{"id":342352,"date":"2024-09-08T18:02:04","date_gmt":"2024-09-08T16:02:04","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=342352"},"modified":"2024-09-08T18:02:06","modified_gmt":"2024-09-08T16:02:06","slug":"what-junk-nutrition-science-looks-like","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=342352","title":{"rendered":"What Junk Nutrition Science Looks Like"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

News Brief by\u00a0Kip Hansen<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks to the New York Times<\/em>, in an article in the EAT <\/em><\/strong>section, we have the news that \u201cthose who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods<\/a> were 11 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 16 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease during the study period\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The article is written by Alice Callahan<\/a> and titled:  \u201cAre Some Ultraprocessed Foods Worse Than Others?\u201d<\/a><\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Callahan\u2019s summary of a Lancet research paper<\/a> is:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe researchers also combined their findings with those from 19 other studies, for a separate analysis of about 1.25 million adults. They found that those who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods were 17 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease, 23 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease and 9 percent more likely to have a stroke compared with the lowest consumers.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

What is the evidence presented in the Lancet paper [Mendoza et al. 2024]?  Here\u2019s the money chart:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

Now, before I say anything further about the study, the results, and those Hazard Ratios \u2014 the original study states the following in its Summary:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cInterpretation<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Total UPF intake was adversely associated with CVD and CHD risk in US adults, corroborated by prospective studies from multiple countries, also suggesting a small excess stroke risk.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Take a look at the hazard ratio chart again with that interpretation in mind.  What do you think?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Give us your view in the Comment section<\/strong> \u2013 now<\/em> \u2014  before I give my take on the study findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

# # # # #<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let me start again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is a new study in The Lancet <\/a><\/em>titled as an \u201canalysis of three large US prospective cohorts and a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies\u201d that dealt with the relationship between \u201cultra-processed foods and cardiovascular disease\u201d. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Here are their findings, in a chart showing their findings as Hazard Ratios<\/a> for adverse conditions based on the uptake (consumption)  of various categories of ultraproccessed foods (UPFs):<\/p>\n\n\n\n

CVD \u2013 Cardiovascular Disease     CHD \u2013 Coronary Heart Disease ASBs \u2013 artificially sweetened beverages<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

If this was a display on a digital whiteboard, projected on the giant screen at a conference, I\u2019d do the following:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

I have circled the ONLY findings that are even close to being clinically significant.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Notice that the majority of the hazard ratios, for most categories of UPFs, are less than 1<\/strong> \u2013 usually interpreted as being, in this case,  beneficial \u2013 preventative of the harm.    Many of those that are greater than 1 have uncertainty\/error bars that include \u20181\u2019, which is correctly interpreted as \u2018no effect\u2019.  Only those circled in red could even be considered statistically to be harmful, associated with the adverse effect,<\/em> in any way. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Using the logic of the authors of this paper, all those below boxed in blue could be considered to prevent the \u2018bad thing\u2019 \u2013 CVD, CHD, Stroke<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

To complete the set of images:<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

The highlighted values, though positive, include \u20181\u2019, the unity, which fall under this general rule:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStatistically significant<\/a> hazard ratios cannot include unity (one)<\/em> in their confidence intervals.\u201d [ source<\/a> ]<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As for the bottom two items, ASBs \u2013 artificially sweetened beverages, it seems that the failure to find a positive enough hazard ratio may have led them to recalculate the HR \u201cadjusting for dieting behaviours and time-varying BMI\u201d.  They still end up as a nothing done<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, consider again the statement made by the authors \u2013 the plain language Interpretation <\/strong>of their findings:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cTotal UPF intake was adversely associated with CVD and CHD risk in US adults, corroborated by prospective studies from multiple countries, also suggesting a small excess stroke risk.\u201d<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

# # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Junk Science:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Only \u201csugar-sweetened beverages\u201d and \u201cprocessed red meat, poultry, and fish\u201d show ANY adverse association with CVD and CHD.  The lead author of the study is quoted in the Times<\/em> as saying \u201cWhen these two categories were excluded from the data, most of the risk associated with ultraprocessed food consumption disappeared\u2026\u201d.  That is exactly correct.  In fact, whatever \u2018risk\u2019 remained would be tiny, with uncertainty overlapping \u20181\u2019, and not be even statistically<\/em> significant, and never could be properly considered either clinically significant or a \u201cminimal clinically important difference<\/a>\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, the interpretation offered by the study\u2019s authors is just not true in plain language \u2013 they did not find UPF consumption associated with CVD and CHD, but only consumption of the two of the ten categories to be so associated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scientific Controversies:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Both categories that were found to have an associated adverse effect are themselves Modern Scientific Controversies<\/strong>:  the War on Sugar<\/a> and the Meat Wars<\/a>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This means that the studies included in the meta-analysis are quite possibly (or stronger, probably) questionable <\/strong>and may just \u201cbe simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias<\/a>.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Bottom Line:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The NY Times<\/em> article and the study in The<\/em> Lancet<\/em> are prime examples of how junk science findings are transformed into actionable science.  Findings with tiny questionable effects are elevated by the study authors to apply widely (in the Interpretation, to apply to all UPFs as a broad category of foods) and then again elevated by the media to be important<\/em> to the lives of everyday people.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Studying UPFs is a new Science Fad with study after study desperately trying to find that \u201cUPFs are bad for you<\/a>\u201d. UPFs are not even a distinct category of food by ingredients or type \u2013 only by the fact of how they are produced<\/em> (yes, really).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

# # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Author\u2019s Comment:<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have been collecting material on UPFs for a couple of years, towards writing a new Modern Scientific Controversies<\/a> segment on the topic. Coming soon-ish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are<\/em> total diets that do not promote good health.  These certainly include diets with excessive amounts of sugars of all types.  The case against excessive sugars depends exclusively on the perceived relationship between sugars and diabetes and obesity, both of which are controversial.  Exactly what constitutes \u2018excessive\u2019 is the open question, but you\u2019ve seen men and women walking and driving drinking from refillable giant convenience-store soda cups, 44-52 oz, full of what is essentially sugar syrup.  Big box stores have hundreds of feet of shelf space dedicated to extra large containers of candies in huge bags and large square plastic jars. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case ag<\/a>a<\/a>inst meats<\/a> and processed meats is far less clear and may be even non-existent \u2013 maybe entirely an example of prevailing bias.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have long maintained that diet is a personal and cultural choice, that diets should be well-rounded and varied, including a wide range of vegetables and fruits and grains.  Personally, my religious health code calls for meats to be eaten \u201csparingly\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks for reading.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

# # # # #<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Thanks to the New York Times, in an article in the EAT section, we have the news that \u201cthose who consumed the most ultraprocessed foods were 11 percent more likely to develop cardiovascular disease and 16 percent more likely to develop coronary heart disease during the study period\u201d. <\/p>\n

The article is written by Alice Callahan and titled: \u201cAre Some Ultraprocessed Foods Worse Than Others?\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":121246920,"featured_media":342365,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_coblocks_attr":"","_coblocks_dimensions":"","_coblocks_responsive_height":"","_coblocks_accordion_ie_support":"","_crdt_document":"","advanced_seo_description":"","jetpack_seo_html_title":"","jetpack_seo_noindex":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[1],"tags":[691830514,691830513,691830512,691820439,691830515],"class_list":{"0":"post-342352","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","6":"hentry","7":"category-uncategorized","8":"tag-chd","9":"tag-cvd","10":"tag-junk-science","11":"tag-new-york-times","12":"tag-stroke","14":"fallback-thumbnail"},"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/09\/zslide-16-1024.webp?fit=1024%2C768&ssl=1","jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/paxLW1-1r3O","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":366302,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=366302","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":0},"title":"Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 4","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"16\/02\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"Remember, UPFs does not mean \u201cjunk food\u201d.\u00a0 UPFs does not mean sugary sodas, hamburgers, French fries, candy and snacks.\u00a0 Those are a concern in modern societies, but, while they are often included in UPFs, they are not the core of UPFs.\u00a0","rel":"","context":"In \"Epidemiology\"","block_context":{"text":"Epidemiology","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=epidemiology"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Firefly-war-on-food-44418-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C686&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Firefly-war-on-food-44418-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C686&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Firefly-war-on-food-44418-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C686&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Firefly-war-on-food-44418-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C686&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/02\/0Firefly-war-on-food-44418-scaled-1.webp?fit=1200%2C686&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":362705,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=362705","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":1},"title":"Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 3 \u2014 UPFs: What Are They Measuring?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"19\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"According to the American Medical Association, in an article that is part of JAMA\u2019s \u201cWhat Doctors Wish Patients Knew\u2122\u201d series: \u201cResearch has shown that diets high in ultraprocessed foods are linked to more than 30 health conditions, according to an umbrella review of meta-analyses that was published in The BMJ.\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"American Medical Association\"","block_context":{"text":"American Medical Association","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=american-medical-association"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7-1.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":361521,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=361521","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":2},"title":"Modern Scientific Controversies The War on Food: Part 2, What are UPFs?","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"11\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"What are Ultraprocessed Foods?\u00a0\u00a0The UPF literature gives long and confused definitions, but in almost every case, falls back on the definition provided by Carlos A. Monteiro\u00a0(and his colleagues In\u00eas Castro, Renata Bertazzi-Levy, Rafael Claro and Geoffrey Cannon) in\u00a0his\u00a0original work in 2009 on the subject\u00a0titled: \u201cNutrition and health. The issue is\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs)\"","block_context":{"text":"Food Frequency Questionnaires (FFQs)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=food-frequency-questionnaires-ffqs"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0l158_22901555935007.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0l158_22901555935007.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0l158_22901555935007.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0l158_22901555935007.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0l158_22901555935007.webp?fit=1200%2C675&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":360523,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=360523","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":3},"title":"Modern Scientific Controversies: The War on Food: Part 1","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"05\/01\/2025","format":false,"excerpt":"This is a new entry to a series-of-many which have discussed ongoing scientific controversies, a specific type of which are often referred to in the science press and elsewhere as \u201cWars\u201d \u2013 for instance \u00a0The Monarch Wars, The Meat Wars, The Obesity Epidemic, The Salt Wars, The War in Sugar\u2026","rel":"","context":"In \"British Medical Journal (BMJ)\"","block_context":{"text":"British Medical Journal (BMJ)","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?tag=british-medical-journal-bmj"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/01\/0d4331017934843.562c108350ee7.jpg?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1&resize=1050%2C600 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":439045,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=439045","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":4},"title":"Cold Kills: Massive U.S. Study Finds Cold Weather Causes 20 Times More Heart Deaths Than Heat","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"12\/04\/2026","format":false,"excerpt":"A new large-scale U.S. study, presented at the American College of Cardiology\u2019s Annual Scientific Session (ACC.26) in March 2026, reinforces a long-standing pattern: cold temperatures pose a far greater mortality risk than heat, particularly for cardiovascular health. Researchers analyzed over 14 million heart-related deaths (from heart attacks, strokes, coronary artery\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Cold-Kills-Massive-U.S.-Study-Finds-Cold-Weather-Causes-20-Times-More-Heart-Deaths-Than-Heat1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Cold-Kills-Massive-U.S.-Study-Finds-Cold-Weather-Causes-20-Times-More-Heart-Deaths-Than-Heat1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=350%2C200 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Cold-Kills-Massive-U.S.-Study-Finds-Cold-Weather-Causes-20-Times-More-Heart-Deaths-Than-Heat1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=525%2C300 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/04\/0-Cold-Kills-Massive-U.S.-Study-Finds-Cold-Weather-Causes-20-Times-More-Heart-Deaths-Than-Heat1.jpg?fit=784%2C1168&ssl=1&resize=700%2C400 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":183286,"url":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=183286","url_meta":{"origin":342352,"position":5},"title":"100s of Published Reports of Post-Vaccine Medical Distress (Part 1)","author":"uwe.roland.gross","date":"17\/01\/2022","format":false,"excerpt":"COVID-19 vaccines are harming people. This fact is now extensively documented in the peer-reviewed medical literature. We\u2019re told these events are rare. So what\u2019s the magic number? How many reports of alarming medical outcomes are necessary before we admit the \u2018cure\u2019 might be worse than the disease? Most people who\u2026","rel":"","context":"Similar post","block_context":{"text":"Similar post","link":""},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0100_medical_reports.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0100_medical_reports.png?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/climatescience.press\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/01\/0100_medical_reports.png?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x"},"classes":[]}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342352","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/121246920"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=342352"}],"version-history":[{"count":6,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342352\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":342366,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/342352\/revisions\/342366"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/342365"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=342352"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=342352"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=342352"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}