Eating ultra-processed meat linked to greater risk of early death : LC Research/Media Forum : Active Low-Carber Forums

#1 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 01:26

Demi

Choose Your Hard!

Posts: 26,874

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

BF:
Progress: 109%

Location: UK

Eating ultra-processed meat linked to greater risk of early death

Quote:

Eating ultra-processed meat linked to greater risk of early death

Landmark Harvard study finds regular consumers of products such as sausages and ham have a 13pc higher chance of dying

Eating ultra-processed meat is linked to an increased risk of early death, a Harvard study over 30 years has found.

Scientists tracked more than 114,000 adults in one of the most extensive studies into the long-term consequences of modern diets.

The highest risks were associated with the most processed meats such as sausages and ham. Regular consumers of such products had a 13 per cent higher chance of dying over the 34 years tracked.

Diets high in sugary and artificially sweetened drinks had a 9 per cent increased risk, the study found.

Overall, those eating diets with a high proportion of packaged goods and snacks were found to have a 4 per cent higher risk of death over the period.

Such foods have already been linked with obesity, heart disease, diabetes and bowel cancer.

However, few studies have tracked participants for such a long time, or examined overall deaths.

The Harvard study also went further than previous research in teasing out the potential impact of different types of ultra-processed foods.

Dairy desserts – such as cheesecake or fromage frais – were linked to a 6 per cent increased risk, while breads and breakfast cereals were linked to a four per cent increase.

Study tracked participants for 34 years

In the major study, researchers tracked the long-term health of 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals between 1984 and 2018.

Female participants were aged between 30 and 55 at the start of the research, while men were between 40 and 75.

Every two years participants provided information on their health and lifestyle habits, with detailed food questionnaires completed every four years.

In the years that followed, researchers identified 48,193 deaths from cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases.

Diets were analysed and split into four groups.

Overall, those with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods – an average of seven servings daily – had a four per cent higher risk than those in the lowest group, which consumed an average of three daily servings.

The strongest links were found between meat, poultry and seafood ready-to-eat products, such as sausages, ham, hot dogs, convenience meals and processed snacks. These were followed by sugary and artificially sweetened soft drinks and then by dairy-based desserts.

“Our findings suggest that meat/poultry/seafood-based ready-to-eat products and sugar-sweetened and artificially sweetened beverages are major factors contributing to the harmful influence of ultra-processed foods on mortality,” researchers from Harvard’s Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition concluded.

They said the findings “provide support for limiting consumption of certain types of ultra-processed food for long-term health”.

Ultra-processed foods include packaged baked goods and snacks, fizzy drinks, sugary cereals, and ready-to-eat or heat products.

They often contain colours, emulsifiers, flavours and other additives and are typically high in energy, added sugar, saturated fat, and salt, but lack vitamins and fibre.

However, there is no clear definition, with arguments about whether some products, such as wholemeal bread, should be categorised as ultra-processed.

In the Harvard study, wholegrain foods were not counted as ultra-processed, with researchers saying they were excluded because of their established benefits in lowering mortality.

The study was observational, meaning no firm conclusions could be drawn about cause and effect.

The research also found the association was less pronounced after overall dietary quality was taken into account.

Mixed reaction to study results

Dr Duane Mellor, dietitian and spokesperson for the British Dietetic Association, said the findings were interesting and in line with other studies highlighting the risks of processed meats and sugary and artificially sweetened drinks.

However, he said the findings suggested the overall health of the diet was most important.

Dr Mellor said: “It is also noticeable that those who consumed most ultra-processed foods tended to eat few vegetables, fruit, legumes and wholegrain. This appeared to suggest that it might not be as simple as that those who ate more ultra-processed foods were more likely to die earlier – it is quite possible that these foods might displace healthier foods from the diet.”

Prof Christine Williams, Emeritus Professor Human Nutrition, University of Reading, said the approach taken by researchers was more “nuanced” than many studies attempting to establish the risks of processed foods in separating out different categories.

She said: “This new UPF study comes from the Harvard group – the leading group worldwide in the area of nutritional epidemiology. This large study includes men and women followed up for cause of death for over 34 years with baseline information dating back to 1984 and 1986. They examined the relationship between UPF consumption levels and risk of mortality (all diseases) as well as mortality from specific causes (cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory, neurodegenerative and other causes).

“The study showed a modest association with high UPF consumption on the outcome category ‘All deaths’ which were 4 per cent higher in the high UPF group.”

However, Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Emeritus Professor of Statistics, University of Cambridge, said such an association was “weak”.

He said it was “surprising” that researchers’ conclusions focussed on the risks from processing given their acknowledgement that overall dietary quality had the greatest impact.

It comes after research found that people following a personalised nutrition programme which avoids ultra-processed foods lost more weight and saw improvements in blood sugar control, compared with those following standard health guidelines.

This research – published in the journal Nature Medicine – tracked adults following Zoe, a programme which provides food recommendations after testing an individual’s gut bacteria and response to fats and sugars, encouraging a diet rich in plants and avoiding ultra-processed foods.

The randomised 18-week control trial involving 347 adults in the US found those put on the programme lost an average of 5.5 lbs more than those following generalised government advice.

Tests showed significant improvements in blood sugar control, more “good” gut bacteria, and improved mood and sleep among those following the programme, founded by Prof Tim Spector.

8https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/05/08/eating-ultra-processed-meat-linked-greater-risk-early-death/

Sponsored Links

#2 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 02:23

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,780

Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Quote:

The strongest links were found between meat, poultry and seafood ready-to-eat products, such as sausages, ham, hot dogs, convenience meals and processed snacks.

They lump in ham, which has been eaten for a long long time: China in 4900 B.C Yet they add "convenience meals and processed snacks" at the end.

But it's the HAM that does it. We have to get the HAM out of the "convenience meals and processed snacks" then, and sub in soy for protein.

Plant-based forever, woo hoo!

Despite the success I've had with a low plant intake, I'm not 100% carnivore, either. Learning that the hidden factor with my success was the healing effects of letting my body dump oxalate, safely, means some plants are still my friends.

Romaine and arugula instead of spinach and kale. Simple subs and portion control of the problematic lets me eat a way I like, more than ever.

Quote:

One-fourth of the global population is estimated to be anemic, with cases increasing rapidly for women, expectant mothers, young girls, and children younger than age 5. In 2021, 1.92 billion people globally had anemia. This is an increase of 420 million cases over three decades.Jul 31, 2023

Gee, think scaring people away from red meat and heme iron has anything to do with it?

Last edited by WereBear : Thu, May-09-24 at 02:30.

#3 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 03:18

Kristine Kristine is offline

Forum Moderator

Posts: 25,775

Plan: Primal/P:E
Stats: 171/145/145 Female 5'7"

BF:
Progress: 100%

Location: Southern Ontario, Canada

Ha - I could have stopped reading at "Harvard."

My lunch today is probably going to be a boiled egg, prosciutto (ingredients: pork, salt) and maybe a few pork rinds (ingredients: pork skin, lard, salt) and salsa (who cares about the ingredients? It's plant based so it gets a free pass!)

#4 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 05:25

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,780

Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Mmmm. I'd only add sour cream. My fuel.

Crushed pork rinds are my new baking mix. Also, the meat highest in thiamine, which powers our mitochondria.

To help our recovery from deep fatigue, DH and I have been taking benfothiamine. Our doctor is intrigued and we look forward to reporting improvements to him next time.

Because we both seem to be getting out and about, and it's not merely the Spring Fever.

#5 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 06:58

Dodger Dodger is offline

Long-term low-carber

Posts: 8,778

Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches

BF:18%
Progress: 116%

Location: Longmont, Colorado

Quote:

Landmark Harvard study finds regular consumers of products such as sausages and ham have a 13pc higher chance of dying

Quote:

The study was observational, meaning no firm conclusions could be drawn about cause and effect.

Yes, it was observational so nothing was found!

#6 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 13:46

GRB5111

Senior Member

Posts: 4,069

Plan: Very LC, Higher Protein
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"

BF:
Progress: 98%

Location: Herndon, VA

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dodger

Yes, it was observational so nothing was found!

You are 100% correct.

#7 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 14:08

cotonpal

Senior Member

Posts: 5,352

Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/125/135 Female 62

BF:
Progress: 109%

Location: Vermont

This is not science; it is propaganda. Just for starters, the data which this study used to reach its conclusion are food questionnaires collected every four years. Garbage in garbage out applies here. Nothing about this so called study merits attention.

#8 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 14:46

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 1,970

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

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

Originally Posted by cotonpal

Exactly:

Quote:

In the major study, researchers tracked the long-term health of 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals between 1984 and 2018. Female participants were aged between 30 and 55 at the start of the research, while men were between 40 and 75.

Every two years participants provided information on their health and lifestyle habits, with detailed food questionnaires completed every four years.

Oh yes, I recall every detail of exactly how much I ate of every imaginable food over the previous four years, doesn't everyone?

/sarcasm

Most people can't recall what they ate yesterday with any degree of accuracy.

How could anyone expect them to recall a detailed list of foods consumed over the course of 4 YEARS?

#9 ^

Thu, May-09-24, 15:26

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 1,970

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

BF:
Progress: 50%

Every time I scan through this article, I find more and more ridiculous sounding information:

Quote:

In the major study, researchers tracked the long-term health of 74,563 female nurses and 39,501 male health professionals between 1984 and 2018.

Female participants were aged between 30 and 55 at the start of the research, while men were between 40 and 75.

I look at the age ranges and... ya know, if they stared out at those ages, of course this wasn't a surprising result:

Quote:

Scientists tracked more than 114,000 adults in one of the most extensive studies into the long-term consequences of modern diets.

Quote:

In the years that followed, researchers identified 48,193 deaths from cancer, cardiovascular, respiratory and neurodegenerative diseases.

I'd like to know how many there were who died but did NOT die in those categories (and what categories were their deaths classified under: fatal accidents, murder, suicide, non-respiratory infection?), and how many actually survived those 34 years of the study, because I'm pretty sure that not too many of the 75 year olds survived long enough to get much data about their dietary habits to begin with.

Quote:

Overall, those with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods – an average of seven servings daily – had a four per cent higher risk than those in the lowest group, which consumed an average of three daily servings.

Quote:

“The study showed a modest association with high UPF consumption on the outcome category ‘All deaths’ which were 4 per cent higher in the high UPF group.”

So limit yourself to what they consider to be the lowest UPF consumption (3 servings daily) and you have a 4% less risk of dying over the next 34 years compared to someone who eats 7 servings of UPF daily.

Um... Isn't 5% or less difference considered to be statistically insignificant?

I'm not saying go ahead and eat 7 servings of UPFs daily, just that their 34 year study shows nothing at all of any significance.

And that's before you even get into the way they fudged their UPF definition: "We insist that minimally processed ham is in the UPF category, but we refuse to consider whole grain bread to be a UPF even though it's highly processed, because The Powers That Be hath previously ordained whole grains as the epitome of healthy food."

#10 ^

Fri, May-10-24, 01:44

WereBear

Senior Member

Posts: 14,780

Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/130/150 Female 67

BF:
Progress: 129%

Location: USA

Quote:

The lowest group had three daily servings? No controls? If everyone is eating junk how can we tell?

#11 ^

Fri, May-10-24, 07:21

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 1,970

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

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

Originally Posted by WereBear

The lowest group had three daily servings? No controls? If everyone is eating junk how can we tell?

Well there's also their erratic definition of what constitutes UPF.

Quote:

The highest risks were associated with the most processed meats such as sausages and ham. Regular consumers of such products had a 13 per cent higher chance of dying over the 34 years tracked.

Might as well just say pork in general, because even though ham has preservatives, sausage isn't necessarily cured - breakfast sausage is just ground and seasoned pork, no preservatives necessary. Why weren't pork chops or ribs included in this category?

Quote:

Diets high in sugary and artificially sweetened drinks had a 9 per cent increased risk, the study found.

But diets high in sugary and artificially sweetened desserts didn't have the same effect?

And if both sugary drinks and artificially sweetened drinks have the exact same effect, maybe it's not the sugar or artificial sweetener - maybe it's some other component of the drinks.

Quote:

Overall, those eating diets with a high proportion of packaged goods and snacks were found to have a 4 per cent higher risk of death over the period. Such foods have already been linked with obesity, heart disease, diabetes and bowel cancer.

If I eat an individual donut or bagel from the bakery case, it's apparently fine since it's not a packaged food.

If I buy a bag of frozen strawberries - oops bad, because it's packaged.

If I open a bag of spinach to cook for dinner - that's packaged, and therefore bad.

If I bake a cake or pie from scratch, it's fine because it's not packaged.

I realize what they MEAN is if you're eating cookies and candy and donuts all day, it's bad - doesn't matter whether they were packaged or not.

What they MEAN is if you're eating fruits and vegetables, it's good - doesn't matter if they're fresh, frozen, or canned.

Quote:

Overall, those with the highest intake of ultra-processed foods – an average of seven servings daily – had a four per cent higher risk than those in the lowest group, which consumed an average of three daily servings.

The strongest links were found between meat, poultry and seafood ready-to-eat products, such as sausages, ham, hot dogs, convenience meals and processed snacks.

These were followed by sugary and artificially sweetened soft drinks and then by dairy-based desserts.

Of course they have an aversion to animal products in general.

But they also specify ready to eat versions of meat, poultry and seafood...

Ready to eat meats might include jerky or beef sticks. Or maybe it's including fast food burgers - which as we know are mostly bread.

Ready to eat poultry - rotisserie chickens? I can't think of any others right off hand, unless you're buying pulled and shredded chicken from rotisserie chickens. Or maybe they're including KFC, because that's ready to eat.

What seafood ready to eat products are there? Pre-cooked shrimp cocktail rings? Packaged tuna salad with crackers "lunches"? (which are mostly white flour crackers with seed oils, and seed oil based mayo) And of course Filet O' Fish sandwiches.

And dairy based desserts - why not just come right out and say ice cream?

They generalize far too much - my guess is that it's in order to demonize animal products in general.

#12 ^

Fri, May-10-24, 13:18

deirdra

Senior Member

Posts: 4,329

Plan: vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches

BF:
Progress: 130%

Location: Alberta

Quote:

The strongest links were found between meat, poultry and seafood ready-to-eat products, such as sausages, ham, hot dogs, convenience meals and processed snacks.

I.e. it was not the meat, poultry & seafood causing problems, it was what turned them into "ready-to-eat products", namely filler, sugar, batter, flavouring, buns and vegetable oils for frying, etc.

#13 ^

Sat, May-11-24, 09:20

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 1,970

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

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

Originally Posted by deirdra

I.e. it was not the meat, poultry & seafood causing problems, it was what turned them into "ready-to-eat products", namely filler, sugar, batter, flavouring, buns and vegetable oils for frying, etc.

Exactly - but you won't get them to admit that.

Every single "official" dietary analysis blames the burger and cheese, instead of the huge fluffy bun, mountain of potatoes used to make the fries, and enormous vat of sugary soda, even though the bulk of the calories always comes from carbs.

If the fast food places switched to 96% lean burger and fat free cheese, and figured out some way to make fat-free fries, the official analysis would still consider the bun, potatoes and soda to be innocent in all this. They'd blame the tiny remaining 4 g of fat left in the burger (36 calories), and the animal source protein in the burger and cheese (120 calories) as the root of all the problems, even though the carbs from a burger, small fries and small soda add up to 448 calories of pure carbs.

I can imagine them declaring "see, we removed almost all the fat, and there's still a problem - it's got to be the animal sourced protein, even with minimal animal fats that's the root of the problem, because we know that the starchy calories supplied by the bread, potatoes and soda are good for you."

#14 ^

Sat, May-11-24, 10:06

Dodger Dodger is offline

Long-term low-carber

Posts: 8,778

Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches

BF:18%
Progress: 116%

Location: Longmont, Colorado

Big Mac ingredients.

Big Mac Bun
Ingredients: Enriched Flour (wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Water, Sugar, Yeast, Soybean Oil, Contains 2% Or Less: Salt, Wheat Gluten, Sesame Seeds, Potato Flour, Vinegar, Dextrose, Corn Starch, Modified Food Starch, Vegetable Proteins (pea, Potato, Rice And/or Faba Bean), Sunflower And/or Canola Oil, Maltodextrin, Natural Flavors, May Contain One Or More Dough Conditioners (datem, Ascorbic Acid, Mono And Diglycerides, Enzymes),

100% Beef Patty
Ingredients: 100% Pure Usda Inspected Beef; No Fillers, No Extenders.
Prepared With Grill Seasoning (salt, Black Pepper).

Shredded Lettuce
Ingredients: Lettuce.

Big Mac Sauce
Ingredients: Soybean Oil, Sweet Relish (diced Pickles, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Corn Syrup, Xanthan Gum, Calcium Chloride, Spice Extractives), Water, Egg Yolks, Distilled Vinegar, Spices, Onion Powder, Salt, Propylene Glycol Alginate, Garlic Powder, Vegetable Protein (hydrolyzed Corn, Soy And Wheat), Sugar, Caramel Color, Turmeric, Extractives Of Paprika, Soy Lecithin.

Pasteurized Process American Cheese
Ingredients: Milk, Cream, Water, Sodium Citrate, Salt, Cheese Cultures, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Soy Lecithin, Color Added.

Pickle Slices
Ingredients: Cucumbers, Water, Distilled Vinegar, Salt, Calcium Chloride, Alum, Potassium Sorbate (preservative), Natural Flavors, Polysorbate 80, Extractives Of Turmeric (color).

Onions
Ingredients: Onions.

Must be the beef that makes it unhealthy!

#15 ^

Sat, May-11-24, 13:15

Calianna

Senior Member

Posts: 1,970

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

BF:
Progress: 50%

Quote:

Must be the beef that makes it unhealthy!

Of course it is!

What else could it possibly be?

Surely you're not implying that the Enriched Flour (wheat Flour, Malted Barley Flour, Niacin, Iron, Thiamine Mononitrate, Riboflavin, Folic Acid), Sugar, Soybean Oil, Wheat Gluten, Potato Flour, Dextrose, Corn Starch, Modified Food Starch, Vegetable Proteins (pea, Potato, Rice And/or Faba Bean), Sunflower And/or Canola Oil, Maltodextrin, Natural Flavors, datem, Ascorbic Acid, Mono And Diglycerides, Enzymes, Soybean Oil, Sugar, High Fructose Corn Syrup, Corn Syrup, Xanthan Gum, Calcium Chloride, Spice Extractives, Propylene Glycol Alginate, Vegetable Protein (hydrolyzed Corn, Soy And Wheat), Sugar, Caramel Color, Turmeric, Extractives Of Paprika, Soy Lecithin, Sodium Citrate, Citric Acid, Enzymes, Soy Lecithin, Color, Calcium Chloride, Alum, Potassium Sorbate (preservative), Natural Flavors, Polysorbate 80, and Extractives Of Turmeric (color) could have any kind of detrimental effect on health!