Studie zeigt, dass der Verzehr hochverarbeiteter Lebensmittel nicht mit einem schnelleren geistigen Verfall verbunden ist. Die Ergebnisse helfen dabei, den komplexen Zusammenhang zwischen dem, was Menschen essen, und der Veränderung ihres Gehirns im Laufe der Zeit zu klären.
Eating ultra-processed foods is not linked to faster mental decline, study finds
16 Kommentare
European processed foods might be different from the ones in other parts of the world.
Study bought to you by sysco foods.
dont eat processed foods
eat processed foods
dont eat fat
eat fat
dont eat carbs
eat carbs
dont eat meat
eat meat
Time to subscribe to Breatharianism
>A recent study suggests that eating ultra-processed foods does not lead to faster cognitive decline in older adults over a ten-year period. The research, published in the European Journal of Nutrition, provides evidence that overall diet quality may matter more for maintaining brain health as we age than the specific level of food processing. These findings help clarify the complex relationship between what people eat and how their brains change over time.
>As the global population ages, the number of people living with dementia is expected to increase dramatically in the coming decades. Because there is currently no cure for dementia, identifying lifestyle factors that can prevent or delay cognitive decline is highly important. Scientists are particularly interested in the role of diet, as healthy eating patterns have consistently been linked to better brain function.
>Ultra-processed foods are items made from ingredients that have been heavily modified by chemical processes. They are typically assembled into ready-to-eat products that taste highly appealing, often using artificial flavors, colors, and cosmetic additives. Common examples include packaged cookies, ice cream, sugary drinks, hot dogs, and mass-produced breads.
>In recent years, the amount of these heavily processed items in the average daily diet has increased significantly around the world. Scientists conducted the new study because the impact of these foods on brain health remains unclear. Some previous research links diets high in ultra-processed products to a higher risk of dementia and memory loss, while other studies find no such connection.
>“Our study was motivated by growing concerns about the health effects of ultra-processed foods. While higher intake of these foods has been linked to various chronic diseases, evidence on cognitive ageing remains limited and inconsistent, particularly in European populations. We therefore examined whether ultra-processed food intake was associated with cognitive decline over time using several validated cognitive tests in a large sample of older Dutch adults,” said study author Hanneke Wijnhoven, an assistant professor in the Department of Health Sciences at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.
A) A study only in Dutch adults. European regulations on ultra processed foods are way more stringent than most of the world.
B) The study is based on surveys completed by participants. The study relies on honest and accurate self-aware reporting by these individuals.
C) The average age of participants was only 67, conveniently just shy of the decades where cognitive decline most typically occurs, 70s and 80s. This isn’t a dealbreaker in that it’s still interesting whether there is early onset, but its a big gap to be under-representing the two decades with the most cognitive decline, where one would be most interested in comparing the rate this decline occurs at.
D) *“The research, published in the European Journal of Nutrition, provides evidence that overall diet quality may matter more for maintaining brain health as we age than the specific level of food processing.“* Wow. Gee, I wonder if ultra processed foods tend to have lower dietary quality? Seem a bit like a deliberately moving of the goal post.
With these points in mind I would hardly find this study „counteracts“ the much larger body of research both finding strong associations between ultra-processed diets and cognitive decline, as well as clear mechanistic explanations for precisely how this is caused (higher dietary nitrates from things like deli meat are firmly established as both carcinogens and more, ultra processed foods often have added sugar, sometimes in very high amounts, which by contributing to the glycemic load definitely promotes faster aging through the higher burden of AGE compounds (advanced glycemic endproducts).
Also I’m not a fan of the happy smiling man photo paired with this release as if to emotionally drive home „he’s carefree, he can eat whatever he wants“ sort of message.
„As with all research, the study has some limitations. A primary limitation is that dietary habits were measured using a self-reported survey, which relies heavily on human memory. People might forget exactly what they ate or underreport less healthy food choices, which can affect the accuracy of the data“ – It’s not really a study, more like survey.
>factors included age, sex, education, partner status, *total energy intake*, physical activity, *body mass index*, alcohol consumption, smoking, depression, and the *presence of chronic disease*
This is pretty problematic, as UPF consumption likely increases all of these, and some or all of them could also conceivably partially or fully mediate any effect on mental decline.
By „controlling“ for them they are likely effectively controlling away much of UPF consumption itself, and possibly even the mechanisms by which it affects mental decline.
Studies based on participants self-reporting are building in inherent inaccuracy in their results. I’ll go with one of the numerous other studies that contradict the results of this nonsense.
I hate the labeling for ultra processing.
It is badfaith like so much other fear mongering.
We should be more concerned with simply figuring out healthy diets and how to encourage and provide for such.
Processed foods are minor compared to sorting hunger and health.
Who funded this study I wonder?
Please remove this post – it’s obviously untrue.
I am so tired of „ultra-processed food“ discourse. Half of me feels like this is just misdirection by specific food manufacturers, like the beef and pork industry, to muddy the waters as to the known carcinogenic and otherwise health damaging impacts of our „normal“ diet. Very easy to not talk about the far superior quality controls and animal welfare regulations when you’re too busy fretting about almond milk (which, again, you can make easily, and people have been making since Medevial Europe at least.)
It’s a great boogeyman term as it cannot be actually defined in a meaningful sense. the closest I have heard is „containing ingredients not found in your kitchen.“ As if the average kitchen can’t whip up deep fried foods & french fries and cookies. Ooh, [tomato sauce](https://www.womenshealthmag.com/food/a64728479/ultraprocessed-foods-list-health-effects/) is a UPF? *Which tomato sauce?* The peasant gruel $0.99 version of the one that costs $9.00? If it’s one and not the other, *then it’s not the category of food.* Soda? Many of us have carbonators in our house. Many of us have meat grinding attachments, for that matter.
It’s so dumb and meaningless. You look at other definitions; „how far is it removed from its whole form“- we’re just doing hippie whole food dieting again? I should eat a rotisserie chicken before I eat tofu? Are you stupid? This stuff makes me tear my hair out.
If we want to do nutrition as a science, we need to at least define the concepts before we’re throwing millions of dollars at it.
If this study found the opposite, I doubt there were would be so much resistance to the methodology or wondering whether the funding came from (e.g., Whole Foods or an agricultural lobby).
The scientists were likely hoping to find a positive result since those are generally easier to publish but they found a negative result and didn’t p-hack their way to results.
„study finds studies of ambiguous groupings of multiple variables yield ambiguous results“… Why do we not just do studies on fat content, types of fats, sugar content, fiber content (or lack thereof), etc… Or studies of specific combinations of interest?
I’m still waiting to find a scientific definition of UPF. All the ones I’ve found seem to be based on the idea of what people think is bad and working backwards. Haven’t found one that is based on a first principle approach.
Nova seems to be alright system but it suggests making something at home vs a factory makes it a different category with the same ingredients. There is also differences in countries as what is available for culinary use.
And is it paid for by food industry flunky?