Category: nutrition

Images of frosted chocolate and strawberry poptart boxes, By Zoshua Cohen for Unsplash. More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem
fitness · nutrition · research · Science

More evidence is in: ultra-processed food is a global health problem

catherine wLeave a comment

We are probably all used to getting five-alarm headlines about the perils of some food or other, just to read later on “uh, never mind. It’s all good.” Nutritional research is infamous for big pendulum swings on its pronouncements about the goodness or badness of foods (just search “fit is a feminist issue eggs” for more info).

I’ve written on worries about ultra-processed food a couple of times for the blog:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

Two reasons why the picture on ultra-processed foods and health hasn’t been so clear:

  • The classification system for level of processing in food is a work in progress, and some foods (like grocery store bread) count as ultra-processed even though they have high nutrition value.
  • Our industrial food system delivers mostly processed and ultra-processed food to most people, leaving them with little access to less processed food; so it’s not reasonable to say “don’t eat these foods” without a new plan in mind.

This very useful (and freely accessible) article in the Conversation by the authors of three new papers on ultra-processed foods lays out a clearer and more dire story.

Here’s the short version:

The food industry’s production of processed foods is changing diets worldwide.

In the United States, United Kingdom and Canada, it’s been consistently high for decades (around 50% of daily energy). Ultra-processed foods are essentially the national diet. The same goes for Australia.

It’s not that the global eating public has become lax or lazy– these products are designed not only to be high in sugar, salt, and fat. Their tastes and textures promote overeating.

Crucially, it’s not just about “too much sugar, salt and fat”. Clinicaltrials show that when adults eat diets heavy in ultra-processed foods, they consume about 500–800 extra calories per day, gain weight and fat mass, and eat more rapidly, when compared with eating a non-ultra-processed diet with the same proportions of macronutrients. This is likely because of higher energy density, tastiness, and soft textures that make overeating ultra-processed foods easy.

Almost a hundred long-term studies show significant health risks associated with a diet high in ultra-processed foods.

92 [studies] reported greater associated risks of one or more chronic diseases. Meta-analyses of these studies confirmed associations for obesity, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, cardiovascular disease, chronic kidney disease, Crohn’s disease, depression, and early death from all causes.

Addressing this global health problem requires big policy solutions, not individual willpower.

Steps recommended by the authors of three papers on this subject in the Lancet medical journal are:

  • changing the composition of food products
  • fixing food environments
  • curbing corporate power
  • addressing subsidies and supply chains

Yes, these are nutrition policy wonk solutions, with complex details and long-term goals. But we all know that really big changes rarely happen without a lot of people working together, exerting political, scientific and economic influence.

So, what can we do? Keep reading, keep (or start) cooking when we can, keep voting, and keep remembering that change is slow, but change can and does happen. I believe this, and encourage you to believe it, too.

fitness · nutrition

Sam’s cooking plans ?! (I know, right?)

Sam BLeave a comment

Those who’ve been reading the blog for a while know that cooking is not my thing. And if I didn’t like cooking at the start of the pandemic, I really didn’t like it by the end of the pandemic.

I think I’ve finally recovered from all the pandemic cooking. So much cooking! Yes, Sarah did most of it, but really, there was enough to go around. We even had a night shift of adult kids making chocolate chip cookies and banana bread in the middle of the night.

Mostly when it’s my turn to be the week night cook, I use food that comes in meal kits with “mise en place” instructions. I’m a big fan for reasons of end of day decision fatigue, helping to commit to healthy eating, and avoiding food waste. But I’m actually getting tired of making GoodFood dinners every night. Eating out is an alternative, but it is extremely expensive right now.

So I’m rethinking this cooking thing.

My 25 in 2025 list even included learning to make a new vegan main course. 

Next, a friend made a wonderful vegetable dish. She told me the recipe was from this book. I then acquired the book. (I know, who is this person? What happened to Sam?)

All these things came together and I made Potato and Roasted Cauliflower Salad with Olives, Feta and Arugula from the Six Seasons book.

A version of the recipe is here. The recipe has dairy feta, but vegan feta is easy to find. Or you can just leave it out as there’s already a lot going on.

Next, I made a summer salad that a friend was raving about — featuring peaches, grilled corn, and haloumi. Yum! I made this version with pistachios and pickled onions. Yum! Again, there’s vegan haloumi available these days.

As summer turns into fall, I’m thinking about soups and stews. I’m also looking forward to some of our pandemic favourites, like that black pepper tofu dish that all my feminist philosopher friends learned to make, sharing the recipe on social media. I’ve also been craving tofu and cauliflower wings. And simple things like baked potatoes, sweet potato and black bean chili, and apple pies.

Bring on the fall food. I’m ready!

What are your favourite meals to cook in the fall months? Leave recipes and links in the comments below!

two pringles on a white dinner plate. By Alex Bayev for Unsplash. New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context
fitness · food · nutrition · scuba

New news on ultra-processed food: similar verdict but with more nuance and context

catherine w1 Comment

CW: discussion of eating, processed food, weight, health outcomes

Five years ago, I wrote on this blog about then-new studies on ultra-processed foods. You can check it out here:

The newest processed food nutrition studies: more to chew on

What was the verdict? Ultra-processed food diets were associated with weight gain (compared with minimally processed food diets) as well as increased mortality risk.

Just FYI: ultra-processed foods are pretty much what you think they are. But here’s a definition from the NOVA classification system for foods:

[Ultra-processed foods are] ready-to-eat industrially formulated products that are “made mostly or entirely from substances derived from foods and additives, with little if any [minimally processed plant or animal] foods.

It’s now time for an update.

In a recent scientific advisory, the American Heart Association clarified the messaging around ultra-processed food (UPF) consumption. On the one hand, they advise us to:

  • Reduce the intake of most UPFs, especially junk foods, and
  • Replace most UPFs with healthier options such as vegetables, fruits, whole grains, beans, nuts, seeds, healthy oils, and lean proteins.

However, they also said this:

… not all UPFs are harmful. Certain whole grain breads, low-sugar yogurts, tomato sauces, and nut or bean-based spreads are of better diet quality, have been associated with improved health outcomes, and are affordable, allowing possible inclusion in diets. These food products should be monitored and reformulated if future data show harm to overall health.

The focus should be on cutting back the most harmful UPFs that are already high in unhealthy fats, added sugars, and salt while allowing a small number of select, affordable UPFs of better diet quality to be consumed as part of a healthy dietary pattern.

So what’s the more nuanced message here, and why does it seem like nutrition scientists are pulling their punches on processed foods? These are complicated questions. But, here’s my attempt as a first pass.

We know that a lot of people consume ultra-processed foods for a majority of their daily diets.

Recent data from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) show that from 2021 to 2023, people in the US aged 1 year or older consumed an average of 55% of their calories from ultraprocessed foods. For youth aged 1 to 18 years, ultraprocessed foods made up about 62% of their diets.

Just telling people they’re eating a lot of junky food and to stop it forthwith isn’t an effective public health policy. Instead, we can focus on a few more specific strategies.

Not all food additives are created equal, or equally harmful, or equally regulated. Through a combination of closing some regulatory loopholes on “generally regarded as safe” food additives,, adding front-of-package nutrition labeling for foods, and focusing on specific foods and beverages, nutrition experts argue that a more incremental and nuanced approach holds more promise for improving the public’s health. For instance,

“When we’re shifting the 55% to 60% of calories from ultraprocessed foods,” [nutrition professor Maya Vadiveloo] said, “we really need to be reducing sugar-sweetened beverages, processed meat, candies, baked goods.”

Still, she noted the considerable challenges ahead. It’s difficult for people to make wholesale changes to eating behaviors, especially when there are barriers to accessing and affording more healthful foods. Plus, preparing whole foods often takes longer—time that many households may not have.

“We want people to make healthier choices most of the time, and we need to set up the food environment in a way that allows that, which involves changing so many different things, including the marketing of different foods; the cost of raw ingredients used to make different foods; the availability of adequate fruits and vegetables and whole grains and things that people need to consume more of; and the skills that they need to have to prepare them,” she said.

What does this mean?

Focusing on particular ultra-processed foods–paying more attention to them as individual consumers, community members, voters, and policymakers– can pay off in terms of incremental and sustainable changes in diet patterns, and hopefully public health in the long term.

Also, we need to work towards building a food environment with better access to good-for-us and yummy-tasting fruits, vegetables, whole grains and proteins, which includes pricing and easy consumability (I made up that word, but I mean not having to cook for five hours to make it edible).

How do nutrition experts and medical organizations propose to do this?

They don’t know exactly. But they think it’s important, and need our help. So I though I’d put this in bold letters too.

Personally, I love pictures to help illustrate complicated and often technical messaging. So in summary, even though we often eat like this::

A trio of ultra-processed foods: burgers, chips/crisps, and those candy sprinkles that taste weird
A trio of ultra-processed foods: burgers, chips/crisps, and those candy sprinkles that taste weird

We should apply principles of nuance to our eating, which will help, like this:

This is what Unsplash came up with when I entered "nuance". Good luck to all of us.
This is what Unsplash came up with when I entered “nuance”. Good luck to all of us.

Sometimes a thousand words are better than pictures, eh?

eating · fitness · food · habits · intuitive eating · nutrition · swimming

Noticing What I Eat

Diane HarperLeave a comment

Now that I’m back at the pool regularly, I’m feeling like my body isn’t fitting well into my swimsuit. Normally this doesn’t bother me, but I have a new swimsuit, and new suits are always very tight.

Coincidentally, I have been following a nutritionist who writes about the nutritional contents of many different foods and encourages people to eat at least 5 servings of vegetables and 2 of fruits each day. She doesn’t worry about exact measurements for servings – eyeballing, filling half your plate with vegetables, measuring by using your hand or fist are all valid. Eating a variety of things will probably be just fine for overall nutrition. No foods are off-limits. I find her nonjudgmental approach refreshing.

An example of a plate half filled with veggies. This one is from The Institute for Family Health.

So, as part of my fall routine, I’m trying to be more mindful of what I eat. I am writing very basic notes in a paper journal. I don’t track amounts or types of food. If I had an egg salad sandwich with lettuce and tomato, and ate a peach afterwards, that’s literally all I write down.

I have considered adding a note at the end of the day about whether I felt satisfied, or whether I needed to adjust my meals going forward, but so far I haven’t bothered. I’m just focusing on noticing when I feel satiated and when I feel hungry, and whether I am drinking enough water.

It’s not quite as simple as the principles of intuitive eating that Tracy wrote about many years ago, but it is definitely inspired by that approach.

After 6 days, I have noticed that I don’t normally eat much fruit; having a piece of fruit with two meals a day feels like a lot.

I have also noticed that I don’t always eat as many vegetables as I thought I did. I eat a lot of vegetables most days, so that’s an area for further exploration. Are the servings I estimate too big? Am I underestimating the vegetables I hide in sandwiches, omelettes etc?

Have I noticed any other things? Honestly, no. And I may never notice any. My aim is to see if focusing on the positive aspects of food will help me to make some tweaks to my already fairly healthy eating habits.

If, over the next six months, my bathing suit starts to fit a little more comfortably, that would be nice. But that might have nothing to do with how I eat. It could happen because I’m getting more exercise, or getting more consistent about engaging my core, or because my bathing suit stretches out with wear, as they always do.

An old picture of me playing in the water while wearing a comfortable old swimsuit. Clearly, I am not concerned about how I look as long as I’m having fun.
dried prunes against a blue background. From Wikipedia. Prunes for bone health– who knew? Who wants prunes? Uh…
fitness · nutrition

Prunes for bone health– who knew? Who wants prunes? Uh…

catherine wLeave a comment

Yes, science is always testing more foods that might or might not help us live longer, get less injured, stay more cognitively engaged, or avoid various serious medical conditions.

The latest one of these studies that we’ve come across at Fit is a Feminist Issue is: Prunes.

Yes, these.

Prunes in a bowl, with plums hanging out beside them. From Forks over Knives.
Prunes in a bowl, with plums hanging out beside them. From Forks over Knives.

Prunes are the new new fruit for bone health (well, according to a 2022 study that just came across our social media feeds, and also a 2024 study by the same prune-forward research group).

In the 2022 study, they looked at the impact of daily prune intake on hip bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. They divided the study participants into three groups:

  • no prunes
  • 50 grams of prunes daily (4–6 prunes)
  • 100 grams of prunes daily (10–12 prunes)

What did they find? Read on…

A 50-g daily dose of prunes can prevent loss of total hip BMD in postmenopausal women after 6 mo, which persisted for 12 mo. Given that there was high compliance and retention at the 50-g dosage over 12 mo, we propose that the 50-g dose represents a valuable nonpharmacologic treatment strategy that can be used to preserve hip BMD in postmenopausal women and possibly reduce hip fracture risk. 

Fine print: participants in the 100-gram group (10–12 prunes a day!) didn’t keep up the prune pace very well; their dropout rate was much higher than in the no-prune or the 50-gram group.

The same good prune-induced effects happened in this 2024 study, measuring cortical bone structure and estimated bone strength of the tibia bone in postmenopausal women. Here’s what one of the researchers said in this article:

“This is the first randomized controlled trial to look at three-dimensional bone outcomes with respect to bone structure, geometry and estimated strength,” said Mary Jane De Souza, distinguished professor of kinesiology and physiology at Penn State. “In our study we saw that daily prune consumption impacted factors related to fracture risk. That’s clinically invaluable.”

“It’s pretty exciting data for a 12-month study,” De Souza said. “We were able to maintain and preserve bone at the weight-bearing, cortical bone of the tibia and the maintenance of cortical bone and bone strength is key to avoiding fracture.”

This Penn State-based research group is doing a variety of studies to better understand the relationships between prunes and bone health, including how prune consumption affects the bacteria in the gut biome. I’ll spare you the details, but those really motivated can read more about it here.

Let’s now take a moment to put this new research in perspective.

We have all seen a ton of articles touting some food or supplement and its effects on some aspect of our functioning, longevity and overall health. And (I hope that) we have all learned to take these splashy headlines with a grain or pinch of salt (but not too much salt, as that’s supposed to be bad for us… sigh…)

I mean, it’s hard enough to manage our busy and complex lives without piling on extra daily portions of prunes or blueberries or flaxseed or kale or grapefruit or whatever the new food-of-the-week is. And, the effects of some of these foods on our particular long-term health goals are often pretty diffuse and small, compared to factors like regular physical activity or good sleep.

For me, this prune news has captured enough of my interest that imma buy some prunes and see if I like them enough to eat them regularly. You do you.

Hey readers, any prune fans out there? Let us know– I promise this is a safe space for sharing.

A buffet of egg and waffle and fruit dishes for breakfast. By Rachel Park for unsplash. Is a 55+ breakfast actually a thing? Catherine thinks definitely NOT
diets · eating · fitness · nutrition

Is a 55+ breakfast actually a thing? Catherine thinks definitely NOT

catherine w4 Comments

Dear readers, we at FIt is a Feminist Issue are constantly vigilant, keeping watch for encroaching messaging that suggests that we need to do some ridiculous cockamamie thing in order to maintain our health, fitness, sanity, and good humor as we run, jump. cycle, swim, climb, paddle, and dance our way through the life trajectory.

Here’s the latest insult that Samantha encountered recently. She put out an APBB (all-points-bloggers-bulletin) our our bloggers FB page, and I quickly responded. Take a deep breath, then take a quick look:

A breakfast menu page with the horrifying headline "55+ Menu". I know, I know. Take another deep breath-- I'm handling it.
A breakfast menu page with the insulting and deeply flawed headline “55+ Menu”. I know, I know. Take another deep breath– I’m handling it. It’ll be okay.

You may find yourself intuitively troubled, but not yet able to articulate exactly what is wrong with this picture. Again, don’t worry. Here goes…

On the one hand, the actual listed portions work for me personally (a 3-egg omelette is always more than I want in one sitting). Also, 2 slices of French toasts sounds fine. But I’m not now, nor have I ever been a hearty breakfast eater. Even when cycling or paddling in the morning (yes, I have documentation for these admittedly rare events), I tend to eat a little lighter before activity, and then eat energy bars or blocks during activity. One’s mileage varies.

(Parenthetical note: when ordering two slices of French toast, I’d love an egg on the side, but not an egg*. I have no idea what an egg* is, so am rightly suspicious. More research is needed here).

On the other hand, I strongly resent:

1) the idea that 55+ folks have to worry 1a) about calories; and 1b) about calories more than 54- folks. There’s data to suggest the opposite, namely that as people age, their metabolisms manage body weight differently. In particular, more body weight presents fewer risks to health and mortality in older people than in younger people.

2) the idea that 2a) 55+ people should avoid egg yolks for “health” reasons, or 2b) any folks at all (55+- )should avoid egg yolks for “health” reasons. I just wrote a blog post with the latest in egg-news, including the results of a July 2025 study showing that eating 2 eggs a day in fact reduces LDL cholesterol more than eating a high saturated fat diet, with or without an egg.

3) the suggestion that so-called Fit Fare reflects current– or any– research on 3a) nutritional needs for humans 55+-, or 3b) specialized nutritional needs for folks 55+. I looked around online and didn’t find anything, or at least anything positive to say about chain menus that offer lower-calorie variations on their usually-extremely-high-sodium menu items.

Past marketing research does show that casual-dining chains benefit financially from offering both packaged low-calorie food combos and so-called “healthier” combos. But it doesn’t mean that such combos are a) actually healthier, or b) what I want.

So, readers, when it’s breakfast time, my advice is eat what you want. You’ve got loads of options, no matter whether you are 55+ or 55-.

A montage of unsplash-provided breakfast from around the world. Enjoy...
A montage of unsplash-provided breakfast from around the world. Enjoy…

Hey readers– what DO You eat for breakfast? I’d love to hear your ideas, as it’s fun to switch thiings up every once in a while.

Eggs with funny faces. From Unsplash. Your up-to-the-minute egg news: they’re good for you again (sort of)
fitness · nutrition · research

Your up-to-the-minute egg news: they’re good for you again (sort of)

catherine wLeave a comment

We at Fit as a Feminist Issue have been following and reporting on the eggs-good-eggs-bad nutritional controversy for years now. Researchers simply haven’t been able to decide, and we’ve been there to report.

Are all eggs bad eggs? Blogging the controversy

In remembrance of eggs past, or: not bad egg news again!

The new US dietary guidelines, or: just tell me, are eggs good or bad this year?

In late July of this year, a new study came out about the impact of eggs (which contain a low of dietary cholesterol) vs. saturated fat (which isn’t found in eggs) on our LDL cholesterol levels. And guess what? The eggs came out on top!

Let’s take a closer look at what they did and what it might mean.

Note: this blog post is not meant as medical advice. I am a doctor, but of philosophy, not medicine. But hey, I can read an article as well as the next person… 🙂

The study was pretty simple. Researchers created three groups:

  • high-cholesterol (600 mg/d), low-saturated fat (6%) including 2 eggs/d (EGG);
  • low-cholesterol (300 mg/d), high-saturated fat (12%) without eggs (EGG-FREE);
  • and a high-cholesterol (600 mg/d), high-saturated fat (12%) control diet (CON) including 1 egg/wk. 

For those who are visual processors, see below:

Two-egg-breakfast, a bunch of bacon, and one-egg breakfast.
Two-egg-breakfast, a bunch of bacon, and one-egg breakfast. All in the name of science.

And what did the researchers conclude? I won’t keep you waiting:

Saturated fat, not dietary cholesterol, elevates LDL cholesterol. Compared with consuming a high-saturated fat diet with only 1 egg/wk, consuming 2 eggs daily as part of a low-saturated fat diet lowers LDL concentrations, which may reduce CVD risk. However, this effect on CVD risk may be mitigated, at least in part, by a reduction in less-atherogenic large LDL particles and an increase in more atherogenic small LDL particles.

What does this mean? Well, the study reaffirms what science has known for decades, which is that dietary cholesterol doesn’t contribute to our LDL-cholesterol levels. What does contribute, however, is saturated fat. So, eating a lower-saturated fat diet helps reduce LDL-cholesterol. Which science already knew, but this study shows it. Again.

But what about the business with eating two-eggs-a-day vs. at-most-one-egg-a-week? Aren’t medical folks still recommending not eating a lot of eggs if your cholesterol is higher?

Yes. In this news article, which is about THE NEW STUDY, some medical professionals are still recommending avoiding eggs to manage cholesterol levels.

If you’re concerned about your cholesterol levels, Sharon Palmer, RDN, a registered dietitian nutritionist from California, suggests sticking to egg whites, as most of the cholesterol and saturated fat in eggs are in the yolk.

This woman is sighing in frustration, too.
This woman (who also read the study) is sighing in frustration, too. Thanks British Library, for the photo.

What does all this mean? Well, research, especially research that goes against previously-entrenched medical views, is not taken up and incorporated into medical practice very quickly or easily. Also, nutrition science is one of those areas where people vigorously disagree, even when lots of research seems to be pointing in one direction rather than another.

So, what should you eat for breakfast? It’s up to you, and there are lots of considerations, including health, convenience, access, ethical ramifications, and taste.

But, in honor of the season, may I recommend:

Yogurt with peaches, blueberries and granola. Fancy glass mandatory.
Yogurt with peaches, blueberries and granola. Fancy glass mandatory.
Sam is trying to acclimate to riding in the heat
body image · diets · fitness · normative bodies · nutrition

Sam is trying to acclimate to riding in the heat

Sam B2 Comments

What I read: All the Tips You Need to Survive Cycling in the Heat (Bicycling) and Heat training can help athletes — and the rest of us — adapt to hotter weather (NPR).

Background: Regular readers know I’m worried about riding bikes in our increasingly hot summers. See Cycling in the heat, can we keep doing it? and Cycling in a climate worsening world: Sam is scared.

I’d love to move my serious riding season to the fall but that can’t happen until I retire. It’s dark very early weekdays in the autumn here and most of the big bike rides I train for are in the summer months.

So I’ve been riding in the heat and trying to get used to it. See here and here.

This weekend we tried the first tip in the article mentioned above–getting acclimated. We rode Saturday and Sunday in heat alert conditions, but we didn’t ride very far (45 km one day and 33 km the next).

It’s also known as heat training. From NPR: “Heat training is not just for competitive athletes. It’s recommended for people in the military and those who work outdoors in hot weather. It could even be useful for generally healthy members of the public, O’Connor says. “People should not be afraid of the heat,” he says. “We can develop and add an adaptive response to help us succeed in the heat. But it’s got to be controlled.” Done right, heat training could help people stay a bit more comfortable in the long, intense stretches of heat marking the extraordinarily hot summer of 2024 and future heat waves expected more frequently due to climate change.”

We also wore lots of sunscreen, and Sarah wore her sunsleeves. I didn’t wear mine, but only because I can’t bear putting them on when I’m already sweaty. That’s tip number 2 from the Bicycling article.

We took it easy and didn’t push it too much.

We also put our water bottles in the freezer so they’d be cool to start and we both took one bottle of water and one bottle of Skratch (rehydration formula with sodium.)

After our rides, we sat in the shade in the backyard and finished our water and Skratch.

In the end, I think we thought our approach was a success. We’re going to keep building distances and sticking to the tips above.

I’ve read that as we age it gets harder and harder to cope with high temperatures. See Study: Older Athletes Struggle More in the Heat, Decreased performance in heat can start as early as age 40.

Here’s our happy selfies on the top row and my sweaty recovering selfies at the end of the ride below.

A jar of cow-fat-rendered beef tallow. Beef tallow won’t make anything great again
fitness · nutrition

Beef tallow won’t make anything great again

catherine w

I don’t think there’s a soothsayer around who can predict what sorts of horrific and damaging things the US executive branch and Donald Trump will do next. As a US citizen, I’m heartsick, angry and flummoxed about how to proceed (beyond calling, donating, doing good where I can).

But there’s one recent event, courtesy of Trump’s newly appointed head of the Department of Health and Human Services, Robert Kennedy Jr. (RFK), that I can speak to with confidence. It has to do with beef tallow.

What on earth are you talking about?
What on earth are you talking about?

Apparently RFK is taking some time off from misleading Americans about the efficacy of the measles vaccine to hawk the virtues of french fries cooked in beef tallow.

Now, that seems random.

Yes, this is one of the random things in RFK's brain right now.
Yes, this is one of the random things in RFK’s brain right now.

So, what’s the story? Let’s let the Guardian take over from here.

Robert F Kennedy Jr, the health secretary, appeared with a cheeseburger and fries in a nationally televised interview on Fox News – a highly unusual move for a federal health official.

The appearance, in which he endorsed the decision of the burger chain Steak ‘n Shake to cook its fries in beef tallow, comes as Kennedy has attacked seed oils and made claims about the measles vaccine that lack context.

“We are poisoning ourselves and it’s coming principally from these ultra-processed foods,” said Kennedy, while seated at a table with the Fox News host Sean Hannity.

“President Trump wants us to have radical transparency and incentivize companies like this one to switch traditional ingredients for beef tallow,” Kennedy added, before he was delivered a double cheeseburger and french fries at a restaurant location in Florida.

Hmmm... That doesn't sound right.
Hmmm… That doesn’t sound right.

Good response, yellow smiley. It’s totally not right.

Kennedy is attacking the use of seed oils (e.g. canola, sunflower, safflower oils) in fast food products. He claims that beef tallow is healthier than these oils for frying foods.

In case you’ve forgotten/never known: beef tallow is the rendered fat of animals, made from the hard fat around the organs of ruminants (cows, sheep, etc.) If you’d like to know how to make it, here’s a helpful how-to site. But pictures are worth a thousand words:

Beef kidney fat for making tallow.
Beef kidney fat for making tallow.
Tallow, ready for frying things.
Tallow, ready for frying things.
Nutritional info. You should know.
Nutritional info. You should know.

Now, to give beef tallow its due, various folks swear by it as a facial moisturizer (Eeeew! but you know, different strokes…) And, as a substrate for frying, it has a very high smoke point (400 degrees F/204C). But is it good for you, or even more implausibly, better for you than, say, sunflower oil?

No, of course not! Trust Jackie Chan and me on this.
No, of course not! Trust Jackie Chan and me on this.

But in case you’d like to hear from actual experts, here’s one, from this NPR article:

Dr. Dariush Mozaffarian, a cardiologist and head of the Food is Medicine Institute at Tufts University, told NPR he’s glad Kennedy is concerned about ultra processed foods and the diet-related disease epidemic, which he calls an urgent national crisis.

But, “concern around seed oils is really a distraction, and we need to be focusing on the real problems,” he says.

The real villains, says Mozaffarian, are excessive amounts of refined grains, starches, and sugars, as well as salt and other preservatives, chemical additives, and contaminants from packaging.

“Seed oils are actually the bright spot,” he says. “Seed oils are healthy fats, healthy monounsaturated, polyunsaturated fats that are really good for our bodies.”

He notes that seed oils are well researched and have “incredible evidence” of health benefits, including studies showing they’re linked with lower cholesterol levels and heart disease; randomized trials have shown that consuming seed oil does not cause inflammation.

I might add that, for any of us interested in reducing our intake of animal products, beef tallow is pretty much at the top of the “really, stop eating this” list. Promoting it is perverse, non-health-directed, based on serious falsehoods, and designed to promote particular fast-food chain businesses.

I’m not saying that eating fat is bad. Fat is an important part of any diet. But why go to all the trouble, ickiness, health risk, and moral hazard of consuming beef tallow when an avocado would do nicely instead? I mean:

Who doesn't want some nice guacamole? Thanks Y Virmani for Unsplash.
Who doesn’t want some nice guacamole? Thanks Y Virmani for Unsplash.

I rest my case.

a tray of fried processed food with a coke can. More nutrition news: some confusing, some not
fitness · food · nutrition

More nutrition news: some confusing, some not

catherine w1 Comment

This week in nutrition news we are reminded that ultra-processed foods are bad for us. What does “ultra-processed” mean? Pretty much what you would think– “foods made using industrial methods and ingredients you wouldn’t typically find in grocery stores — like high-fructose corn syrup, hydrogenated oils and concentrated proteins like soy isolate”, according to this NYT article. Everything from sodas to flavored yogurts to boxed mac and cheese to breakfast cereals counts. To paraphrase one of food writer Michael Pollan’s Food Rules, “if it comes from a plant, eat it. If it was made in a plant, don’t.”

So far, so bad. At least we understand this. But wait a second: I just mentioned breakfast cereals in the same damning sentence as boxed mac and cheese. Surely these two foods are not equivalent in their so-called unhealthiness? Right. How processed a food is according to the Nova system some nutrition scientists developed is unrelated to its nutritional content. See below from the NYT:

The Nova system notably doesn’t classify foods based on nutrients like fat, fiber, vitamins or minerals. It’s “agnostic to nutrition,” said Maya Vadiveloo, an associate professor of nutrition at the University of Rhode Island.

That has led to debate among nutrition experts about whether it’s useful for describing the healthfulness of a food, partly since many UPFs[ultra-processed foods] — like whole grain breads, flavored yogurts and infant formulas — can provide valuable nutrients, Dr. Vadiveloo said.

Yeah. Maybe researchers should focus on the nutritional content of the food rather than the extent of its processing when deciding on nutritional recommendations. Just FYI, this isn’t my idea. Some other researchers developed a study to test this claim, which was published this week. Here’s what they found:

A new study demonstrates that eating primarily minimally processed foods, as they are defined by the NOVA classification system, does not automatically make for a healthy diet, suggesting that the types of foods we eat may matter more than the level of processing used to make them.

Comparing two menus reflecting a typical Western diet -; one emphasizing minimally processed foods and the other emphasizing ultra-processed foods, as categorized by the NOVA classification system -; the researchers found that the less processed menu was more than twice as expensive and reached its expiration date over three times faster without delivering any additional nutritional value.

“This study indicates that it is possible to eat a low-quality diet even when choosing mostly minimally processed foods,” said Julie Hess, PhD, a research nutritionist at the USDA-ARS Grand Forks Human Nutrition Research Center, who led the study. “It also shows that more-processed and less-processed diets can be equally nutritious (or non-nutritious), but the more-processed diet may have a longer shelf life and be less costly.”

Wow. If that’s true, then why are nutrition researchers telling us that ultra-processed foods are bad for us? I mean, if it’s possible to eat an equally nutritious diet that is a) cheaper; and b)lasts longer in the fridge or on the shelf, then what’s the problem?

There is research suggesting that eating ultra-processed foods may be linked to medical conditions like type 2 diabetes and heart disease. But this research is observational, so it’s hard to make strong conclusions. The NYT cites one small study of 20 adults who were given a diet of minimally processed food for two weeks and an ultra-processed menu for two weeks. On average, they gained weight on the ultra-processed menu and lost it on the minimally-processed menu, even though the menus were adjusted to be calorie-equivalent. In short, it looks like they ate more of the ultra-processed food.

Clearly, more studies are needed to try to sort this out. But what are we to do in the meantime? One expert in the NYT says this:

Cook at home as much as you can, using minimally processed foods, Dr. Davy said. “We can’t really say a whole lot beyond that at this point.”

Great. And I am aware that you, dear readers, are left not knowing more about nutrition than you did before you starting reading. But don’t worry, because I have some actual definitive nutrition news for you that’s not at all confusing. Here it is, again from the NYT:

Watermelon is really good for us. It’s hydrating, not very sugary (yes, this is true!), and it isn’t not heart-healthy (which is to say, they don’t know if it’s promotes cardiovascular health, but it doesn’t hurt).

Whew. That’s a relief. Now we can all proceed to enjoy lovely fresh summer watermelon with no hesitation. You’re welcome…

I could eat one of these big juicy watermelon pieces in a single summer picnic.