Ultra-processed foods: a fit-for-purpose concept for nutrition policy activities to tackle unhealthy and unsustainable diets

"Food faddists and pseudoscientists!": Reflections on the history of resistance to ultra-processed foods

The term 'ultra-processed food' emerged in the 1980s, mostly used in reference to highly-processed convenience foods and snacks, often energy-dense, poor in nutrients, and inclusive of various synthetic additives such as emulsifiers, colors, artificial sweeteners, and/or flavor enhancers. Concern over such foods was part of the growing holistic and environmental health movements of the 1970-80s; yet, those who raised alarm about the encroachment of ultra-processed foods were often labeled, especially by industry and their powerful allies, as 'food faddists' and 'pseudoscientists'. Today, the topic of ultra-processed foods is generating massive personal, public, and planetary health interest. However, other than discussing the history of the NOVA food classification system, a useful tool that has allowed researchers to more accurately separate foods based on processing, most lay media and academic articles are ahistorical. That is, there is a tendency to present the term ultra-processed food(s) as a relatively new entrance into the lexicon, and by default, the idea that health-related pushback on ultra-processed foods is a relatively new phenomenon. This omission overlooks decades of determined advocacy and clinical work, much of it by pioneers within the holistic medicine (now integrative, functional, and lifestyle medicine) movement. Here in this reflection paper, the authors will use historical research and reporting to fill in the historical gap and articulate the saliency of why it matters.

Higher ultra processed foods intake is associated with low muscle mass in young to middle-aged adults: a cross-sectional NHANES study

Design

Ultra-processed foods (UPFs) have become a pressing global health concern, prompting investigations into their potential association with low muscle mass in adults.

Methods

This cross-sectional study analyzed data from 10,255 adults aged 20-59 years who participated in the National Health and Nutritional Examination Survey (NHANES) during cycles spanning from 2011 to 2018. The primary outcome, low muscle mass, was assessed using the Foundation for the National Institutes of Health (FNIH) definition, employing restricted cubic splines and weighted multivariate regression for analysis. Sensitivity analysis incorporated three other prevalent definitions to explore optimal cut points for muscle quality in the context of sarcopenia.

Results

The weighted prevalence of low muscle mass was 7.65%. Comparing the percentage of UPFs calories intake between individuals with normal and low muscle mass, the values were found to be similar (55.70 vs. 54.62%). Significantly linear associations were observed between UPFs consumption and low muscle mass (P for non-linear = 0.7915, P for total = 0.0117). Upon full adjustment for potential confounding factors, participants with the highest UPFs intake exhibited a 60% increased risk of low muscle mass (OR = 1.60, 95% CI: 1.13 to 2.26, P for trend = 0.003) and a decrease in ALM/BMI (β = -0.0176, 95% CI: -0.0274 to -0.0077, P for trend = 0.003). Sensitivity analysis confirmed the consistency of these associations, except for the International Working Group on Sarcopenia (IWGS) definition, where the observed association between the highest quartiles of UPFs (%Kcal) and low muscle mass did not attain statistical significance (OR = 1.35, 95% CI: 0.97 to 1.87, P for trend = 0.082).

Conclusion

Our study underscores a significant linear association between higher UPFs consumption and an elevated risk of low muscle mass in adults. These findings emphasize the potential adverse impact of UPFs on muscle health and emphasize the need to address UPFs consumption as a modifiable risk factor in the context of sarcopenia.