ultra-Processed People by Chris van Tulleken is out now in paperback (Penguin)

https://www.theguardian.com/food/ar...that-lies-to-us

Sponsored Links

#2 ^

Sun, May-19-24, 08:02

JEY100 JEY100 is online now

To Good Health!

Posts: 13,526

Plan: P:E/DDF
Stats: 225/150/169 Female 5' 9"

BF:45%/28%/25%
Progress: 134%

Location: NC

I’ll look for the paperback version just to read the afterword. It can be pre-ordered on Amazon, but not published in US until January 2025.

#3 ^

Mon, May-20-24, 04:03

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,806

Plan: Carnivore & LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Quote:

“I mean, the British Nutrition Foundation [whose members include corporations such as McDonald’s, British Sugar and Mars, with funding from firms including Nestlé, Mondelēz and Coca-Cola] had that quote: ‘We think it’s important not to stigmatise people in poverty [by advising them what not to eat].’ I completely agree! The real source of shame and stigma should be directed toward governments refusing to regulate this stuff…”

I have become so impressed with Chris van Tulleken's work. It has recast my views on carbs in general.

The book Toxic Superfoods (much info on Sally's site) has been the other gamechanger for me. Over a year IN and my brain has come back. Everything else will follow. Now I reconsider any plant source until I know how much oxalate is in it.

Everyone has to control something they want and isn't good for them, I am convinced.

Likewise, everyone can find something they love they should eat more of. When I went carnivore, I realized I was not trusting my appetite, still, because I worried I was eating TOO much MEAT. Once other carnivores shared the same false worry, and reminded me that protein is vital for life, I gave my stomach its head (

) For about three weeks I was eating lots of hamburger with salt. In a few weeks, that slowed down, but it remains a constant that I have to get my animal PROTEIN in, today and every day.

Which is the middle of MY pyramid now, in terms of calories, because I do run on animal fat. As my tiny stamina toddles about, it demands MORE fat to fuel my healing process. But in terms of priority, animal protein is my base. Yet, the tippytop of my pyramid is carbs, but more than I would have expected. My liver needs some carbs to take stress off it while I'm dumping oxalate. I shouldn't ask it to manage gluconeogenesis, too, goes the theory. So I bumped carbs and felt better. And that might be why.

Bringing it around to the point of UPF-4 and its uniquely UNnatural way to screw up our metabolism, my increasing health has sharpened my taste buds to an extraordinary degree. Yes, I'm an X-Woman! DH, who had made similar and radical efforts of his own, especially lately, is developing his own superpower in that area, such as realizing how much UPF-4 products "taste like dirt."

There's a source of gluten free cheesecake that is my one conventional treat left, but I only eat it a few bites at a time. It's like my energy bar which sets me up for increasing my appetite when very little appeals because I don't have the energy to digest it, or something.

But I CANNOT even touch what passes for cheesecake once I stray from the Specialty/GF/Organic sections of this one grocery store. The difference between a quality of cheesecake (I can make myself when I have the energy) and the ones I would find in every other outlet in every other store, is dramatic.

That's how much "dirt" they are putting in food. Just general FOOD.

We don't even know what and how much, and this includes meat with "up to 20%" of a liquid) that I don't trust unless it's corned beef. And it's hard to trust corned beef until I know it's a regional processor and the label has nothing on it I don't understand.

But there is no label on produce. Yet, much of my own trouble with salads went away when I chose organic (from local producers in a health store outlet) AND low oxalate greens, because they are spraying the produce with something that delays spoilage. And my body does not like it, whatever it is. That apple looks exactly like food, but when we cut it open and it's brown in the middle (and we test each one) it's not food anymore, is it?

If I go slow with a new food, a few bites might help me decide whether to stop now. That is also invaluable, even if I'm buying "food" at the supermarket.

It might not be 100% food, according to the book Dr. Van Tulleken wrote. And that could create 90% of our problems.

#4 ^

Wed, May-22-24, 17:47

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 2,003

Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

We don't even know what and how much, and this includes meat with "up to 20%" of a liquid) that I don't trust

Are you referring to the small print that says it may contain up to a certain percentage of "a solution" on so many packages of chicken parts?

If so, at it's simplest, it's saltwater.

When they process chickens, they need to bring the still warm chicken parts to a safe chilled temperature as quickly as possible. It's possible to air-chill chicken, but it's a far slower process since each piece needs to be arranged on a tray/grid to make sure the cold air reaches every part of each piece of chicken - no overlapping, no edges touching. When chilling it in water, they can just dump the parts in the water, and they self-separate (perhaps with the help of some stirring).

So they add salts to the water to make it so that the water stays cold enough to quickly chill all those still-warm chicken parts dumped in it, but so that the water doesn't freeze even if the temperature of the water is several degreess below freezing. (I'm sure you recognize this as how salt melts ice on a sidewalk, or keeps a combination of melting ice and water cold enough to churn ice cream) The longer they leave the chicken in the salty water to ensure it's chilled the whole way through, the more of the salty water solution the meat absorbs.

When you see that "up to" a certain percent of a solution - that's the maximum of how much salty water the meat has absorbed in the chilling process. And you can determine just how much salt this added to your chicken, because plain chicken only has about 75-ish mg of sodium per serving - I've seen water chilled chicken that had 250+ mg of sodium per serving because of how much salt it absorbed in the chilling process.

I just realized I haven't seen chicken meat turning really dark (almost black) next to the bones in bone-in chicken lately, but this is what causes that:

Quote:

Darkening around bones occurs primarily in young broiler-fryers. Since their bones have not calcified completely, pigment from the bone marrow can seep through the porous bones. When the chicken is cooked, the pigment turns dark. Freezing can also contribute to this seepage

Probably one reason I haven't seen it much lately is that due to avian flu, most chickens being processed for consumption are older these days - so their bones are more calcified. But if you're getting very young chicken, you'll not only get that darkening of the meat, but also the bone marrow can seep out of the bone into the cooking pan. It's just the way immature chickens are, and if the fresh chicken has been frozen (even if it says fresh/never frozen, sometimes the chill factor has resulted in frost inside the chicken parts. So it may not have technically been stored at a freezing temperature - but frost crystals formed in it anyway)

As an aside, it seems that due to Avian flu, a lot of older hens have been kept in egg production a lot longer than normal while waiting for younger pullets to be old enough to produce eggs. Like human females, these older hens don't absorb calcium as well as they did when they were younger. Consequently the shells of the eggs they produce are a lot more brittle than what we normally expect - so we end up with a lot more bits of shell fragmenting and ending up in the skillet when we try to crack them. It's also why so many chicken parts are so much larger than they used to be. A 4-6 oz boneless breast used to be a typical size - I've been seeing boneless chicken breasts lately that are as much as 1-1/2 lbs. That's because they're from hens that were kept in egg production a lot longer than usual before being harvested, since chickens continue to grow larger (and eat more and more) as they get older. And of course as they get older, the saying "tough old bird" can also come into play - I always just plan on cooking the huge chicken parts a lot longer than most recipes say.

Ok, that's my last random bit of weird information... for now.

#5 ^

Thu, May-23-24, 04:55

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,806

Plan: Carnivore & LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Calianna

Ok, that's my last random bit of weird information... for now.

Thank you, both things very valuable to me.

I mentioned corned beef because I'm familiar with pickling solution, which doesn't itself bother me, but when they don't disclose much is another story.

I'm convinced that they are messing with chicken more than another other animal, which is a sign the picky eaters need to assert themselves, or we won't have the real stuff anymore

Sometimes, that is how I feel, but at least banning real food seems like a bridge too far, even for them.

Wasn't so long ago they declared leggings are a good as pants and half the price but now leggings cost what pants used to... and I can't afford pants but also don't need them as often.

No longer a consumer. Glad of it, since quality has fallen into the storm cellar. I don't buy anything unless I have to. They have ruined shopping!

#6 ^

Thu, May-23-24, 18:56

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 2,003

Plan: Atkins-ish (hypoglycemia)
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 63

BF:
Progress: 50%

Oh one more random bit of information about chicken - Someone said something (here? Another thread? can't recall) about "stringy" chicken. I was looking for some other information and you know how google provides a list of related questions - well one of them was about stringy chicken:

Quote:

When some chickens are grown to an unnaturally plump size in a short period of time, their muscle tissues often don't receive enough oxygen, which may cause the fibers to separate and become stringy. The meat is still safe to eat, though it may have a chewier than usual texture.

Also:

Quote:

White striping occurs when a fast-growing muscle fibre exceeds its blood supply. It runs out of oxygen, degenerates or dies, and leaves a fine white stripe of fat and connective tissue. Large numbers of these can be visible in a single chicken breast fillet.

I bolded the first part because the date on the link was just a month ago, which means the fast growing chickens has to do with avian flu, which has been going around repeatedly for the last couple of years. Normally, a poultry farmer would get in a bunch of chicks and raise them to harvest or to produce eggs in normal time frames. Under normal conditions, they grow at a normal rate.

Every time avian flu shows up again, they need to destroy affected and exposed chickens to stop the spread through a flock or to other flocks. Poultry farmers are losing chickens of all ages and sizes, but in order to replenish their stock, they need to bring in chicks or young pullets of breeds that grow very quickly, then provide sufficient food that they can eat frequently and grow quickly.

The result is stringy chicken when younger chickens are grown very quickly as described above.

____

I always wondered about the white stuff that cooks out of chicken breast

Quote:

The white stuff coming out of chicken as it cooks is simply extra protein that dissolves in water and is forced out of the meat by heat. Food scientist Topher McNeil, PhD, explains, “The [chicken] muscles themselves actually contract and squeeze out the liquid that's in between muscle cells.”

The protein is abumin. It can also come out if you poke it with a fork or knife while it's cooking. From what I understand, if you cook it slower at a lower temperature, you won't get it - or at least not as much. Although if the chicken was frozen, you'll probably still get it as the ice crystals thaw.

DH always thinks it's fat and is disgusted by it, but I let the white stuff sit in the pan long enough to brown, de-glaze the pan and oh-my! Talk about making delicious sauces!

#7 ^

Fri, May-24-24, 01:52

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,806

Plan: Carnivore & LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Apparently the destruction of chicken started right after WWII. Competing for fast-growing instead of taste or nutrition.

I'm reminded of my favorite giant bug movies -- they thought they would solve world hunger. And look what happened.

Likewise, distorting food so there is simply more of it is not working out the way we were promised.