Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk | Hacker News Reader

Consumption of ultra-processed foods and cancer risk

bmj.com

40 pointsmgiannopoulos32 comments

The largest data set I’ve come across so far in nutrition studies and seems like they put a lot of effort into the data analysis to correct for other cancer promoting factors like age, gender, physical activity, smoking behavior etc. (Overall pretty impressive study in my opinion, although I’m not an expert)

Yet, for example, the group with the highest amount of ultra processed food in their diet contains 6% more smokers and 10% less physical activity. They correct for each factor individually but the combined effect of the two might lead to a higher risk than expected. To get these combined effects right you need a lot more data though and it’s probably hard to get good statistics on people which do a lot of sports don’t smoke and eat a lot of ultra processed food.

Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. I would expect a statement like “if you neither smoke, do sports, and eat healthy food you have x% less chance to get cancer” to be more sound.

"Which brings me to the question, why for these studies it is always so desirable to find out the increase in risk of a single factor. "

I would say remains of Descartes etc. The (outdated) philosophy, that everything can be broken down to single factors and then correctly calculated ... It took science some time to realize that the world is too (infinite) complicated to be calculated.

It surely helps though, to know the probable impact of single factors. But I believe we still generalizing way too much. Fat is bad, Sugar is bad, Cholesterine is bad (no wait good), Alcohol, smoking etc. ...

Which, I believe is stupid, when humans are complex and moderation and balance is the key. (even smoking can be beneficial I believe, for certain people at certain times, not as a addiction, obviously)

So seeing those single factors from studies help us as guidelines, but shouldn't be taken literally.

Do you have an example in mind for when smoking would be healthy for you?

When it acts as a very occasional mental salve in the face of undue stress?

For example.

But also when it comes more in a form of a ritual for spiritual (or psychological) progress. Many native american traditions used it that way, or as a way to bond in a group and solve complicated matters like peace and war.

When consumed in small quantities, I believe the body and lungs does not sustain harm - short stress yes, but not real harm. (just training?) Don't know about any studies which support that, but that is my personal experience.

Didn’t most studies found correlation between smoking and cancer as well as a myriad of other diseases but didn’t actually managed to corolate the number of cigarettes per day to a specific increase?

So while one cigarette every six months might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think.

"might not be catastrophic the difference between a pack a day and a pack a week might not be as big as you think."

Interesting, do you have any studies at hand? (but I would also never argue, that one pack a week is beneficial)

What I could observe with me, that smoking daily clearly (one cigarette) effected my lungs. So the number needs to be much lower ...

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2865193/

This is a newer study which shows same cardio vascular risk, somewhat reduced cancer risk and overall similar overall mortality risk between light smokers (1-4 cigs a day) and heavy smokers.

Light smoking is something which is very hard to study since it’s often a transient behavior and people tend not to classify them selves as smokers if the smoke substantially less than one pack a day.

That said I don’t really see any possitive effects of light or intermittent smoking it might not be as bad as smoking 4 packs a day but it’s definitely outweighs any possible benefits of smoking such as stress relief.

Weed or wanking in the bathroom seems to be a better alternative to dealing with stress....

Isn't smoking cigarettes protective against Parkinson's?

This research is quite timely. A recent survey of ultra-processed food sales in 19 European countries showed a wide variety in the purchasing habits of different countries.

UK consumers purchase the most ultra-processed food as a proportion of their diet (50.7%), followed by Germany (46.2%) and then Ireland (45.9%). Portugal consumes the least (10.2%).

France, Italy and Greece all had relatively low consumption figures as well.

Here is the full list (ultra-processed food as a % of household purchases)

1. UK: 50.7

2. Germany: 46.2

3. Ireland: 45.9

4. Belgium: 44.6

5. Finland: 40.9

6. Poland: 36.9

7. Austria: 35.0

8. Latvia: 32.9

9. Malta: 27.6

10. Lithuania 26.4

11. Hungary: 21.1

12. Spain: 20.3

13: Slovakia: 20.2

14. Cyprus: 20.1

15. Croatia: 17.9

16. France: 14.2

17. Greece: 13.7

18. Italy: 13.4

19. Portugal: 10.2

From: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/feb/02/ultra-proces...

This reminds me of Talebs argument that we should be careful to put stuff through our digestive system that didn't have the chance yet to get filtered out by tens of thousands of years of evolution. That's a pretty extrem position obviously, but I think the general direction makes sense. Even if we can test individual parts of those ultra-processed foods and not find direct risk immediately, the risk of putting all that stuff together in your body 50% of the time may just create way more risk than could ever be found by isolated clinical studies.

What always amazed me is why Americans rely so much on processed foods? It seems like a cultural thing - you go out and buy a bunch of packages and then heat them instead of just cooking a meal from natural ingredients like we (mostly) do in Europe. And food companies bend over backwards to make everything even more processed.

What's wrong with fresh tomatoes? Why don't you buy fresh vegetables and make a nice meal at home? Is it about saving time? I could never understand it.

> What's wrong with fresh tomatoes?

They're super bland most of the time (unless you're willing to pay a premium for the more flavourful varieties and those can be hit and miss aswell) - I usually just get canned ones unless I specifically need fresh ones

I do get your point though, making a meal from scratch can be so much better, both taste and health wise, with a bit of practice - not to mention it's relaxing to do the actual chopping & cooking usually

Beefsteak tomatoes are super bland, as is iceberg lettuce, because they are selected for volume, not taste (it's the best way to make a profit while keeping end-consumer prices low). Same goes for most large varieties of produce.

Try getting some heirloom tomatoes from a farmer's market, or grow your own. You'll be shocked at the difference. Tomatoes (real ones) have a distinctive and delicious taste!

You do realize that if you live in a place and time where tomatoes are super bland, the question of having tomatoes does not even exist. Eat local food :-)

I'm like you : tomates in ca only, cos anything else in my country is not tomato : it's a reddish thing that tastes absolutely nothing.

They could be, as are the tomatoes I can find in Los Angeles, but there are some very tasty kinds (though never remember what what is). Back in Bulgaria, in my father in-law's village house the veggies are always tasty (it could be something else happening in my brain that makes them so, but that's how I started eating more hot peppers, by first trying his own ones, then liking it more and more).

Mine aren't. From the plants in the garden - super tasty, colorful and prodigious. Fill the freezer every summer, use them in cooking all winter.

Spring sucks though - freezer is empty, waiting for the new plants to deliver the first cherry tomatoes.

Coincidentally this rant from British food writer Jack Monroe in defence of the ready meal in the context of poverty and insecure living situations just passed my twitter: https://cookingonabootstrap.com/2018/02/17/my-ready-meal-is-...

(hilariously that URL is blacklisted from HN "submit")

Well, but that's about a very specific situation: how many people can't cook because they can't use any kind of stove or oven?

Is it about saving time

Yes. Time and effort.

Effort is really mostly a bit of training and understanding of preparation. For example, I make a kind of base mixed salad 2 times a week, that costs me 5 minutes each time to cut a few vegetables and mix them with oil and vinegar. But I have that base salad to mix with fresh leaves every day then for zero preparation time. Similar can be done with warm food that you can store and warm up for multiple days, for example soup.

The effort argument often reminds me of people who have incredibly inefficient workflows in their computer tasks, simply because they never learned how to do it right in the first place.

In Norway, cooking, nutrition and house work is a subject in school called heimkunnskap (Home knowledge) or at least we used to have it. Not sure about todays kids.

So everyone here has learned how to do basic cooking and what a healthy diet should consist of. It's not like everybody are doing it but at least the basic knowledge is there.

Sometimes making food from scratch is actually easier too than making it from store bought packages.

We used to have “Home Economics” in the US that taught cooking, paying bills and balancing a household budget. They deleted that class from public school curriculum, along with Civics, Cursive Handwriting and Physical Education. At least that’s how it is in LA Unified. We had a coach once a week, at my daughter’s former school, paid for by funds raised by parents.

> In Norway, cooking, nutrition and house work is a subject in school called heimkunnskap (Home knowledge)

In the US, the equivalent subject was called Home Economics, and was focused on women. This article goes through the history of the field: https://www.bitchmedia.org/article/what-happened-to-home-eco... (keep in mind that the publication is biased, as all are)

> in the 1950s and ’60s [...] in many cases, home ec departments were eliminated, renamed, or folded into other departments, and funding was cut (although administrators’ salaries typically rose). “Administrators, all male then, held skeptical and hostile attitudes toward home economics, even as they expressed unabashed ignorance about the field,” Margaret W. Rossiter writes

> In Norway, cooking, nutrition and house work is a subject in school called heimkunnskap (Home knowledge) or at least we used to have it. Not sure about todays kids.

That's really great. Of all the things constantly added to the expectations on schools, this is one that can have such a massive impact on many levels.

We have same thing in Lithuania. I also learned some basic woodwork. The lessons were super lame though due to few resource to have hands-on work. It was pretty much a useless lesson that everybody saw as OK to skip if you felt like it.

Fun thing is, I hated those lessons. I fell in love with this kind of work later on though. Now I want a wood workshop in my garage. Need to afford a garage first though...

Anyhow, this kind of lessons is definitely helpful. I see them as sort of compilation of "how to X" Youtube videos. With a teacher to help you with more complicated steps.

That is also a subject here containing woodwork, knitting and sowing among things :)

The woodworking/mechanics part is called "sløyd" and the other is "forming" (shaping).

I was expecting this answer as it's consistent with what my friends say. It's like someone managed to convince the whole nation that cooking takes an enormous amount of time and effort - so huge that people prefer to eat inferior quality of food just to avoid a bit of cooking.

it's not saving time/effort : it's trading time/effort for better food. A bit nitpicking, but for me there is a very conscious choice. Time/effort are not a bad consequence of cooking; they're an integral part of it.

what is it in highly processed food that causes cancer?

is it all processes that do it? or does some highly processed food NOT have a link to cancer because they're processed differently?

Though I personally avoid processed foods because I believe that promotes health, I have to caution you to slow down there a second. This is a cohort study, which identifies correlation, but does not prove causation. This work is a call to action to perhaps the same institution that ran the study, or other public-interest institutions, to search for links.

However, if you’re very interested in learning about the differences between processed vs. home made food, I recommend “Nourising Traditions”. This book, more than anything else, has changed our approach to cooking and food selection. And I can feel the difference.

“Conclusions: In this large prospective study, a 10% increase in the proportion of ultra-processed foods in the diet was associated with a significant increase of greater than 10% in risks of overall and breast cancer.“

And, here is what highly processed means: “mass produced packaged breads and buns; sweet or savoury packaged snacks; industrialised confectionery and desserts; sodas and sweetened drinks; meat balls, poultry and fish nuggets, and other reconstituted meat products transformed with addition of preservatives other than salt (for example, nitrites); instant noodles and soups; frozen or shelf stable ready meals; and other food products made mostly or entirely from sugar, oils and fats, and other substances not commonly used in culinary preparations such as hydrogenated oils, modified starches, and protein isolates. Industrial processes notably include hydrogenation, hydrolysis, extruding, moulding, reshaping, and pre-processing by frying.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com