Ultra-processed foods are not poison

One of embarrassments of our time is the medicalization of food. No, kale isn’t a superfood. No, Froot Loops are not poison. Food isn’t medicine.

As for the risks of ultra-processed foods, any pharmacologist or toxicologist will tell you that the dose makes the poison.

Ultra-processed foods don’t cause obesity. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than you burn. Your body can’t tell what those calories came from, but if you take in too many calories, the excess is stored as fat.

In reality, some ultra-processed foods are supplemented with vitamins and minerals. Here’s what’s in Cheerios, an ultra-processed breakfast cereal:

Whole Grain Oats, Corn Starch, Sugar, Salt, Tripotassium Phosphate. Vitamin E (mixed tocopherols) Added to Preserve Freshness. Vitamins and Minerals: Calcium Carbonate, Iron and Zinc (mineral nutrients), Vitamin C (sodium ascorbate), A B Vitamin (niacinamide), Vitamin B6 (pyridoxine hydrochloride), Vitamin A (palmitate), Vitamin B1 (thiamin mononitrate), A B Vitamin (folic acid), Vitamin B12, Vitamin D3.

Compare that to celery, an unprocessed food. Cheerios have more nutritional value, hands down.

I don’t recommend Cheerios as a sole source of calories, even if you do include a splash of milk. But Cheerios won’t kill you, and if you consume it in moderation as part of a balanced diet, it won’t make you obese.

If you are a grown-up and you get most of your calories from junk food, don’t blame the food industry for your bad choices. Yes, junk food is designed to taste yummy and is heavily marketed. SUVs are designed to appeal to American drivers and are heavily marketed too, and nobody complains about being compelled to drive an SUV.

And before anyone attacks me for it, yes, I know there are genetic drivers of obesity and that none of use controls our genetics. But if you don’t have a genetic disorder, stop looking for an external locus of control. Be better.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more