Podcasts about UPF

San Francisco is suing the makers of ultra processed food or UPFs, arguing local government is picking up the bill for the serious health consequences from their products; including conditions like obesity, diabetes, fatty liver disease & cancer. 10 companies including Nestle, Coca Cola, Pepsi, Kraft Heinz and Mondelez are targeted in the legal action. Professor Boyd Swinburn from the University of Auckland's school of population health spoke to Lisa Owen.

In this episode, we sit down with integrative oncologist and metabolic health pioneer Dr. Nasha Winters (who insists we call her Nasha) to explore the powerful intersection of cancer, ultra-processed foods, metabolism, and sovereignty. Nasha shares her astonishing personal story: years of dismissed symptoms, normalized suffering, and relentless gaslighting that culminated in a diagnosis of end-stage ovarian cancer at age 19—and being sent home to die. Thirty-four years later, she's very much alive and leading a global movement to rethink cancer as a metabolic, terrain-driven disease rather than a purely genetic accident. We talk about how ultra-processed foods don't just starve our mitochondria—they starve our sovereignty, hijack our decision-making, and fracture our relationship with our own bodies. Along the way, Nasha invites us to move away from perfectionism and fragility and toward aligned, values-based choices and fierce self-responsibility. In this episode, we explore: Nasha's "pain to purpose" story Chronic health issues from infancy through adolescence: PCOS, endometriosis, autoimmune issues, RA, IBS, thyroid dysfunction, and more—constantly normalized and medicated. Being diagnosed with end-stage ovarian cancer at 19, with full bowel obstruction, organ failure, metastasis, and "3 months to live." How being sent home to die became the catalyst for asking "Why?" and beginning her life's work. A metabolic and psychological reset Why a prolonged period of fasting (due to bowel obstruction) functioned as an unplanned metabolic intervention. How an accidental very high-dose psilocybin experience in 1991 fundamentally changed her perspective, reduced her fear of death, and gave her a will to live. The insight that cancer is not just genetic—but deeply tied to environment, metabolism, trauma, and disconnection from nature. Cancer as an ecosystem, not a battlefield What Nasha means by seeing the body as an ecosystem instead of a war zone. How we are in constant relationship with our internal and external environments—our bodies, food systems, and the land all reflecting each other. Ultra-processed foods and cancer terrain Why ultra-processed foods are "as genetically mismatched as it gets" for humans. How UPFs impact all the hallmarks of cancer—driving inflammation, insulin resistance, oxidative stress, mitochondrial dysfunction, and brain hijacking. The role of emulsifiers, preservatives, seed oils, and other additives in damaging the gut, microbiome, and immune surveillance. Why "a little" ultra-processed food isn't neutral for people with a vulnerable system—and why in her oncology population, UPF often has to be all-or-nothing. Metabolic sovereignty vs. perfectionism Nasha's powerful idea that UPFs don't just starve our mitochondria—they starve our sovereignty. What it means to choose health as alignment, not achievement. How social pressure, cultural norms, and "moderation" language rob people of agency. Practical examples of reclaiming sovereignty: bringing your own wine, your own safe foods, and modeling a different way without preaching. Working with food addiction and emotional eating (without shame) How she meets people gently where they are, especially those whose only "comfort" has been food. "Upgrading" comfort foods and using cooking and eating as a creative, relational, and communal act rather than a shame-based one. Her boundary as a clinician: "I'm not willing to work harder than you." How that shifted outcomes and reduced codependency. Community, clinicians, and doing this together How she used farmers' markets and health-food store "field trips" as non-shaming education: reading labels together, swapping recipes, and making it fun. Seasonal group cleanses and experiments that removed UPFs without moralizing and re-connected people to real food. Justice, food deserts, and real solutions Stories from working in Indigenous and low-resource communities and helping reintroduce native seeds and traditional foodways. The Food-as-Medicine movement: projects like FreshRx, where CSA boxes for people with type 2 diabetes significantly lowered A1C and healthcare costs. Why she believes, increasingly, that the resources are there—and the work now is connection, awareness, and community organizing. A hopeful vision for the next 5 years Policy shifts around dietary guidelines and school food. Regenerative agriculture movements, farmer-led organizations, and bringing environmental, metabolic, mental health, and food systems together under one roof. Her dream project: a 1,200-acre regenerative farm, intentional community, and metabolic oncology hospital in Arizona. One small step you can take this week Start with non-judgmental awareness: a simple food and feeling diary. Her "triage" before reaching for UPFs: Big glass of water A bit of protein A bit of fat Then the UPF if you still truly want it—no self-punishment. How small wins ("I didn't eat the thing") build fierceness and confidence over time. Our signature question What Nasha would tell her younger self about ultra-processed foods: "I'm choosing health as alignment, not as achievement." Using food choices to align with who you really are and who you're becoming, rather than chasing perfection or performance. Connect with Dr. Nasha Winters Website, offerings, and clinician training: DrNasha.com Podcast: Metabolic Matters Social: Dr. Nasha / Nasha Winters across platforms Facebook Instagram Book: Metabolic Approach to Cancer: Integrating Deep Nutrition, The Ketogenic Diet, and Nontoxic Bio-Individualized Therapies   The content of our show is educational only. It does not supplement or supersede your healthcare provider's professional relationship and direction. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified mental health providers with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, substance use disorder, or mental health concern.

In this episode, Kelly Brownell speaks with Jerold Mande, CEO of Nourish Science, adjunct professor at the Harvard School of Public Health, and former Deputy Undersecretary for Food Safety at the USDA. They discuss the alarming state of children's health in America, the challenges of combating poor nutrition, and the influence of the food industry on public policy. The conversation explores the parallels between the tobacco and food industries and proposes new strategies for ensuring children reach adulthood in good health. Mande emphasizes the need for radical changes in food policy and the role of public health in making these changes. Transcript So, you co-founded this organization along with Jerome Adams, Bill Frist and Thomas Grumbly, as we said, to ensure every child breaches age 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health. That's a pretty tall order given the state of the health of youth today in America. But let's start by you telling us what inspired this mission and what does it look like to achieve this in today's food environment? I was trained in public health and also in nutrition and in my career, which has been largely in service of the public and government, I've been trying to advance those issues. And unfortunately over the arc of my career from when I started to now, particularly in nutrition and public health, it's just gotten so much worse. Indeed today Americans have the shortest lifespans by far. We're not just last among the wealthy countries, but we're a standard deviation last. But probably most alarming of all is how sick our children are. Children should not have a chronic disease. Yet in America maybe a third do. I did some work on tobacco at one point, at FDA. That was an enormous success. It was the leading cause of death. Children smoked at a higher rate, much like child chronic disease today. About a third of kids smoked. And we took that issue on, and today it's less than 2%. And so that shows that government can solve these problems. And since we did our tobacco work in the early '90s, I've changed my focus to nutrition and public health and trying to fix that. But we've still made so little progress. Give us a sense of how far from that goal we are. So, if the goal is to make every child reaching 18 at a healthy weight and in good metabolic health, what percentage of children reaching age 18 today might look like that? It's probably around a half or more, but we're not quite sure. We don't have good statistics. One of the challenges we face in nutrition is, unfortunately, the food industry or other industries lobby against funding research and data collection. And so, we're handicapped in that way. But we do know from the studies that CDC and others have done that about 20% of our children have obesity about a similar number have Type 2 diabetes or the precursors, pre-diabetes. You and I started off calling it adult-onset diabetes and they had to change that name to a Type 2 because it's becoming so common in kids. And then another disease, fatty liver disease, really unthinkable in kids. Something that the typical pediatrician would just never see. And yet in the last decade, children are the fastest growing group. I think we don't know an exact number, but today, at least a third, maybe as many as half of our children have a chronic disease. Particularly a food cause chronic disease, or the precursors that show they're on the way. I remember probably going back about 20 years, people started saying that we were seeing the first generation of American children that would lead shorter lives than our parents did. And what a terrible legacy to leave our children. Absolutely. And that's why we set that overarching goal of ensuring every child reaches age 18 in good metabolic health. And the reason we set that is in my experience in government, there's a phrase we all use - what gets measured gets done. And when I worked at FDA, when I worked at USDA, what caught my attention is that there is a mission statement. There's a goal of what we're trying to achieve. And it's ensuring access to healthy options and information, like a food label. Now the problem with that, first of all, it's failed. But the problem with that is the bureaucrats that I oversaw would go into a supermarket, see a produce section, a protein section, the food labels, which I worked on, and say we've done our job. They would check those boxes and say, we've done it. And yet we haven't. And if we ensured that every child reaches age 18 at a healthy weight and good metabolic health, if the bureaucrats say how are we doing on that? They would have to conclude we're failing, and they'd have to try something else. And that's what we need to do. We need to try radically different, new strategies because what we've been doing for decades has failed. You mentioned the food industry a moment ago. Let's talk about that in a little more detail. You made the argument that food companies have substituted profits for health in how they design their products. Explain that a little bit more, if you will. And tell us how the shift has occurred and what do you think the public health cost has been? Yes, so the way I like to think of it, and your listeners should think of it, is there's a North star for food design. And from a consumer standpoint, I think there are four points on the star: taste, cost, convenience, and health. That's what they expect and want from their food. Now the challenge is the marketplace. Because that consumer, you and I, when we go to the grocery store and get home on taste, cost, and convenience, if we want within an hour, we can know whether the food we purchased met our standard there. Or what our expectations were. Not always for health. There's just no way to know in a day, a week, a month, even in a year or more. We don't know if the food we're eating is improving and maintaining our health, right? There should be a definition of food. Food should be what we eat to thrive. That really should be the goal. I borrowed that from NASA, the space agency. When I would meet with them, they said, ' Jerry, it's important. Right? It's not enough that people just survive on the food they eat in space. They really need to thrive.' And that's what WE need to do. And that's really what food does, right? And yet we have food, not only don't we thrive, but we get sick. And the reason for that is, as I was saying, the marketplace works on taste, cost and convenience. So, companies make sure their products meet consumer expectation for those three. But the problem is on the fourth point on the star: on health. Because we can't tell in even years whether it's meeting our expectation. That sort of cries out. You're at a policy school. Those are the places where government needs to step in and act and make sure that the marketplace is providing. That feedback through government. But the industry is politically strong and has prevented that. And so that has left the fourth point of the star open for their interpretation. And my belief is that they've put in place a prop. So, they're making decisions in the design of the product. They're taste, they gotta get taste right. They gotta get cost and convenience right. But rather than worrying what does it do to your health? They just, say let's do a profit. And that's resulted in this whole category of food called ultra-processed food (UPF). I actually believe in the future, whether it's a hundred years or a thousand years. If humanity's gonna thrive we need manmade food we can thrive on. But we don't have that. And we don't invest in the science. We need to. But today, ultra-processed food is manmade food designed on taste, cost, convenience, and then how do we make the most money possible. Now, let me give you one other analogy, if I could. If we were CEOs of an automobile company, the mission is to provide vehicles where people can get safely from A to point B. It's the same as food we can thrive on. That is the mission. The problem is that when the food companies design food today, they've presented to the CEO, and everyone gets excited. They're seeing the numbers, the charts, the data that shows that this food is going to meet, taste, cost, convenience. It's going to make us all this money. But the CEO should be asking this following question: if people eat this as we intend, will they thrive? At the very least they won't get sick, right? Because the law requires they can't get sick. And if the Midmanagers were honest, they'd say here's the good news boss. We have such political power we've been able to influence the Congress and the regulatory agencies. That they're not going to do anything about it. Taste, cost, convenience, and profits will work just fine. Couldn't you make the argument that for a CEO to embrace that kind of attitude you talked about would be corporate malpractice almost? That, if they want to maximize profits then they want people to like the food as much as possible. That means engineering it in ways that make people overeat it, hijacking the reward pathways in the brain, and all that kind of thing. Why in the world would a CEO care about whether people thrive? Because it's the law. The law requires we have these safety features in cars and the companies have to design it that way. And there's more immediate feedback with the car too, in terms of if you crashed right away. Because it didn't work, you'd see that. But here's the thing. Harvey Wiley.He's the founder of the food safety programs that I led at FDA and USDA. He was a chemist from academia. Came to USDA in the late 1800s. It was a time of great change in food in America. At that point, almost all of families grew their own food on a farm. And someone had to decide who's going to grow our food. It's a family conversation that needed to take place. Increasingly, Americans were moving into the cities at that time, and a brand-new industry had sprung up to feed people in cities. It was a processed food industry. And in order to provide shelf stable foods that can offer taste, cost, convenience, this new processed food industry turned to another new industry, a chemical industry. Now, it's hard to believe this, but there was a point in time that just wasn't an industry. So these two big new industries had sprung up- processed food and chemicals. And Harvey Wiley had a hypothesis that the chemicals they were using to make these processed foods were making us sick. Indeed, food poisoning back then was one of the 10 leading causes of death. And so, Harvey Wiley went to Teddy Roosevelt. He'd been trying for years within the bureaucracy and not making progress. But when Teddy Roosevelt came in, he finally had the person who listened to him. Back then, USDA was right across from the Washington Monument to the White House. He'd walk right over there into the White House and met with Teddy Roosevelt and said, ' this food industry is making us sick. We should do something about it.' And Teddy Roosevelt agreed. And they wrote the laws. And so I think what your listeners need to understand is that when you look at the job that FDA and USDA is doing, their food safety programs were created to make sure our food doesn't make us sick. Acutely sick. Not heart disease or cancer, 30, 40 years down the road, but acutely sick. No. I think that's absolutely the point. That's what Wiley was most concerned about at the time. But that's not the law they wrote. The law doesn't say acutely ill. And I'll give you this example. Your listeners may be familiar with something called GRAS - Generally Recognized as Safe. It's a big problem today. Industry co-opted the system and no longer gets approval for their food additives. And so, you have this Generally Recognized as Safe system, and you have these chemicals and people are worried about them. In the history of GRAS. Only one chemical has FDA decided we need to get that off the market because it's unsafe. That's partially hydrogenated oils or trans-fat. Does trans-fat cause acute illness? It doesn't. It causes a chronic disease. And the evidence is clear. The agency has known that it has the responsibility for both acute and chronic illness. But you're right, the industry has taken advantage of this sort of chronic illness space to say that that really isn't what you should be doing. But having worked at those agencies, I don't think they see it that way. They just feel like here's the bottom line on it. The industry uses its political power in Congress. And it shapes the agency's budget. So, let's take FDA. FDA has a billion dollars with a 'b' for food safety. For the acute food safety, you're talking about. It has less than 25 million for the chronic disease. There are about 1400 deaths a year in America due to the acute illnesses caused by our food that FDA and USDA are trying to prevent. The chronic illnesses that we know are caused by our food cause 1600 maybe a day. More than that of the acute every day. Now the agency should be spending at least half its time, if not more, worrying about those chronic illness. Why doesn't it? Because the industry used their political power in Congress to put the billion dollars for the acute illness. That's because if you get acutely ill, that's a liability concern for them. Jerry let's talk about the political influence in just a little more detail, because you're in a unique position to tell us about this because you've seen it from the inside. One mechanism through which industry might influence the political process is lobbyists. They hire lobbyists. Lobbyists get to the Congress. People make decisions based on contributions and things like that. Are there other ways the food industry affects the political process in addition to that. For example, what about the revolving door issue people talk about where industry people come into the administrative branch of government, not legislative branch, and then return to industry. And are there other ways that the political influence of the industry has made itself felt? I think first and foremost it is the lobbyists, those who work with Congress, in effect. Particularly the funding levels, and the authority that the agencies have to do that job. I think it's overwhelmingly that. I think second, is the influence the industry has. So let me back up to that a sec. As a result of that, we spend very little on nutrition research, for example. It's 4% of the NIH budget even though we have these large institutes, cancer, heart, diabetes, everyone knows about. They're trying to come up with the cures who spend the other almost 50 billion at NIH. And so, what happens? You and I have both been at universities where there are nutrition programs and what we see is it's very hard to not accept any industry money to do the research because there isn't the federal money. Now, the key thing, it's not an accident. It's part of the plan. And so, I think that the research that we rely on to do regulation is heavily influenced by industry. And it's broad. I've served, you have, others, on the national academies and the programs. When I've been on the inside of those committees, there are always industry retired scientists on those committees. And they have undue influence. I've seen it. Their political power is so vast. The revolving door, that is a little of both ways. I think the government learns from the revolving door as well. But you're right, some people leave government and try to undo that. Now, I've chosen to work in academia when I'm not in government. But I think that does play a role, but I don't think it plays the largest role. I think the thing that people should be worried about is how much influence it has in Congress and how that affects the agency's budgets. And that way I feel that agencies are corrupted it, but it's not because they're corrupted directly by the industry. I think it's indirectly through congress. I'd like to get your opinion on something that's always relevant but is time sensitive now. And it's dietary guidelines for America. And the reason I'm saying it's time sensitive is because the current administration will be releasing dietary guidelines for America pretty soon. And there's lots of discussion about what those might look like. How can they help guide food policy and industry practices to support healthier children and families? It's one of the bigger levers the government has. The biggest is a program SNAP or food stamps. But beyond that, the dietary guidelines set the rules for government spending and food. So, I think often the way the dietary guidelines are portrayed isn't quite accurate. People think of it in terms of the once (food) Pyramid now the My Plate that's there. That's the public facing icon for the dietary guidelines. But really a very small part. The dietary guidelines are meant to help shape federal policy, not so much public perception. It's there. It's used in education in our schools - the (My) Plate, previously the (Food) Pyramid. But the main thing is it should shape what's served in government feeding programs. So principally that should be SNAP. It's not. But it does affect the WIC program- Women, Infants and Children, the school meals program, all of the military spending on food. Indeed, all spending by the government on food are set, governed by, or directed by the dietary guidelines. Now some of them are self-executing. Once the dietary guidelines change the government changes its behavior. But the biggest ones are not. They require rulemaking and in particular, today, one of the most impactful is our kids' meals in schools. So, whatever it says in these dietary guidelines, and there's reason to be alarmed in some of the press reports, it doesn't automatically change what's in school meals. The Department of Agriculture would have to write a rule and say that the dietary guidelines have changed and now we want to update. That usually takes an administration later. It's very rare one administration could both change the dietary guidelines and get through the rulemaking process. So, people can feel a little reassured by that. So, how do you feel about the way things seem to be taking shape right now? This whole MAHA movement Make America Healthy Again. What is it? To me what it is we've reached this tipping point we talked about earlier. The how sick we are, and people are saying, 'enough. Our food shouldn't make us sick at middle age. I shouldn't have to be spending so much time with my doctor. But particularly, it shouldn't be hard to raise my kids to 18 without getting sick. We really need to fix that and try to deal with that.' But I think that the MAHA movement is mostly that. But RFK and some of the people around them have increasingly claimed that it means some very specific things that are anti-science. That's been led by the policies around vaccine that are clearly anti-science. Nutrition is more and more interesting. Initially they started out in the exact right place. I think you and I could agree the things they were saying they need to focus on: kids, the need to get ultra-processed food out of our diets, were all the right things. In fact, you look at the first report that RFK and his team put out back in May this year after the President put out an Executive Order. Mostly the right things on this. They again, focus on kids, ultra-processed food was mentioned 40 times in the report as the root cause for the very first time. And this can't be undone. You had the White House saying that the root cause of our food-caused chronic disease crisis is the food industry. That's in a report that won't change. But a lot has changed since then. They came out with a second report where the word ultra-processed food showed up only once. What do you think happened? I know what happened because I've worked in that setting. The industry quietly went to the White House, the top political staff in the White House, and they said, you need to change the report when you come out with the recommendations. And so, the first report, I think, was written by MAHA, RFK Jr. and his lieutenants. The second report was written by the White House staff with the lobbyists of the food industry. That's what happened. What you end up with is their version of it. So, what does the industry want? We have a good picture from the first Trump administration. They did the last dietary guidelines and the Secretary of Agriculture, then Sonny Perdue, his mantra to his staff, people reported to me, was the industries- you know, keep the status quo. That is what the industry wants is they really don't want the dietary guidelines to change because then they have to reformulate their products. And they're used to living with what we have and they're just comfortable with that. For a big company to reformulate a product is a multi-year effort and cost billions of dollars and it's just not what they want to have to do. Particularly if it's going to change from administration to administration. And that is not a world they want to live in. From the first and second MAHA report where they wanted to go back to the status quo away from all the radical ideas. It'll be interesting to see what happens with dietary guidelines because we've seen reports that RFK Jr. and his people want to make shifts in policies. Saying that they want to go back to the Pyramid somehow. There's a cartoon on TV, South Park, I thought it was produced to be funny. But they talked about what we need to do is we need to flip the Pyramid upside down and we need to go back to the old Pyramid and make saturated fat the sort of the core of the diet. I thought it meant to be a joke but apparently that's become a belief of some people in the MAHA movement. RFK. And so, they want to add saturated fat back to our diets. They want to get rid of plant oils from our diets. There is a lot of areas of nutrition where the science isn't settled. But that's one where it is, indeed. Again, you go back only 1950s, 1960s, you look today, heart disease, heart attacks, they're down 90%. Most of that had to do with the drugs and getting rid of smoking. But a substantial contribution was made by nutrition. Lowering saturated fat in our diets and replacing it with plant oils that they're now called seed oils. If they take that step and the dietary guidelines come out next month and say that saturated fat is now good for us it is going to be just enormously disruptive. I don't think companies are going to change that much. They'll wait it out because they'll ask themselves the question, what's it going to be in two years? Because that's how long it takes them to get a product to market. Jerry, let me ask you this. You painted this picture where every once in a while, there'll be a glimmer of hope. Along comes MAHA. They're critical of the food industry and say that the diet's making us sick and therefore we should focus on different things like ultra-processed foods. In report number one, it's mentioned 40 times. Report number two comes out and it's mentioned only once for the political reasons you said. Are there any signs that lead you to be hopeful that this sort of history doesn't just keep repeating itself? Where people have good ideas, there's science that suggests you go down one road, but the food industry says, no, we're going to go down another and government obeys. Are there any signs out there that lead you to be more hopeful for the future? There are signs to be hopeful for the future. And number one, we talked earlier, is the success we had regulating tobacco. And I know you've done an outstanding job over the years drawing the parallels between what happened in tobacco and food. And there are good reasons to do that. Not the least of which is that in the 1980s, the tobacco companies bought all the big food companies and imparted on them a lot of their lessons, expertise, and playbook about how to do these things. And so that there is a tight link there. And we did succeed. We took youth smoking, which was around a 30 percent, a third, when we began work on this in the early 1990s when I was at FDA. And today it's less than 2%. It's one area with the United States leads the world in terms of what we've achieved in public health. And there's a great benefit that's going to come to that over the next generation as all of those deaths are prevented that we're not quite seeing yet. But we will. And that's regardless of what happens with vaping, which is a whole different story about nicotine. But this idea success and tobacco. The food industry has a tobacco playbook about how to addict so many people and make so much money and use their political power. We have a playbook of how to win the public health fight. So, tell us about that. What you're saying is music to my ears and I'm a big believer in exactly what you're saying. So, what is it? What does that playbook look like and what did we learn from the tobacco experience that you think could apply into the food area? There are a couple of areas. One is going to be leadership and we'll have to come back to that. Because the reason we succeeded in tobacco was the good fortune of having a David Kessler at FDA and Al Gore as Vice President. Nothing was, became more important to them than winning this fight against a big tobacco. Al Gore because his sister died at a young age of smoking. And David Kessler became convinced that this was the most important thing for public health that he could do. And keep in mind, when he came to FDA, it was the furthest thing from his mind. So, one of it is getting these kinds of leaders. Did does RFK Jr. and Marty McCarey match up to Al Gore? And we'll see. But the early signs aren't that great. But we'll see. There's still plenty of time for them to do this and get it right. The other thing is having a good strategy and policy about how to do it. And here, with tobacco, it was a complete stretch, right? There was no where did the FDA get authority over tobacco? And indeed, we eventually needed the Congress to reaffirm that authority to have the success we did. As we talked earlier, there's no question FDA was created to make sure processed food and the additives and processed food don't make us sick. So, it is the core reason the agency exists is to make sure that if there's a thing called ultra-processed food, man-made food, that is fine, but we have to thrive when we eat it. We certainly can't be made sick when we eat it. Now, David Kessler, I mentioned, he's put forward a petition, a citizens' petition to FDA. Careful work by him, he put months of effort into this, and he wrote basically a detailed roadmap for RFK and his team to use if they want to regulate ultra-processed stuff food. And I think we've gotten some, initially good feedback from the MAHA RFK people that they're interested in this petition and may take action on it. So, the basic thrust of the Kessler petition from my understanding is that we need to reconsider what's considered Generally Recognized as Safe. And that these ultra-processed foods may not be considered safe any longer because they produce all this disease down the road. And if MAHA responds positively initially to the concept, that's great. And maybe that'll have legs, and something will actually happen. But is there any reason to believe the industry won't just come in and quash this like they have other things? This idea of starting with a petition in the agency, beginning an investigation and using its authority is the blueprint we used with tobacco. There was a petition we responded, we said, gee, you raised some good points. There are other things we put forward. And so, what we hope to see here with the Kessler petition is that the FDA would put out what's called an advanced notice of a proposed rulemaking with the petition. This moves it from just being a petition to something the agency is saying, we're taking this seriously. We're putting it on the record ourselves and we want industry and others now to start weighing in. Now here's the thing, you have this category of ultra-processed food that because of the North Star I talked about before, because the industry, the marketplace has failed and gives them no incentive to make sure that we thrive, that keeps us from getting sick. They've just forgotten about that and put in place profits instead. The question is how do you get at ultra-processed food? What's the way to do it? How do you start holding the industry accountable? Now what RFK and the MAHA people started with was synthetic color additives. That wasn't what I would pick but, it wasn't a terrible choice. Because if you talk to Carlos Monteiro who coined the phrase ultra-processed food, and you ask him, what is an ultra-processed food, many people say it's this industrial creation. You can't find the ingredients in your kitchen. He agrees with all that, but he thinks the thing that really sets ultra-processed food, the harmful food, is the cosmetics that make them edible when they otherwise won't I've seen inside the plants where they make the old fashioned minimally processed food versus today's ultra-processed. In the minimally processed plants, I recognize the ingredients as food. In today's plants, you don't recognize anything. There are powders, there's sludges, there's nothing that you would really recognize as food going into it. And to make that edible, they use the cosmetics and colors as a key piece of that. But here's the problem. It doesn't matter if the color is synthetic or natural. And a fruit loop made with natural colors is just as bad for you as one made with synthetics. And indeed, it's been alarming that the agency has fast tracked these natural colors and as replacements because, cyanide is natural. We don't want to use that. And the whole approach has been off and it like how is this going to get us there? How is this focus on color additives going to get us there. And it won't. Yeah, I agree. I agree with your interpretation of that. But the thing with Kessler you got part of it right but the main thing he did is say you don't have to really define ultra-processed food, which is another industry ploy to delay action. Let's focus on the thing that's making us sick today. And that's the refined carbohydrates. The refined grains in food. That's what's most closely linked to the obesity, the diabetes we're seeing today. Now in the 1980s, the FDA granted, let's set aside sugar and white flour, for example, but they approved a whole slew of additives that the companies came forward with to see what we can add to the white flour and sugar to make it shelf stable, to meet all the taste, cost, and convenience considerations we have. And profit-making considerations we have. Back then, heart disease was the driving health problem. And so, it was easy to overlook why you didn't think that the these additives were really harmful. That then you could conclude whether Generally Recognized as Safe, which is what the agency did back then. What Kessler is saying is that what he's laid out in his petition is self-executing. It's not something that the agency grants that this is GRAS or not GRAS. They were just saying things that have historical safe use that scientists generally recognize it as safe. It's not something the agency decides. It's the universe of all of us scientists generally accept. And it's true in the '80s when we didn't face the obesity and diabetes epidemic, people didn't really focus on the refined carbohydrates. But if you look at today's food environment. And I hope you agree with this, that what is the leading driver in the food environment about what is it about ultra-processed food that's making us so sick? It's these refined grains and the way they're used in our food. And so, if the agency takes up the Kessler petition and starts acting on it, they don't have to change the designation. Maybe at some point they have to say some of these additives are no longer GRAS. But what Kessler's saying is by default, they're no longer GRAS because if you ask the scientists today, can we have this level of refined grains? And they'd say, no, that's just not Generally Recognized as Safe. So, he's pointing out that status, they no longer hold that status. And if the agency would recognize that publicly and the burden shifts where Wiley really always meant it to be, on the industry to prove that there are foods or things that we would thrive on, but that wouldn't make us sick. And so that's the key point that you go back to when you said, and you're exactly right that if you let the industry use their political power to just ignore health altogether and substitute profits, then you're right. Their sort of fiduciary responsibility is just to maximize profits and they can ignore health. If you say you can maximize profits, of course you're a capitalist business, but one of the tests you have to clear is you have to prove to us that people can thrive when they eat that. Thrive as the standard, might require some congressional amplification because it's not in the statute. But what is in the statute is the food can't make you sick. If scientists would generally recognize, would say, if you eat this diet as they intend, if you eat this snack food, there's these ready to heat meals as they intend, you're going to get diabetes and obesity. If scientists generally believe that, then you can't sell that. That's just against the law and the agency needs them to enforce the law. Bio:   Jerold Mande is CEO of Nourish Science; Adjunct Professor of Nutrition, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health; and a Non-Resident Senior Fellow, Tisch College of Civic Life, Tufts University. Professor Mande has a wealth of expertise and experience in national public health and food policy. He served in senior policymaking positions for three presidents at USDA, FDA, and OSHA helping lead landmark public health initiatives. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as USDA Deputy Under Secretary for Food Safety. In 2011, he moved to USDA's Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services, where he spent six years working to improve the health outcomes of the nation's $100 billion investment in 15 nutrition programs. During President Clinton's administration, Mr. Mande was Senior Advisor to the FDA commissioner where he helped shape national policy on nutrition, food safety, and tobacco. He also served on the White House staff as a health policy advisor and was Deputy Assistant Secretary for Occupational Health at the Department of Labor. During the George H.W. Bush administration he led the graphic design of the iconic Nutrition Facts label at FDA, for which he received the Presidential Design Award. Mr. Mande began his career as a legislative assistant for Al Gore in the U.S. House and Senate, managing Gore's health and environment agenda, and helping Gore write the nation's organ donation and transplantation laws.  Mande earned a Master of Public Health from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and a Bachelor of Science in nutritional science from the University of Connecticut. Prior to his current academic appointments, he served on the faculty at the Tufts, Friedman School of Nutrition Science and Policy, and Yale School of Medicine.

La tert

In this episode, Laura speaks with three-time stage-four cancer survivor Paloma Soledad, the creator of Luxcare Clothing—chemical-free, Sun-safe, adaptive, and sustainably made pieces designed for women in cancer treatment and recovery. Paloma shares her story of immunotherapy, lymphedema, and living in a post-cancer body, and how her background in fashion led her to create clothing that honors both comfort and beauty.   Topics include: • How cancer inspired her slow-fashion brand • The hidden chemicals in fabrics and why they matter for survivors • UPF 50+ fabrics and sun safety during treatment • The emotional impact of clothing during recovery • Meditation, healing, and living fully after cancer   Listen now + shop Luxcare Clothing: Website: https://www.luxcare-clothing.com/   Instagram https://www.instagram.com/luxcareclothing/   YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@luxcareclothing   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LuxCareClothing   Let's Connect! If this episode helped you breathe a little easier, please share it with a friend or leave a review. Every share helps spread this message of hope, healing, and whole-person wellness.

The new Lancet Series on ultra-processed foods offers a striking insight: as UPFs rise globally, traditional whole-food diets decline—bringing nutrient imbalance, overeating, toxic exposures, and hyper-palatable formulations that quietly reshape health trajectories.

La tert

Estudis recents (CIS, CEO i altres) apunten la tend

TikTok

Send us a textI unpack what “ultra-processed” really means, why these foods are so easy to overeat, what the best evidence shows (including metabolic-ward studies), and how I personally navigate them without fear or perfectionism. Key topics & evidence (in plain English):What counts as “ultra-processed”? I walk through the NOVA system—useful, not perfect—and where borderline items (frozen meals, boxed mixes) fit. See an overview of NOVA classifications here. How we got here: post-WWII abundance of refined flour, cheap sugars, oils, and a cultural push for convenience—now ~60% of the U.S. diet comes from UPFs (study). Additives: stabilizers, emulsifiers, preservatives, and colors are generally recognized as safe (GRAS). I explain why, on their own, they're probably not the main health issue. The bigger problem: UPFs are energy-dense, engineered for bliss (fat/sugar/salt + perfect texture), and easy to eat quickly—driving higher calorie intake.  • Metabolic-ward crossover trial: +~508 kcal/day when participants ate UPFs vs minimally processed (Cell 2019). • Overweight adults in a crossover design: +~814 kcal/day on the UPF week (PubMed). • Another recent crossover RCT reports ~300 kcal/day higher on UPFs (Nature Medicine 2025). What I recommend (and what I do):Prioritize whole foods most of the time; shop the perimeter; cook when you can. Canned tomatoes/beans and frozen fruits/peas are fine helpers. If weight, diabetes, or blood pressure are concerns, be extra cautious with UPFs—they're designed to be irresistible and calorie-dense. Moderation wins: I enjoy favorites (yes, even boxed mac 'n' cheese and crunchy peanut butter) without letting them dominate my plate. Takeaways you can use today:Build meals around minimally processed proteins, veggies, fruits, and beans; let convenience items support—not star—in your diet. Watch “calorie-dense + easy to overeat” combos (chips, sweets, fast food). If you have them, portion once, then put the package away. If symptoms or inflammation are puzzling you, try a short UPF-light experiment (2–4 weeks) and see how you feel. If this episode helped, please follow and leave a quick review—and share it with a friend who's curious about UPFs. For my newsletter and resources, visit drbobbylivelongandwell.com.

Join us for an insightful conversation with Brian Zieroth, Senior Program Manager at the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) at Y-12. Discover the pivotal role UPF plays in supporting the nation's nuclear deterrent and global security missions. Brian shares the challenges and triumphs of modernizing uranium processing capabilities, emphasizing the importance of safety and innovation. With construction set to complete in 2027, UPF is poised to be a cornerstone of national security infrastructure. Don't miss this deep dive into a project that ensures our strategic deterrent remains robust and reliable.Brian is the senior project manager for the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, a plant designed to replace older, outdated facilities and meet modern safety and environmental standards. He is responsible for all engineering, procurement, construction, and startup activities. He has nearly 30 years' experience with Bechtel, and is a Bechtel Principal Vice President. Brian brings diverse industry experience to his leadership role for the UPF project. He has held project management roles of increasing responsibility at the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant (WTP) at the Hanford site, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Replacement Project (CMRR) at Los Alamos National Laboratory, UPF, and as Director for Enterprise Line-Item Projects at Consolidated Nuclear Security, where he provided oversight for the Y-12 site in Oak Ridge and the Pantex Plant in Amarillo, TX. In 2022, he became area project manager for the main processing building at UPF, before being named to his current role in 2024.He joined Bechtel in 1997 in the Information Systems and Technology group for Bechtel Enterprises. In 2003, he became deputy IS&T manager on the Iraq reconstruction project in Baghdad. In 2006, he moved to the U.S. Department of Energy Advanced Mixed Waste Treatment Project in Idaho. He was then named plant automation manager at the Pueblo Chemical Agent-Destruction Pilot Plant in 2010 and chief information officer at WTP in 2012.Socials:Follow on Twitter at @NucleCastFollow on LinkedIn: https://linkedin.com/company/nuclecastpodcastSubscribe RSS Feed: https://rss.com/podcasts/nuclecast-podcast/Rate: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/nuclecast/id1644921278Email comments and topic/guest suggestions to NucleCast@anwadeter.org

Ultra-processed food addiction in a nationally representative sample of older adults in the USA  Addiction Using a cross-sectional online and telephone survey of a nationally representative sample of older adults (aged 50–80 years) in the US, this study examined the prevalence of ultra-processed food addiction (UPFA) in older US adults and its association with various health domains.  It found that ultra-processed food addiction appears to be prevalent among older adults in the US, particularly among women who were in adolescence and early adulthood when the nutrient quality of the US food supply worsened. Addictive patterns of UPF intake appear to be associated with poorer physical health, mental health, and social well-being.   Read this issue of the ASAM Weekly Subscribe to the ASAM Weekly Visit ASAM

L'actualitat del dia, al "Catalunya migdia". Avui amb Neus Tom

Er alt ultraforarbejdet mad usundt, og skader proteinpulver og müslibars sædkvaliteten, som en DR-artikel forleden skrev?I denne podcast fra Træningstimen lærer du, hvad du i virkeligheden har brug for at vide om ultraforarbejdet mad - også kendt som UPF.Det er nemlig ikke nær så sort/hvidt, som de mange skræmmeoverskrifter og "spis rigtig mad"-trenden fremstiller det som.Få en uforpligtende snak om din målsætning lige her:https://styrkmig.dk/booking/Bliv medlem af Træningstimens gruppe på FB, og få svar på dine spørgsmål om træning og kost:https://www.facebook.com/groups/traeningstimen

Full shownotes, transcript and resources here: https://soundbitesrd.com/296                   Are processed foods truly undermining our health, or are they an essential part of a safe, nutritious, and affordable food supply? Should the way we classify foods based on processing outweigh decades of national dietary guidelines—or are these systems flawed from the start? And what happens to public health policy when decisions hinge on classifications that may not be scientifically sound? Tune in to this episode to learn more about: ·       how UPFs are defined ·       the NOVA classification system ·       how much of our diet is UPF ·       benefits of UPFs in the diet ·       how and why the current public discourse on UPFs is “superficial” ·       growing global distrust of science ·       how the food industry is responding to criticisms around UPFs ·       actions the food industry has taken to improve products ·       how the food industry gains insights into consumer preferences ·       the roles and responsibilities of food companies to educate and inform consumers ·       collaboration between the food industry and policymakers ·       what the future of UPFs might look like ·       resources for more information 

Cap

Joe Wicks' new documentary Licensed to Kill has got lots of people talking about ultra-processed foods (UPFs)... but is it raising awareness, or spreading unnecessary fear?In this episode, Hayley breaks down the truth behind the headlines:

W tym odcinku rozmawiamy z dr. Tadeuszem Oleszczukiem o tym, czym dziś jest mądre zdrowie: od kuchni i snu, przez mikrobiotę i hormony, po realia systemu ochrony zdrowia. Pytamy o dwa posiłki dziennie, cukier i żywność ultraprzetworzoną (UPF), czy „prawdziwy chleb” jeszcze istnieje i czym różni się rzemiosło od przemysłu (biopiekarz). Dyskutujemy o „jedzeniu jako lekarstwie”, wpływie nowych technologii na sen i apetyt, o zmianach jakości żywności i ich możliwym związku z płodnością oraz zdrowiem dzieci. Wchodzimy też w farmakoterapię: kiedy styl życia nie wystarcza, a kiedy warto rozważyć GLP‑1/GIP (np. Ozempic/Wegovy, tirzepatyd) — i jak łączyć leki z nawykami, by uniknąć nawrotów. Na koniec: jak żyć z dala od apteki, jakich leków OTC nadużywamy i jak rozsądnie korzystać z medycyny.

In deze prikkelende aflevering van Biohacking Talks gaan Eduard de Wilde en Govert Viergever verbaal de ring in. We fileren hardnekkige biohacking-mythes en zoeken de nuance op die je zelden op Instagram ziet. Moet je echt zonder zonnebrand in de middagzon? Zijn seed oils per definitie slecht? Reset je je ritme door in de zon te kijken, of vooral ernaartoe? En waarom geeft havermelk sommige mensen een glucose-spike en anderen juist niet? Ze bespreken: Zon & zonnebrand: risico's, context en slimme alternatieven Zonnebril & licht: circadiaans ritme vs. oogbescherming Seed oils: omega-6, oxidatie, UPF en… nuance Haver- vs. koemelk: persoonlijke data, timing en spikes “Do your own research”: hoe je claims weegt, bronnen checkt en zelf experimenteert Geen heilige huisjes, wel praktische handvatten om slimmer te kiezen—zonder zwart-wit dogma's.   It's time to talk. LET OP: De discussie en informatie die in deze podcast worden verstrekt, zijn bedoeld voor algemene educatieve, wetenschappelijke en informatieve doeleinden en zijn niet bedoeld als, en mogen niet worden beschouwd als, medisch of ander professioneel advies voor een specifiek individu of individuen. Raadpleeg altijd een arts of andere medische professional bij medische vragen of problemen.   Mogelijk gemaakt door NoordCode. Functionele voeding van de hoogste kwaliteit. Gemaakt voor en door biohackers. Gesourced in Europa. Bezoek: www.noordcode.com Benieuwd naar het meest complete biohacking programma op de markt? Met de tools en technieken van topsporters en business professionals meten we 12 weken lang je DNA, darmen, bloed en nog veel meer om te kijken hoe we jouw lichaam en brein kunnen verbeteren. Bezoek: www.humanupgrade.nl  Abonneer je op BiohackingTalks, laat een recensie achter en deel deze aflevering met je vrienden op sociale media!  

Welcome to the Humans of Nutrition Podcast brought to you by Registered Nutritionists Anna Wheeler and Prof Danielle McCarthy.In this episode, Anna and Danielle speak to Dr Sam Dickenand Dr Adrian Brown about their ground-breaking UPDATE trial, investigating the effects of ultra-processed versus minimally processed diets following UK dietary guidance on health outcomes.Over and above the insider researcher perspective onultra-processed food (UPF) covering what led to the initiation of this project and key considerations in study design, we were intrigued to hear about the study outcomes – and you might be surprised.  Did the study outcomes align with the original hypothesis? (Spoiler- it didn't!)Listen in to hear directly from the principal investigator,Sam and trial dietitian and supervisor Adrian: Would you expect a study investigating UPF to demonstrate weight loss?     Would you expect a high UPF diet to meet all dietary requirements? How did the UPF diet compare with a minimally processed diet? What is it about processing that potentially explains the negative health outcomes that have been seen from observational studies? What does this study add to UPF research and understanding?    How do we bring practicality and reality into the (UPF) conversation?What are the next steps in UPF research?It's clear that UPF research remains contentious, complexand nuanced.  We need to be careful not to throw the UPF baby out with the UPF bath water – if dietary quality can beimproved (at least in population sub-groups) by the considered inclusion of foods classified as UPF, can we accept progress over perfection?As is often the case in nutrition, a whole systems approachis necessary to improve public health and dietary habits – from complex consumer level decisions, public health policy, right through to food system stakeholder level and the wider food industry.We look forward to seeing what comes next in terms of UPFresearch, and how we can leverage that to support food industry clients working in this area to improve nutritional quality within all their products. References and ResourcesUPDATE trialThe Restructure ProjectDr Kevin Hall et al 2019 paper: Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake and weight gain: An inpatient randomized controlled trial of ad libitum food intake - PMCUKRI The Food Foundation – The Broken Plate 2025 The Eatwell Guide  National Diet & Nutrition Survey 2019 - 2023 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -As nutrition professionals working in multiple contexts, we want to use our diverse experience to help organisations achieve their nutrition and health goals by providing them with the expertise they need, when they need it.- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Is there a nutrition topic you'd like to hear discussed? Or a ‘Human of Nutrition' you think would make a great guest? Email us at info@nutritiontalent.com.- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - -Help spread the word! Please share this episode with 1 person who you think might enjoy it. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Get in touch to find out more about our company, Nutrition Talent, and how we could work together.Web: www.nutritiontalent.comEmail: info@nutritiontalent.comLinkedIn: @NutritionTalentInstagram: @Nutrition_talentX: @NutritionTalentFollow AnnaLinkedIn: @Anna WheelerFollow DanielleLinkedIn: @DrDanielleMcCarthy

In this special Fashion Friday episode of Skin Anarchy, Dr. Ekta Yadav sits down with actress-turned-entrepreneur Lois Robbins, founder of WATSKIN, the sun-protective lifestyle brand that proves fashion and function can coexist beautifully.Lois's journey began with a personal health scare that forced her to rethink her relationship with the sun. Diagnosed with squamous cell carcinoma and genetically predisposed to melanoma, she was determined to protect her skin without giving up her love for chic, sophisticated style. When she couldn't find options that matched her needs, she designed her own—and strangers quickly began asking where they could buy them. That moment sparked the birth of WATSKIN.Unlike traditional swimwear or activewear, WATSKIN bridges the gap with UPF 50+ designs that feel like a second skin while offering body-inclusive fits and effortless sophistication. From the pool to dinner, each piece is made to transition seamlessly, creating a new category in fashion: stylish sun-protective lifestyle wear.In this episode, Lois opens up about what it takes to build a brand with purpose, the cultural shift toward prioritizing sun safety, and how WATSKIN is reshaping the way we think about skin health and everyday style. She also shares candid lessons from her own entrepreneurial journey—why resilience, curiosity, and the courage to ask the right questions matter most.

Aprofundim en els temes d'actualitat a la tert

Today, Erik sits down with Lois Robbins, founder of WATSKIN—an elevated UPF sunwear brand dedicated to empowering women to enjoy the sun with confidence, without compromising style. After experiencing a skin cancer scare, Lois launched WATSKIN and has since turned it into a household name, revolutionizing UPF clothing to be both chic and sexy. Erik and Lois discuss her journey from diagnosis to entrepreneurship, the inspiration behind the brand, behind-the-scenes stories from Lois' acting career, the meaning behind the name WATSKIN, challenges she's faced along the way, and much more. More about Lois Robbins: Lois is also quite the accomplished actress and producer, best known for her roles in One Life to Live, Loving, Ryan's Hope, and All My Children She is currently in the play, Other Desert Cities at Coachella Valley repertory. Robbins is also actively involved in philanthropic work with the Melanoma Research Alliance, Evelyn H. Lauder's Breast Cancer Center, the Dubin Breast Center, Alzheimer's Drug Foundation, and the Lung Cancer Research Foundation. Social Handles: https://www.instagram.com/loisrobbins21/?hl=en https://www.instagram.com/watskinofficial/?hl=en Website: https://www.loisrobbins.com/ https://www.watskinsunwear.com/   Is there a guest you want Equalman to interview on the podcast? Do you have any questions you wish you could ask an expert? Send an email to our team: Equalman@equalman.com   5x #1 Bestselling Author and Motivational Speaker Erik Qualman has performed in over 55 countries and reached over 50 million people this past decade. He was voted the 2nd Most Likable Author in the World behind Harry Potter's J.K. Rowling.   Have Erik speak at your conference: eq@equalman.com   Motivational Speaker | Erik Qualman has inspired audiences at FedEx, Chase, ADP, Huawei, Starbucks, Godiva, FBI, Google, and many more on Focus and Digital Leadership.   Learn more at https://equalman.com

Recently a new trial was published in Nature Medicine comparing the effect of ultra-processed versus minimally processed diets. Specifically, the UPDATE trial compared these two diets in the context of a healthy dietary pattern (in line with the UK's EatWell Guide). This eight-week randomized, crossover trial generated a lot of discussion and was largely seen as being a really useful addition to the evidence base, and providing answers to some previously unexamined questions. In this episode the study's lead author, Dr. Samuel Dicken, explains the background context for the UPDATE trial, provides an insight into its execution, and puts some of the results in context. There is also a discussion about the current state of evidence more broadly and the leading hypotheses around the mechanisms that drive the observations seen with consuming ultra-processed foods. This episode is particularly noteworthy because it provides fresh evidence on an important question: does following dietary guidelines with minimally processed foods confer extra benefits over following the same guidelines with ultra-processed foods? Timestamps [02:48] Interview with Dr. Samuel Dicken [03:08] Background and research interests of Dr. Samuel Dicken [04:31] Details of the update trial [09:48] Trial design and methodology [15:45] Results and findings of the update trial [18:46] Secondary outcomes and craving control [25:43] Hypotheses and mechanisms behind UPF effects [40:28] Policy implications and future research directions Related Resources Subscribe to Sigma Nutrition Premium Go to episode page Join the Sigma email newsletter for free Enroll in the next cohort of our Applied Nutrition Literacy course Study: Dicken et al., 2025 – Ultraprocessed or minimally processed diets following healthy dietary guidelines on weight and cardiometabolic health: a randomized, crossover trial LinkedIn: Samuel Dicken X: @SamuelDickenUK

Comentem l'actualitat a la tert

Why has the ultra-processed food (UPF) debate reached fever pitch, yet seems stuck in an endless loop of confusion?  Despite evolving beyond its initial black-and-white framing, the conversation continues to generate more heat than light. In this episode of the Food Matters Live podcast, recorded at our event in Manchester in May 2025, our expert panel cuts through the misinformation to explore what's really driving public concern about food processing. From the challenges of science-led communication in an influencer-dominated landscape, to exploring why the NOVA classification system struggles with nuance, our guests reveal the practical realities facing both consumers and food manufacturers.  The panel also tackles the emerging disruption of GLP-1 drugs and their potential to reshape food consumption patterns, questions whether retailers have gone too far with ingredient reduction, and explores why default healthy options at accessible price points might be the only equitable solution. 

Articles about food and eating are always the most read and circulated – let's run through the food news headlines!

Dr. Vera Tarman sits down with Dr. Bart Kay—former professor of health sciences turned “nutrition science watchdog”—to unpack a big, practical question for people in recovery from ultra-processed food use: If sugar needs to go, what about other carbs? And where does dietary fat fit in? We explore Dr. Kay's perspective on the Randle (Randall) cycle, insulin resistance, mixed macro diets, seed oils, ketogenic/carnivore patterns, and real-world considerations for folks with sugar/UPF addiction who struggle to “moderate.” We also discuss staged change (don't flip your diet overnight), what “abstainer vs. moderator” can mean in food recovery, and how to keep any nutrition experiment aligned with your health team and your recovery plan. What we cover The “Randle cycle,” plain-English: why mixing higher carbs and higher fats may worsen metabolic friction, and why choosing one dominant fuel is central to Dr. Kay's model. Insulin resistance re-framed: why Dr. Kay views it as a protective cellular response (his position) and how that informs low-carb/carnivore advocacy. Carbs in recovery: “quit sugar” vs. “how low is low?”—Dr. Kay's thresholds (e.g., ≤50 g/day unlikely to cause problems in his view) and why many with UPF addiction do better with abstinence than moderation. Fats & satiety: why dietary fat often increases fullness cues; practical guardrails; “can you eat too much fat or protein?” Seed oils: Dr. Kay's strong critique of industrial seed oils and his inflammation concerns. Cholesterol worries on low-carb/carnivore: why lipid numbers may rise and how Dr. Kay interprets A1C and lipid changes (controversial; see note below). GLP-1s, metformin & meds: Dr. Kay's take on drug mechanisms vs. root-cause nutrition changes. Change management: why he recommends a 4–6 week ramp instead of an overnight switch to very low-carb/carnivore; supporting thyroid, energy, and the microbiome while you transition. Recovery lens: abstainer vs. moderator, harm-reduction steps when “only food will regulate,” and building a plan that supports mental health and addiction recovery. Key takeaways Abstinence can be a kindness. If you're a “can't moderate sugar” person, treating sugar/UPFs as an abstinence-worthy trigger can protect your recovery. Don't crash-diet your microbiome. If you're experimenting with lower-carb or carnivore, step down over 4–6 weeks with plenty of electrolytes, hydration, and support. Pick a lane with macros. In Dr. Kay's model, mixing higher carbs with higher fats is the most metabolically problematic; choosing one dominant fuel source may reduce friction. Numbers are data, not destiny. Lipids and A1C can shift on low-carb—interpret changes with a clinician who understands your whole picture (medical history, meds, symptoms, goals). Harm-reduction still counts. If full abstinence isn't feasible today: remove red-light foods first, shrink access, use “pause + plan” tools, and reach out before the binge. About our guest Dr. Bart Kay is a former professor of human physiology, nutrition, and vascular pathophysiology with teaching/research stints in New Zealand, Australia, the UK, and the US. He's consulted for elite sport and defense organizations and now educates the public on YouTube as a self-described nutrition myth-buster. One of his core topics is the Randle cycle and its implications for diet composition. Dr. Kay's YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@Professor-Bart-Kay-Nutrition   The content of our show is educational only. It does not supplement or supersede your healthcare provider's professional relationship and direction. Always seek the advice of your physician or other qualified mental health providers with any questions you may have regarding a medical condition, substance use disorder, or mental health concern.

Are ultra-processed foods really the villain, or is the story more complicated? In this lively, no-nonsense conversation, endocrinologist Dr. David Ludwig (of Harvard and Boston Children's Hospital) and journalist Gary Taubes unpack why “UPF” is an enticing label but a blunt tool for science, policy, and everyday guidance.They cover:Why defining “ultra-processed” is messy, and how lumping diverse packaged foods into one bucket can mislead.How high-profile trials are interpreted (and misinterpreted), from short study durations to dropout bias and carryover effects.The role of bias and confirmation bias in nutrition research and media narratives.Where the debate should go next: moving beyond slogans toward mechanisms like how carbohydrate processing affects blood sugar and insulin.What to do in the meantime: clearer study design, healthier discourse, and pragmatic takeaways people can use now.In this conversation, you'll hear sharp disagreements, candid critiques, and concrete suggestions for doing better science. Plus a spirited back-and-forth on what “good evidence” should look like and how individuals, clinicians, and policymakers can each act on different standards of proof.What's at stake isn't academic nitpicking; it's policy decisions, headlines, and, ultimately, what lands on your plate.

Shop my favorite sunscreens here. Download the Ultimate Affordable Skincare Guide Want to know the #1 dermatologist-approved secret to glowing skin for life? In this episode, I share my biggest takeaway from my conversation with Dr. Christie Regula: sun protection is everything. From preventing premature aging to lowering your risk of skin cancer, sunscreen and smart sun habits are the real beauty hack. But let's be honest—remembering SPF every day isn't always easy. That's why this episode is packed with practical, real-life tips you can start using right away:   Key Takeaways: Simple sun protection hacks for busy people and families Why sunscreen dispensers and shade structures are changing the game How school policies impact kids' ability to protect their skin Easy ways to get teens and children on board with sunscreen Alternatives like hats, UPF clothing, and mineral SPF powders Small daily habits that protect your skin long-term Whether your goal is proaging, skin cancer prevention, or just feeling confident in your skin, this episode will help you take control of your skin health without the overwhelm. The Skin Real app is officially LIVE! Download it now. Hit Follow to never miss an episode of The Skin Real—where we cut the hype, ditch the filters, and give you real dermatologist advice you can trust. Follow Dr. Mina here:-  https://instagram.com/drminaskin https://www.facebook.com/drminaskin https://www.youtube.com/@drminaskin https://www.linkedin.com/in/drminaskin/ Disclaimer: This podcast is for entertainment, educational, and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice.

Comentem l'actualitat a la tert

Lots of talk these days about ultra-processed foods (UPFs). Along with confusion about what in the heck they are or what they're not, how bad they are for us, and what ought to be done about them. A landmark in the discussion of ultra-processed foods has been the publication of a book entitled Ultra-processed People, Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. The author of that book, Dr. Chris van Tulleken, joins us today. Dr. van Tulleken is a physician and is professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He also has a PhD in molecular virology and is an award-winning broadcaster on the BBC. His book on Ultra-processed People is a bestseller. Interview Summary Chris, sometimes somebody comes along that takes a complicated topic and makes it accessible and understandable and brings it to lots of people. You're a very fine scientist and scholar and academic, but you also have that ability to communicate effectively with lots of people, which I very much admire. So, thanks for doing that, and thank you for joining us. Oh, Kelly, it's such a pleasure. You know, I begin some of my talks now with a clipping from the New York Times. And it's a picture of you and an interview you gave in 1995. So exactly three decades ago. And in this article, you just beautifully communicate everything that 30 years later I'm still saying. So, yeah. I wonder if communication, it's necessary, but insufficient. I think we are needing to think of other means to bring about change. I totally agree. Well, thank you by the way. And I hope I've learned something over those 30 years. Tell us, please, what are ultra-processed foods? People hear the term a lot, but I don't think a lot of people know exactly what it means. The most important thing to know, I think, is that it's not a casual term. It's not like 'junk food' or 'fast food.' It is a formal scientific definition. It's been used in hundreds of research studies. The definition is very long. It's 11 paragraphs long. And I would urge anyone who's really interested in this topic, go to the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization website. You can type in NFAO Ultra and you'll get the full 11 paragraph definition. It's an incredibly sophisticated piece of science. But it boils down to if you as a consumer, someone listening to this podcast, want to know if the thing you are eating right now is ultra-processed, look at the ingredients list. If there are ingredients on that list that you do not normally find in a domestic kitchen like an emulsifier, a coloring, a flavoring, a non-nutritive sweetener, then that product will be ultra-processed. And it's a way of describing this huge range of foods that kind of has taken over the American and the British and in fact diets all over the world. How come the food companies put this stuff in the foods? And the reason I ask is in talks I give I'll show an ingredient list from a food that most people would recognize. And ask people if they can guess what the food is from the ingredient list. And almost nobody can. There are 35 things on the ingredient list. Sugar is in there, four different forms. And then there are all kinds of things that are hard to pronounce. There are lots of strange things in there. They get in there through loopholes and government regulation. Why are they there in the first place? So, when I started looking at this I also noticed this long list of fancy sounding ingredients. And even things like peanut butter will have palm oil and emulsifiers. Cream cheese will have xanthum gum and emulsifiers. And you think, well, wouldn't it just be cheaper to make your peanut butter out of peanuts. In fact, every ingredient is in there to make money in one of two ways. Either it drives down the cost of production or storage. If you imagine using a real strawberry in your strawberry ice cream. Strawberries are expensive. They're not always in season. They rot. You've got to have a whole supply chain. Why would you use a strawberry if you could use ethyl methylphenylglycidate and pink dye and it'll taste the same. It'll look great. You could then put in a little chunky bit of modified corn starch that'll be chewy if you get it in the right gel mix. And there you go. You've got strawberries and you haven't had to deal with strawberry farmers or any supply chain. It's just you just buy bags and bottles of white powder and liquids. The other way is to extend the shelf life. Strawberries as I say, or fresh food, real food - food we might call it rots on shelves. It decays very quickly. If you can store something at room temperature in a warehouse for months and months, that saves enormous amounts of money. So, one thing is production, but the other thing is the additives allow us to consume to excess or encourage us to consume ultra-processed food to excess. So, I interviewed a scientist who was a food industry development scientist. And they said, you know, most ultra-processed food would be gray if it wasn't dyed, for example. So, if you want to make cheap food using these pastes and powders, unless you dye it and you flavor it, it will be inedible. But if you dye it and flavor it and add just the right amount of salt, sugar, flavor enhancers, then you can make these very addictive products. So that's the logic of UPF. Its purpose is to make money. And that's part of the definition. Right. So, a consumer might decide that there's, you know, beneficial trade-off for them at the end of the day. That they get things that have long shelf life. The price goes down because of the companies don't have to deal with the strawberry farmers and things like that. But if there's harm coming in waves from these things, then it changes the equation. And you found out some of that on your own. So as an experiment you did with a single person - you, you ate ultra-processed foods for a month. What did you eat and how did it affect your body, your mood, your sleep? What happened when you did this? So, what's really exciting, actually Kelly, is while it was an n=1, you know, one participant experiment, I was actually the pilot participant in a much larger study that we have published in Nature Medicine. One of the most reputable and high impact scientific journals there is. So, I was the first participant in a randomized control trial. I allowed us to gather the data about what we would then measure in a much larger number. Now we'll come back and talk about that study, which I think was really important. It was great to see it published. So, I was a bit skeptical. Partly it was with my research team at UCL, but we were also filming it for a BBC documentary. And I went into this going I'm going to eat a diet of 80% of my calories will come from ultra-processed food for four weeks. And this is a normal diet. A lifelong diet for a British teenager. We know around 20% of people in the UK and the US eat this as their normal food. They get 80% of their calories from ultra-processed products. I thought, well, nothing is going to happen to me, a middle-aged man, doing this for four weeks. But anyway, we did it kind of as a bit of fun. And we thought, well, if nothing happens, we don't have to do a bigger study. We can just publish this as a case report, and we'll leave it out of the documentary. Three big things happened. I gained a massive amount of weight, so six kilos. And I wasn't force feeding myself. I was just eating when I wanted. In American terms, that's about 15 pounds in four weeks. And that's very consistent with the other published trials that have been done on ultra-processed food. There have been two other RCTs (randomized control trials); ours is the third. There is one in Japan, one done at the NIH. So, people gain a lot of weight. I ate massively more calories. So much so that if I'd continued on the diet, I would've almost doubled my body weight in a year. And that may sound absurd, but I have an identical twin brother who did this natural experiment. He went to Harvard for a year. He did his masters there. During his year at Harvard he gained, let's see, 26 kilos, so almost 60 pounds just living in Cambridge, Massachusetts. But how did you decide how much of it to eat? Did you eat until you just kind of felt naturally full? I did what most people do most of the time, which is I just ate what I wanted when I felt like it. Which actually for me as a physician, I probably took the breaks off a bit because I don't normally have cocoa pops for breakfast. But I ate cocoa pops and if I felt like two bowls, I'd have two bowls. It turned out what I felt like a lot of mornings was four bowls and that was fine. I was barely full. So, I wasn't force feeding myself. It wasn't 'supersize' me. I was eating to appetite, which is how these experiments run. And then what we've done in the trials. So, I gained weight, then we measured my hormone response to a meal. When you eat, I mean, it's absurd to explain this to YOU. But when you eat, you have fullness hormones that go up and hunger hormones that go down, so you feel full and less hungry. And we measured my response to a standard meal at the beginning and at the end of this four-week diet. What we found is that I had a normal response to eating a big meal at the beginning of the diet. At the end of eating ultra-processed foods, the same meal caused a very blunted rise in the satiety hormones. In the 'fullness' hormones. So, I didn't feel as full. And my hunger hormones remained high. And so, the food is altering our response to all meals, not merely within the meal that we're eating. Then we did some MRI scans and again, I thought this would be a huge waste of time. But we saw at four weeks, and then again eight weeks later, very robust changes in the communication between the habit-forming bits at the back of the brain. So, the automatic behavior bits, the cerebellum. Very conscious I'm talking to YOU about this, Kelly. And the kind of addiction reward bits in the middle. Now these changes were physiological, not structural. They're about the two bits of the brain talking to each other. There's not really a new wire going between them. But we think if this kind of communication is happening a lot, that maybe a new pathway would form. And I think no one, I mean we did this with very expert neuroscientists at our National Center for Neuroscience and Neurosurgery, no one really knows what it means. But the general feeling was these are the kind of changes we might expect if we'd given someone, or a person or an animal, an addictive substance for four weeks. They're consistent with, you know, habit formation and addiction. And the fact that they happened so quickly, and they were so robust - they remained the same eight weeks after I stopped the diet, I think is really worrying from a kid's perspective. So, in a period of four weeks, it re-altered the way your brain works. It affected the way your hunger and satiety were working. And then you ended up with this massive weight. And heaven knows what sort of cardiovascular effects or other things like that might have been going on or had the early signs of that over time could have been really pretty severe, I imagine. I think one of the main effects was that I became very empathetic with my patients. Because we did actually a lot of, sort of, psychological testing as well. And there's an experience where, obviously in clinic, I mainly treat patients with infections. But many of my patients are living with other, sort of, disorders of modern life. They live with excess weight and cardiovascular disease and type two diabetes and metabolic problems and so on. And I felt in four weeks like I'd gone from being in my early 30, early 40s at the time, I felt like I'd just gone to my early 50s or 60s. I ached. I felt terrible. My sleep was bad. And it was like, oh! So many of the problems of modern life: waking up to pee in the middle of the night is because you've eaten so much sodium with your dinner. You've drunk all this water, and then you're trying to get rid of it all night. Then you're constipated. It's a low fiber diet, so you develop piles. Pain in your bum. The sleep deprivation then makes you eat more. And so, you get in this vicious cycle where the problem didn't feel like the food until I stopped and I went cold turkey. I virtually have not touched it since. It cured me of wanting UPF. That was the other amazing bit of the experience that I write about in the book is it eating it and understanding it made me not want it. It was like being told to smoke. You know, you get caught smoking as a kid and your parents are like, hey, now you finish the pack. It was that. It was an aversion experience. So, it gave me a lot of empathy with my patients that many of those kinds of things we regard as being normal aging, those symptoms are often to do with the way we are living our lives. Chris, I've talked to a lot of people about ultra-processed foods. You're the first one who's mentioned pain in the bum as one of the problems, so thank you. When I first became a physician, I trained as a surgeon, and I did a year doing colorectal surgery. So, I have a wealth of experience of where a low fiber diet leaves you. And many people listening to this podcast, I mean, look, we're all going to get piles. Everyone gets these, you know, anal fishes and so on. And bum pain it's funny to talk about it. No, not the... it destroys people's lives, so, you know, anyway. Right. I didn't want to make light of it. No, no. Okay. So, your own experiment would suggest that these foods are really bad actors and having this broad range of highly negative effects. But what does research say about these things beyond your own personal experience, including your own research? So, the food industry has been very skillful at portraying this as a kind of fad issue. As ultra-processed food is this sort of niche thing. Or it's a snobby thing. It's not a real classification. I want to be absolutely clear. UPF, the definition is used by the World Health Organization and the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization to monitor global diet quality, okay? It's a legitimate way of thinking about food. The last time I looked, there are more than 30 meta-analyses - that is reviews of big studies. And the kind of high-quality studies that we use to say cigarettes cause lung cancer. So, we've got this what we call epidemiological evidence, population data. We now have probably more than a hundred of these prospective cohort studies. And they're really powerful tools. They need to be used in conjunction with other evidence, but they now link ultra-processed food to this very wide range of what we euphemistically call negative health outcomes. You know, problems that cause human suffering, mental health problems, anxiety, depression, multiple forms of cancer, inflammatory diseases like Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, metabolic disease, cardiovascular disease, Alzheimer's and dementia. Of course, weight gain and obesity. And all cause mortality so you die earlier of all causes. And there are others too. So, the epidemiological evidence is strong and that's very plausible. So, we take that epidemiological evidence, as you well know, and we go, well look, association and causation are different things. You know, do matches cause cancer or does cigarettes cause cancer? Because people who buy lots of matches are also getting the lung cancer. And obviously epidemiologists are very sophisticated at teasing all this out. But we look at it in the context then of other evidence. My group published the third randomized control trial where we put a group of people, in a very controlled way, on a diet of either minimally processed food or ultra-processed food and looked at health outcomes. And we found what the other two trials did. We looked at weight gain as a primary outcome. It was a short trial, eight weeks. And we saw people just eat more calories on the ultra-processed food. This is food that is engineered to be consumed to excess. That's its purpose. So maybe to really understand the effect of it, you have to imagine if you are a food development engineer working in product design at a big food company - if you develop a food that's cheap to make and people will just eat loads of it and enjoy it, and then come back for it again and again and again, and eat it every day and almost become addicted to it, you are going to get promoted. That product is going to do well on the shelves. If you invent a food that's not addictive, it's very healthy, it's very satisfying, people eat it and then they're done for the day. And they don't consume it to excess. You are not going to keep your job. So that's a really important way of understanding the development process of the foods. So let me ask a question about industry and intent. Because one could say that the industry engineers these things to have long shelf life and nice physical properties and the right colors and things like this. And these effects on metabolism and appetite and stuff are unpleasant and difficult side effects, but the foods weren't made to produce those things. They weren't made to produce over consumption and then in turn produce those negative consequences. You're saying something different. That you think that they're intentionally designed to promote over consumption. And in some ways, how could the industry do otherwise? I mean, every industry in the world wants people to over consume or consume as much of their product as they can. The food industry is no different. That is exactly right. The food industry behaves like every other corporation. In my view, they commit evil acts sometimes, but they're not institutionally evil. And I have dear friends who work in big food, who work in big pharma. I have friends who work in tobacco. These are not evil people. They're constrained by commercial incentives, right? So, when I say I think the food is engineered, I don't think it. I know it because I've gone and interviewed loads of people in product development at big food companies. I put some of these interviewees in a BBC documentary called Irresistible. So rather than me in the documentary going, oh, ultra-processed food is bad. And everyone going, well, you are, you're a public health bore. I just got industry insiders to say, yes, this is how we make the food. And going back to Howard Moskovitz, in the 1970s, I think he was working for the Campbell Soup Company. And Howard, who was a psychologist by training, outlined the development process. And what he said was then underlined by many other people I've spoken to. You develop two different products. This one's a little bit saltier than the next, and you test them on a bunch of people. People like the saltier ones. So now you keep the saltier one and you develop a third product and this one's got a bit more sugar in it. And if this one does better, well you keep this one and you keep AB testing until you get people buying and eating lots. And one of the crucial things that food companies measure in product development is how fast do people eat and how quickly do they eat. And these kind of development tools were pioneered by the tobacco industry. I mean, Laura Schmidt has done a huge amount of the work on this. She's at University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in California. And we know the tobacco industry bought the food industry and for a while in the '80s and '90s, the biggest food companies in the world were also the biggest tobacco companies in the world. And they used their flavor molecules and their marketing techniques and their distribution systems. You know, they've got a set of convenience tools selling cigarettes all over the country. Well, why don't we sell long shelf-life food marketed in the same way? And one thing that the tobacco industry was extremely good at was figuring out how to get the most rapid delivery of the drug possible into the human body when people smoke. Do you think that some of that same thing is true for food, rapid delivery of sugar, let's say? How close does the drug parallel fit, do you think? So, that's part of the reason the speed of consumption is important. Now, I think Ashley Gearhardt has done some of the most incredible work on this. And what Ashley says is we think of addictive drugs as like it's the molecule that's addictive. It's nicotine, it's caffeine, cocaine, diamorphine, heroin, the amphetamines. What we get addicted to is the molecule. And that Ashley says no. The processing of that molecule is crucially important. If you have slow-release nicotine in a chewing gum, that can actually treat your nicotine addiction. It's not very addictive. Slow-release amphetamine we use to treat children with attention and behavioral problems. Slow-release cocaine is an anesthetic. You use it for dentistry. No one ever gets addicted to dental anesthetics. And the food is the same. The rewarding molecules in the food we think are mainly the fat and the sugar. And food that requires a lot of chewing and is slow eaten slowly, you don't deliver the reward as quickly. And it tends not to be very addictive. Very soft foods or liquid foods with particular fat sugar ratios, if you deliver the nutrients into the gut fast, that seems to be really important for driving excessive consumption. And I think the growing evidence around addiction is very persuasive. I mean, my patients report feeling addicted to the food. And I don't feel it's legitimate to question their experience. Chris, a little interesting story about that concept of food and addiction. So going back several decades I was a professor at Yale, and I was teaching a graduate course. Ashley Gerhardt was a student in that course. And, she was there to study addiction, not in the context of food, but I brought up the issue of, you know, could food be addictive? There's some interesting research on this. It's consistent with what we're hearing from people, and that seems a really interesting topic. And Ashley, I give her credit, took this on as her life's work and now she's like the leading expert in the world on this very important topic. And what's nice for me to recall that story is that how fast the science on this is developed. And now something's coming out on this almost every day. It's some new research on the neuroscience of food and addiction and how the food is hijacking in the brain. And that whole concept of addiction seems really important in this context. And I know you've talked a lot about that yourself. She has reframed, I think, this idea about the way that addictive substances and behaviors really work. I mean it turns everything on its head to go the processing is important. The thing the food companies have always been able to say is, look, you can't say food is addictive. It doesn't contain any addictive molecules. And with Ashley's work you go, no, but the thing is it contains rewarding molecules and actually the spectrum of molecules that we can find rewarding and we can deliver fast is much, much broader than the traditionally addictive substances. For policy, it's vital because part of regulating the tobacco industry was about showing they know they are making addictive products. And I think this is where Ashley's work and Laura Schmidt's work are coming together. With Laura's digging in the tobacco archive, Ashley's doing the science on addiction, and I think these two things are going to come together. And I think it's just going to be a really exciting space to watch. I completely agree. You know when most people think about the word addiction, they basically kind of default to thinking about how much you want something. How much, you know, you desire something. But there are other parts of it that are really relevant here too. I mean one is how do you feel if you don't have it and sort of classic withdrawal. And people talk about, for example, being on high sugar drinks and stopping them and having withdrawal symptoms and things like that. And the other part of it that I think is really interesting here is tolerance. You know whether you need more of the substance over time in order to get the same reward benefit. And that hasn't been studied as much as the other part of addiction. But there's a lot to the picture other than just kind of craving things. And I would say that the thing I like about this is it chimes with my. Personal experience, which is, I have tried alcohol and cigarettes and I should probably end that list there. But I've never had any real desire for more of them. They aren't the things that tickle my brain. Whereas the food is a thing that I continue to struggle with. I would say in some senses, although I no longer like ultra-processed food at some level, I still want it. And I think of myself to some degree, without trivializing anyone's experience, to some degree I think I'm in sort of recovery from it. And it remains that tussle. I mean I don't know what you think about the difference between the kind of wanting and liking of different substances. Some scientists think those two things are quite, quite different. That you can like things you don't want, and you can want things you don't like. Well, that's exactly right. In the context of food and traditional substances of abuse, for many of them, people start consuming because they produce some sort of desired effect. But that pretty quickly goes away, and people then need the substance because if they don't have it, they feel terrible. So, you know, morphine or heroin or something like that always produces positive effects. But that initial part of the equation where you just take it because you like it turns into this needing it and having to have it. And whether that same thing exists with food is an interesting topic. I think the other really important part of the addiction argument in policy terms is that one counterargument by industrial scientists and advocates is by raising awareness around ultra-processed food we are at risk of driving, eating disorders. You know? The phenomenon of orthorexia, food avoidance, anorexia. Because all food is good food. There should be no moral value attached to food and we mustn't drive any food anxiety. And I think there are some really strong voices in the United Kingdom Eating Disorder scientists. People like Agnes Ayton, who are starting to say, look, when food is engineered, using brain scanners and using scientific development techniques to be consumed to excess, is it any wonder that people develop a disordered relationship with the food? And there may be a way of thinking about the rise of eating disorders, which is parallel to the rise of our consumption of ultra-processed food, that eating disorders are a reasonable response to a disordered food environment. And I think that's where I say all that somewhat tentatively. I feel like this is a safe space where you will correct me if I go off piste. But I think it's important to at least explore that question and go, you know, this is food with which it is very hard, I would say, to have a healthy relationship. That's my experience. And I think the early research is bearing that out. Tell us how these foods affect your hunger, how full you feel, your microbiome. That whole sort of interactive set of signals that might put people in harmony with food in a normal environment but gets thrown off when the foods get processed like this. Oh, I love that question. At some level as I'm understanding that question, one way of trying to answer that question is to go, well, what is the normal physiological response to food? Or maybe how do wild animals find, consume, and then interpret metabolically the food that they eat. And it is staggering how little we know about how we learn what food is safe and what food nourishes us. What's very clear is that wild mammals, and in fact all wild animals, are able to maintain near perfect energy balance. Obesity is basically unheard of in the wild. And, perfect nutritional intake, I mean, obviously there are famines in wild animals, but broadly, animals can do this without being literate, without being given packaging, without any nutritional advice at all. So, if you imagine an ungulate, an herbivore on the plains of the Serengeti, it has a huge difficulty. The carnivore turning herbivore into carnivore is fairly easy. They're made of the same stuff. Turning plant material into mammal is really complicated. And somehow the herbivore can do this without gaining weight, whilst maintaining total precision over its selenium intake, its manganese, its cobalt, its iron, all of which are terrible if you have too little and also terrible if you have too much. We understand there's some work done in a few wild animals, goats, and rats about how this works. Clearly, we have an ability to sense the nutrition we want. What we understand much more about is the sort of quantities needed. And so, we've ended up with a system of nutritional advice that says, well, just eat these numbers. And if you can stick to the numbers, 2,500 calories a day, 2300 milligrams of sodium, no more than 5% of your calories from free sugar or 10%, whatever it is, you know, you stick to these numbers, you'll be okay. And also, these many milligrams of cobalt, manganese, selenium, iron, zinc, all the rest of it. And obviously people can't really do that even with the packaging. This is a very long-winded answer. So, there's this system that is exquisitely sensitive at regulating micronutrient and energy intake. And what we understand, what the Academy understands about how ultra-processed food subverts this is, I would say there are sort of three or four big things that ultra-processed does that real food doesn't. It's generally very soft. And it's generally very energy dense. And that is true of even the foods that we think of as being healthy. That's like your supermarket whole grain bread. It's incredibly energy dense. It's incredibly soft. You eat calories very fast, and this research was done in the '90s, you know we've known that that kind of food promotes excessive intake. I guess in simple terms, and you would finesse this, you consume calories before your body has time to go, well, you've eaten enough. You can consume an excess. Then there's the ratios of fat, salt, and sugar and the way you can balance them, and any good cook knows if you can get the acid, fat, salt, sugar ratios right, you can make incredibly delicious food. That's kind of what I would call hyper palatability. And a lot of that work's being done in the states (US) by some incredible people. Then the food may be that because it's low in fiber and low in protein, quite often it's not satiating. And there may be, because it's also low in micronutrients and general nutrition, it may be that, and this is a little bit theoretical, but there's some evidence for this. Part of what drives the excess consumption is you're kind of searching for the nutrients. The nutrients are so dilute that you have to eat loads of it in order to get enough. Do you think, does that, is that how you understand it? It does, it makes perfect sense. In fact, I'm glad you brought up one particular issue because part of the ultra-processing that makes foods difficult for the body to deal with involves what gets put in, but also what gets taken out. And there was a study that got published recently that I think you and I might have discussed earlier on American breakfast cereals. And this study looked at how the formulation of them had changed over a period of about 20 years. And what they found is that the industry had systematically removed the protein and the fiber and then put in more things like sugar. So there, there's both what goes in and what gets taken out of foods that affects the body in this way. You know, what I hear you saying, and what I, you know, believe myself from the science, is the body's pretty capable of handling the food environment if food comes from the natural environment. You know, if you sit down to a meal of baked chicken and some beans and some leafy greens and maybe a little fruit or something, you're not going to overdo it. Over time you'd end up with the right mix of nutrients and things like that and you'd be pretty healthy. But all bets are off when these foods get processed and engineered, so you over consume them. You found that out in the experiment that you did on yourself. And then that's what science shows too. So, it's not like these things are sort of benign. People overeat them and they ought to just push away from the table. There's a lot more going on here in terms of hijacking the brain chemistry. Overriding the body signals. Really thwarting normal biology. Do you think it's important to add that we think of obesity as being the kind of dominant public health problem? That's the thing we all worry about. But the obesity is going hand in hand with stunting, for example. So, height as you reach adulthood in the US, at 19 US adults are something like eight or nine centimeters shorter than their counterparts in Northern Europe, Scandinavia, where people still eat more whole food. And we should come back to that evidence around harms, because I think the really important thing to say around the evidence is it has now reached the threshold for causality. So, we can say a dietary pattern high in ultra-processed food causes all of these negative health outcomes. That doesn't mean that any one product is going to kill you. It just means if this is the way you get your food, it's going to be harmful. And if all the evidence says, I mean, we've known this for decades. If you can cook the kind of meal, you just described at home, which is more or less the way that high income people eat, you are likely to have way better health outcomes across the board. Let me ask you about the title of your book. So, the subtitle of your book is Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. So, what is it? The ultra-processed definition is something I want to pay credit for. It's really important to pay a bit of credit here. Carlos Montero was the scientist in Brazil who led a team who together came up with this definition. And, I was speaking to Fernanda Rauber who was on that team, and we were trying to discuss some research we were doing. And every time I said food, she'd correct me and go, it is not, it's not food, Chris. It's an industrially produced edible substance. And that was a really helpful thing for me personally, it's something it went into my brain, and I sat down that night. I was actually on the UPF diet, and I sat down to eat some fried chicken wings from a popular chain that many people will know. And was unable to finish them. I think our shared understanding of the purpose of food is surely that its purpose is to nourish us. Whether it's, you know, sold by someone for this purpose, or whether it's made by someone at home. You know it should nourish us spiritually, socially, culturally, and of course physically and mentally. And ultra-processed food nourishes us in no dimension whatsoever. It destroys traditional knowledge, traditional land, food culture. You don't sit down with your family and break, you know, ultra-processed, you know, crisps together. You know, you break bread. To me that's a kind of very obvious distortion of what it's become. So, I don't think it is food. You know, I think it's not too hard of a stretch to see a time when people might consider these things non-food. Because if you think of food, what's edible and whether it's food or not is completely socially constructed. I mean, some parts of the world, people eat cockroaches or ants or other insects. And in other parts of the world that's considered non-food. So just because something's edible doesn't mean that it's food. And I wonder if at some point we might start to think of these things as, oh my God, these are awful. They're really bad for us. The companies are preying on us, and it's just not food. And yeah, totally your book helps push us in that direction. I love your optimism. The consumer facing marketing budget of a big food company is often in excess of $10 billion a year. And depends how you calculate it. I'll give you a quick quiz on this. So, for a while, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation was by far the biggest funder of research in the world on childhood obesity. And they were spending $500 million a year to address this problem. Just by which day of the year the food industry has already spent $500 million just advertising just junk food just to children. Okay, so the Robert V. Wood Foundation is spending it and they were spending that annually. Annually, right. So, what's, by what day of the year is the food industry already spent that amount? Just junk food advertising just to kids. I'm going to say by somewhere in early spring. No. January 4th. I mean, it's hysterical, but it's also horrifying. So, this is the genius of ultra-processed food, of the definition and the science, is that it creates this category which is discretionary. And so at least in theory, of course, for many people in the US it's not discretionary at all. It's the only stuff they can afford. But this is why the food industry hate it so much is because it offers the possibility of going, we can redefine food. And there is all this real food over there. And there is this UPF stuff that isn't food over here. But industry's very sophisticated, you know. I mean, they push back very hard against me in many different ways and forms. And they're very good at going, well, you're a snob. How dare you say that families with low incomes, that they're not eating food. Are you calling them dupes? Are you calling them stupid? You know, they're very, very sophisticated at positioning. Isn't it nice how concerned they are about the wellbeing of people without means? I mean they have created a pricing structure and a food subsidy environment and a tax environment where essentially people with low incomes in your country, in my country, are forced to eat food that harms them. So, one of the tells I think is if you're hearing someone criticize ultra-processed food, and you'll read them in the New York Times. And often their conflicts of interest won't be reported. They may be quite hidden. The clue is, are they demanding to seriously improve the food environment in a very clear way, or are they only criticizing the evidence around ultra-processed food? And if they're only criticizing that evidence? I'll bet you a pound to a pinch of salt they'll be food-industry funded. Let's talk about that. Let's talk about that a little more. So, there's a clear pattern of scientists who take money from industry finding things that favor industry. Otherwise, industry wouldn't pay that money. They're not stupid in the way they invest. And, you and I have talked about this before, but we did a study some years ago where we looked at industry and non-industry funded study on the health effects of consuming sugar sweetened beverages. And it's like the ocean parted. It's one of my favorites. And it was something like 98 or 99% of the independently funded studies found that sugar sweetened beverages do cause harm. And 98 or 99% of the industry funded studies funded by Snapple and Coke and a whole bunch of other companies found that they did not cause harm. It was that stark, was it? It was. And so you and I pay attention to the little print in these scientific studies about who's funded them and who might have conflicts of interest. And maybe you and I and other people who follow science closely might be able to dismiss those conflicted studies. But they have a big impact out there in the world, don't they? I had a meeting in London with someone recently, that they themselves were conflicted and they said, look, if a health study's funded by a big sugary drink company, if it's good science, that's fine. We should publish it and we should take it at face value. And in the discussion with them, I kind of accepted that, we were talking about other things. And afterwards I was like, no. If a study on human health is funded by a sugary drink corporation, in my opinion, we could just tear that up. None of that should be published. No journals should publish those studies and scientists should not really call themselves scientists who are doing it. It is better thought of as marketing and food industry-funded scientists who study human health, in my opinion, are better thought of as really an extension of the marketing division of the companies. You know, it's interesting when you talk to scientists, and you ask them do people who take money from industry is their work influenced by that money? They'll say yes. Yeah, but if you say, but if you take money from industry, will your work be influenced? They'll always say no. Oh yeah. There's this tremendous arrogance, blind spot, whatever it is that. I can remain untarnished. I can remain objective, and I can help change the industry from within. In the meantime, I'm having enough money to buy a house in the mountains, you know, from what they're paying me, and it's really pretty striking. Well, the money is a huge issue. You know, science, modern science it's not a very lucrative career compared to if someone like you went and worked in industry, you would add a zero to the end of your salary, possibly more. And the same is true of me. I think one of the things that adds real heft to the independent science is that the scientists are taking a pay cut to do it. So how do children figure in? Do you think children are being groomed by the industry to eat these foods? A senator, I think in Chile, got in hot water for comparing big food companies to kind of sex offenders. He made, in my view, a fairly legitimate comparison. I mean, the companies are knowingly selling harmful products that have addictive properties using the language of addiction to children who even if they could read warning labels, the warning labels aren't on the packs. So, I mean, we have breakfast cereals called Crave. We have slogans like, once you stop, once you pop, you can't stop. Bet you can't just eat one. Yeah, I think it is predatory and children are the most vulnerable group in our society. And you can't just blame the parents. Once kids get to 10, they have a little bit of money. They get their pocket money, they're walking to school, they walk past stores. You know, you have to rely on them making decisions. And at the moment, they're in a very poor environment to make good decisions. Perhaps the most important question of all what can be done. So, I'm speaking to you at a kind of funny moment because I've been feeling that a lot of my research and advocacy, broadcasting... you know, I've made documentaries, podcasts, I've written a book, I've published these papers. I've been in most of the major newspapers and during the time I've been doing this, you know, a little under 10 years I've been really focused on food. Much less time than you. Everything has got worse. Everything I've done has really failed totally. And I think this is a discussion about power, about unregulated corporate power. And the one glimmer of hope is this complaint that's been filed in Pennsylvania by a big US law firm. It's a very detailed complaint and some lawyers on behalf of a young person called Bryce Martinez are suing the food industry for causing kidney problems and type two diabetes. And I think that in the end is what's going to be needed. Strategic litigation. That's the only thing that worked with tobacco. All of the science, it eventually was useful, but the science on its own and the advocacy and the campaigning and all of it did no good until the lawyers said we would like billions and billions of dollars in compensation please. You know, this is an exciting moment, but there were a great many failed lawsuits for tobacco before the master settlement agreement in the '90s really sort of changed the game. You know, I agree with you. Are you, are you optimistic? I mean, what do you think? I am, and for exactly the same reason you are. You know, the poor people that worked on public health and tobacco labored for decades without anything happening long, long after the health consequences of cigarette smoking were well known. And we've done the same thing. I mean, those us who have been working in the field for all these years have seen precious little in the ways of policy advances. Now tobacco has undergone a complete transformation with high taxes on cigarettes, and marketing restrictions, and non-smoking in public places, laws, and things like that, that really have completely driven down the consumption of cigarettes, which has been a great public health victory. But what made those policies possible was the litigation that occurred by the state attorneys general, less so the private litigating attorneys. But the state attorneys general in the US that had discovery documents released. People began to understand more fully the duplicity of the tobacco companies. That gave cover for the politicians to start passing the policies that ultimately made the big difference. I think that same history is playing out here. The state attorneys general, as we both know, are starting to get interested in this. I say hurray to that. There is the private lawsuit that you mentioned, and there's some others in the mix as well. I think those things will bring a lot of propel the release of internal documents that will show people what the industry has been doing and how much of this they've known all along. And then all of a sudden some of these policy things like taxes, for example, on sugared beverages, might come in and really make a difference. That's my hope. But it makes me optimistic. Well, I'm really pleased to hear that because I think in your position it would be possible. You know, I'm still, two decades behind where I might be in my pessimism. One of the kind of engines of this problem to me is these conflicts of interest where people who say, I'm a physician, I'm a scientist, I believe all this. And they're quietly paid by the food industry. This was the major way the tobacco industry had a kind of social license. They were respectable. And I do hope the lawsuits, one of their functions is it becomes a little bit embarrassing to say my research institute is funded [by a company that keeps making headlines every day because more documents are coming out in court, and they're being sued by more and more people. So, I hope that this will diminish the conflict, particularly between scientists and physicians in the food industry. Because that to me, those are my biggest opponents. The food industry is really nice. They throw money at me. But it's the conflicted scientists that are really hard to argue with because they appear so respectable. Bio Dr. Chris van Tulleken is a physician and a professor of Infection and Global Health at University College London. He trained at Oxford and earned his PhD in molecular virology from University College London. His research focuses on how corporations affect human health especially in the context of child nutrition and he works with UNICEF and The World Health Organization on this area. He is the author of a book entitled Ultraprocessed People: Why We Can't Stop Eating Food That Isn't Food. As one of the BBC's leading broadcasters for children and adults his work has won two BAFTAs. He lives in London with his wife and two children.

IQBAR is offering our special podcast listeners 20% OFF all IQBAR products, plus get FREE shipping. To get your 20% off, text VANESSA to 64000. That's VANESSA to sixty-four thousand. Message and data rates may apply. See terms for details. In today's episode, Vanessa sits down with Dr. Samuel Dicken, Research Fellow at University College London's Centre for Obesity Research and lead author of the UPDATE Trial — the longest and most rigorous clinical study to date comparing ultra-processed (UPF) vs. minimally processed (MPF) diets. This landmark trial revealed a game-changing finding:

Sunshine Tienda is a Texas-based lifestyle brand that was founded in 2014 by identical twin sisters Laura and Amanda Ernst who blended their backgrounds in product development with a shared passion for travel and design.Centered around the phrase “Be Vacation Happy,” Sunshine Tienda offers sun hats, statement jewelry, resort-ready apparel, sarongs, and bags that evoke the spirit of warm-weather getaways. Their signature palm‑woven hats are thoughtfully handcrafted by female artisans in Guatemala using natural materials, and offer UPF 50+ sun protection—combining style, storytelling, and social impact in every piece. Use code PREPPY for a special discount at https://www.sunshinetienda.com/

We all want more energy — but what if your fatigue isn't about sleep, diet, or exercise at all? In this solo episode, Darin O'Lien uncovers the invisible drains on your vitality that most people never notice. From blue light to toxic relationships, hidden mold, micro-stress loops, EMF exposure, and even unresolved trauma stored in your body, Darin reveals how your life force is being stolen — and how to take it back. You'll learn the overlooked ways your time, attention, and biology are constantly depleted — and the exact SuperLife Energy Seal Protocol Darin uses to plug those leaks, reclaim his vitality, and live fully charged.     What You'll Learn in This Episode 00:00 – Introduction & Episode Overview Darin introduces the concept of hidden energy leaks and why most fatigue isn't just about lack of sleep. 03:05 – Energy Deposits vs. Withdrawals How every interaction, choice, and environment either builds or depletes your life force. 04:33 – The Overlooked Energy Drains The most common — and invisible — ways energy slips away without your awareness. 06:58 – Blue Light & Circadian Rhythm Disruption The science of how nighttime screen use suppresses melatonin and wrecks your sleep quality. 09:06 – Ultra-Processed Foods & Energy Impact Why “dead calorie” foods cause fatigue and how to build an energy-supportive plate. 11:33 – Hydration & Water Quality Why dehydration is the #1 cause of fatigue, and the importance of filtering and mineralizing your water. 15:06 – Micro-Stress Loops & Mental Background Apps How unresolved thoughts quietly drain your energy — and how to shut them down. 17:28 – Toxic Relationships & Social Friction The measurable toll hostile interactions take on your health and recovery. 19:10 – Indoor Air Quality & Mold Exposure How unseen environmental toxins mimic chronic fatigue symptoms. 21:27 – EMF Exposure & Device Overload The overlooked stressor disrupting your sleep, nervous system, and cellular health. 23:14 – Stillness Breaks & Nature Time The proven stress-relieving effects of short nature “pills” and mindfulness pauses. 25:41 – Past Trauma & Recapitulation How unresolved experiences trap your life force — and the Toltec method to reclaim it. 30:39 – The SuperLife Energy Seal Protocol Darin's complete daily checklist to stop leaks and recharge vitality. 33:08 – Darin's Daily Rituals How he integrates energy-protective practices into his everyday life. 35:33 – Closing Thoughts Why energy isn't something you gain — it's what's left when you stop the leaks.     Thank You to Our Sponsors: Fatty15: Get an additional 15% off their 90-day subscription Starter Kit by going to fatty15.com/DARIN and using code DARIN at checkout. Therasage: Go to www.therasage.com and use code DARIN at checkout for 15% off     Find More from Darin Olien: Instagram: @darinolienPodcast: superlife.com/podcastsWebsite: superlife.comBook: Fatal Conveniences     Key Takeaway "Energy isn't something you get — it's what remains when you stop the leaks."      Bibliography · Chang AM et al. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders… PNAS, 2015. · Hall KD et al. Ultra-processed diets cause excess calorie intake… Cell Metabolism, 2019. · Ganio MS et al. Mild dehydration impairs vigilance… Br J Nutr, 2011. · McEwen BS. Allostatic load and stress physiology. Ann NY Acad Sci, 1999. · Kiecolt-Glaser JK et al. Hostile behavior slows wound healing… Arch Gen Psychiatry, 2005. · CDC/NIOSH. Health problems in damp buildings. · Satish U et al. CO₂ and decision-making. Environ Health Perspect, 2012. · WHO. Electromagnetic fields and public health. · Hunter MCR et al. Nature pill and stress relief. Front Psychol, 2019. · Levine P. Somatic experiencing and trauma discharge. PubMed, 2012. · · Somatic trauma & release: Levine P. Waking the Tiger; “Trauma creates a permanent imprint… the body can be retrained to discharge it.” (pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov) · · Recapitulation (Toltec lineage): Ruiz DM. The Four Agreements; narrative recounting as energy reclamation. (Ancestral wisdom, narrative psychology) · · Narrative therapy integration: White M. “Externalizing the problem, reclaiming identity.” (Case-based evidence, therapeutic outcomes) · · (And prior citations as listed—circadian, UPF, hydration, air, mindfulness, social, EMF, stillness—remain intact.)

Liz is shining a light on memory and mood concerns in menopause, UPF-free meal ideas, facial puffiness, creatine for weight gain, and hormone harvesting.Liz shares unprocessed sauce and dressing recipes for Sarah, and helps another listener with her options for low mood and poor memory in menopause.She also reveals tips for Diana on how to deal with a puffy face, looks at creatine for midlife tummy weight gain for Mia, and takes a dive into how hormones are 'harvested' for HRT. Links mentioned in the episode:NICE GuidelinesFumiko Takatsu Face Yoga MethodDanielle Collins Face Yoga ExpertA Better Second Half by Liz EarleHave a question for Liz? Send a WhatsApp message or voicenote to 07518 471846, or email us at podcast@lizearlewellbeing.com for the chance to be featured on the showPlease note, on some occasions, we earn revenue if you click the links and buy the products, but we never allow this to bias our coverage and always honestly review. For more information please read our Affiliate Policy. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Story at-a-glance People with the highest consumption of ultraprocessed foods had a 23% higher risk of developing psoriasis compared to those who ate the least, based on a 12-year study of 121,019 participants Replacing just 5% of UPFs with unprocessed foods lowered psoriasis risk by 14%, and replacing 20% dropped it by 18%, making this a powerful prevention strategy Seed oils and additives in UPFs fuel chronic inflammation and increase body mass index (BMI) — two factors that significantly raise your chances of developing autoimmune skin disorders like psoriasis If you're genetically at risk for psoriasis, eating a high-UPF diet increases your likelihood of developing the condition by 2.7 times compared to those with low genetic risk and low UPF intake Reducing seed oil intake and restoring vitamin D levels through safe sun exposure or supplementation helps repair immune function and strengthens your skin's natural defenses

Story at-a-glance People with the highest consumption of ultraprocessed foods had a 23% higher risk of developing psoriasis compared to those who ate the least, based on a 12-year study of 121,019 participants Replacing just 5% of UPFs with unprocessed foods lowered psoriasis risk by 14%, and replacing 20% dropped it by 18%, making this a powerful prevention strategy Seed oils and additives in UPFs fuel chronic inflammation and increase body mass index (BMI) — two factors that significantly raise your chances of developing autoimmune skin disorders like psoriasis If you're genetically at risk for psoriasis, eating a high-UPF diet increases your likelihood of developing the condition by 2.7 times compared to those with low genetic risk and low UPF intake Reducing seed oil intake and restoring vitamin D levels through safe sun exposure or supplementation helps repair immune function and strengthens your skin's natural defenses

Rhiannon Lambert, author of ‘The Unprocessed Plate – Simple Flavorful, UPF free recipes to transform your life'

In this episode, we cover: The hidden health toll of ultra-processed foods The importance of cooking with real foods Healthier Food Choices Food Addiction Awareness Ultra-Processed Foods and Diabetes Risk Misleading Food Label Terminology Portion Control and Food Cravings Healthy Eating Strategies for Diabetes   Free Offer from Go CoCo GoCoCo would like to offer one year of Premium GoCoCo for free to all the Happy Diabetic listeners. Here is the information for the free codes. Apple  iOS only uses a link, no code to input 1 YEAR FREE  for Happy Diabetic podcast https://apps.apple.com/redeem?ctx=offercodes&id=1446005742&code=HAPPY Android Android uses the below code and will only allow us to do 90 days free at a time, but it can be used 4 times Android - 90 days free Code: HAPPY     Bertrand Amaraggi: Co-founder & CEO Julie Ruelle, RD: GoCoCo Registered Dietitian GoCoCo, Download the app: https://www.gococo.app/ GoCoCo, Our Philosophy: https://www.gococo.app/our-philosophy  GoCoCo, For people living with or at risk for diabetes: https://www.gococo.app/post/our-type-2-diabetes-warning The NOVA Food Classification System   Quick recap The meeting focused on discussing food addiction and the impact of ultra-processed foods on health, particularly for people with diabetes, with Bertrand and Julie sharing insights about the Go Coco app's role in helping users make healthier food choices. The discussion explored how processed foods can be addictive and harmful, while emphasizing the importance of reading labels and choosing whole, unprocessed foods. The conversation concluded with practical strategies for improving diet and health, including the use of the Go Coco app's features and the importance of making gradual changes to eating habits. Next steps Chef Robert to subscribe to the Go Coco app and test the new real food tracker feature.Listeners to look at their pantry and make a small, subtle change in their eating habits this week.Listeners to try adding more fruits and vegetables to their diet instead of focusing on what to eliminate.Go Coco team to continue improving the app based on user feedback and suggestions.Chef Robert to potentially meet with Bertrand in Barcelona during his planned trip to Spain in February. Summary Food Addiction Awareness Discussion Chef and Bertrand discussed the growing awareness and concern around the topic of food addiction, noting its increasing presence in media and public discourse. Bertrand highlighted the similarity between the techniques used by tobacco companies to create addiction and those applied by the food industry, emphasizing the success of these strategies in forming habits. Chef expressed excitement about the potential of Go Cocoa as a solution to help people, while Julie, a repeat guest, shared her enthusiasm for being part of the discussion. Go Coco: Healthier Food Choices Chef welcomed Julie and Bertrand to the podcast, highlighting their role in creating the Go Coco app, which helps people, especially those with diabetes, identify and avoid ultra-processed foods. Bertrand explained the app's origins in Spain six years ago and its mission to improve health by offering better food choices. Julie, a registered dietitian, shared her experience working with Go Coco, emphasizing her focus on empowering consumers to make healthier decisions for themselves and their families. Ultra-Processed Foods and Diabetes Risk The discussion focused on ultra-processed foods (UPFs) and their impact on diabetes. Julie explained that UPFs are foods that wouldn't be found in a home kitchen and are often highly palatable and addictive, with a study showing a 17% increased risk of type 2 diabetes for every 10% increase in UPF consumption. Bertrand shared user experiences with artificial sweeteners having similar effects to sugar, and both Julie and Bertrand emphasized that people with diabetes should reduce their consumption of UPFs by focusing on whole, unprocessed foods. They also discussed how UPFs often contain unhealthy fats and can lead to weight gain, with Bertrand noting that processed foods are designed to be addictive and consumed in larger quantities despite having the same nutritional profile as unprocessed alternatives. Portion Control and Food Cravings The group discussed the challenges of portion control and food cravings, particularly for snack foods like Doritos and cake. Julie explained a study about the first bite of cake being the most satisfying, leading to overeating. They emphasized the importance of reading food labels and choosing foods with simple, recognizable ingredients. Julie recommended using the Go Coco app to scan food labels and get information on ultra-processed foods. The conversation concluded with a discussion on rethinking convenience in diabetes-friendly eating, suggesting that whole, less processed foods like fruits and nuts can be convenient options. Misleading Food Label Terminology Chef and Julie discussed the misleading nature of food labels, particularly terms like "low sugar" and "diabetes-friendly," which can still refer to ultra-processed foods. Julie explained that such products often contain multiple non-nutritive sweeteners and added fats to maintain taste, and she emphasized that whole, unprocessed foods are more satisfying and less likely to lead to overeating. Bertrand noted that "low fat" claims are not found on fruits and vegetables, and Chef agreed that these labels can mislead consumers. Healthy Eating Strategies for Diabetes Chef Robert, Julie, and Bertrand discussed practical strategies for improving diet and health, particularly for those with diabetes. Julie introduced a new feature in the Go Coco app, the real food tracker, which analyzes meals and provides advice on improving nutrition. Bertrand emphasized the importance of small, gradual changes in diet, such as reducing ultra-processed foods and replacing sugary drinks with alternatives like sparkling water. Chef Robert encouraged listeners to make subtle changes to their eating habits and adopt a healthier lifestyle. Julie expressed hope in the power of conversation and suggested focusing on adding healthy foods, like fruits and vegetables, rather than subtracting unhealthy ones. GoCoCo: Healthy Food Choices App The meeting focused on the Gococo app, which helps users make healthier food choices by scanning products and providing nutritional information. Bertrand explained that the app offers a free trial and a free version, with additional features available for a fee. Julie emphasized that user feedback has been instrumental in developing the app's features, particularly for people living with diabetes. The discussion highlighted the importance of awareness and education in making healthier food choices, while also acknowledging the joy of cooking and enjoying food.   Free Offer from Go CoCo GoCoCo would like to offer one year of Premium GoCoCo for free to all the Happy Diabetic listeners. Here is the information for the free codes. Apple  iOS only uses a link, no code to input 1 YEAR FREE  for Happy Diabetic podcast https://apps.apple.com/redeem?ctx=offercodes&id=1446005742&code=HAPPY Android Android uses the below code and will only allow us to do 90 days free at a time, but it can be used 4 times Android - 90 days free Code: HAPPY

This week I'm joined by one of my oldest friends, Emma Gerber, who just so happens to be building one of the most exciting brands in the suncare space. Claudent is designing stylish, elevated UPF 50+ clothing that not only protects your skin but makes you want to wear sun-safe looks every day. We talk about the science behind UPF fabric, why most “sun-protective” clothes wash out after a few cycles, and how her brand is redefining fashion-meets-function.Shop Claudent here https://claudent.comGet 20% an annual membership of my new substack Let's Get Dressed here https://letsgetdressed.substack.com/lgdLove the show? Follow us and leave a review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. To watch this episode, head to YouTube.com/@LivvPerezFor more behind-the-scenes, follow Liv on Instagram, @LivvPerez, on TikTok @Livv.Perez, and shop her closet here https://shopmy.us/livvperezSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Story at-a-glance More than 85% of high ultraprocessed food (UPF) consumers meet clinical criteria for food addiction, including symptoms like cravings, withdrawal and loss of control People who eat more UPFs report higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress, confirming that these foods worsen mood and emotional health UPFs hijack your brain's reward system, overstimulating feel-good chemicals like dopamine, opioids and endocannabinoids, which makes quitting feel nearly impossible Damage to the gut microbiome caused by UPFs alters how your brain handles cravings and stress, increasing emotional eating and reducing impulse control Cutting out vegetable oils, which are high in linoleic acid, going cold turkey for five days and rebuilding gut health with whole foods helps break the addiction cycle and restore mood balance

Ultra-processed foods now make up over half of what many of us eat - and the health consequences are only just coming into focus. In this episode, we reveal what's really happening inside your body when you eat these foods daily.  Our guest is Dr. Andy Chan, a Harvard professor and leading expert on gut health and cancer prevention. He heads the Clinical and Translational Epidemiology Unit at Massachusetts General Hospital and has published over 400 scientific papers. Dr. Chan breaks down the hidden links between UPFs, inflammation, and diseases like obesity, diabetes, and colorectal cancer. You'll hear why some foods that look healthy on the shelf may be doing long-term damage - and how the gut microbiome plays a crucial role in the process. This is the research big food companies don't want you to hear. If you care about what you and your family are eating, don't miss this conversation. Unwrap the truth about your food

In this illuminating episode we speak with Dr. Filippa Juul. An epidemiologist and leading researcher on the impact of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) on human health. Together, we unpack what ultra-processed really means, why it's not just about calories or macros, and how these foods are stealthily contributing to the global rise in obesity, chronic illness, and food addiction. Dr. Filippa Juul is a nutritional epidemiologist and Faculty Fellow at the Department of Public Health Policy and Management at the New York University School of Global Public Health (NYU GPH). She earned her PhD in Epidemiology from NYU GPH in 2020, following a MSc in Public Health Nutrition from the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, and a BA in Nutrition and Dietetics from Universidad Autónoma de Madrid in Spain. Dr. Juul's research focuses on improving cardiometabolic health outcomes at the population level, with a particular interest in the role of ultra-processed foods (UPFs) in diet quality, obesity, and cardiovascular disease. She utilizes large U.S. population studies to examine these associations and is also exploring the biological mechanisms underlying the impact of UPFs on cardiometabolic health.  Dr. Juul explains the NOVA classification system, dives into recent groundbreaking studies, and offers insights into why UPFs are so difficult to resist—and what we can do about it, both individually and at the policy level. Key Takeaways 

Luca Fornaro is a senior researcher at CREI and professor at both UPF and the Barcelona School of Economics. In Luca's first appearance on the show, he discusses his expansive work on, hysteresis, stagnation traps, endogenous growth, aggregate demand policies, the medium run, population growth and much more.  Check out the transcript for this week's episode, now with links. Recorded on April 23th, 2025 Subscribe to David's Substack: Macroeconomic Policy Nexus Follow David Beckworth on X: @DavidBeckworth Follow the show on X: @Macro_Musings Follow Luca on X: @LucaFornaro3 Check out our new AI chatbot: the Macro Musebot! Join the new Macro Musings Discord server! Join the Macro Musings mailing list! Check out our Macro Musings merch! Subscribe to David's new BTS YouTube Channel  Timestamps: (00:00:00) – Intro (00:00:51) – Luca's Background (00:03:19) – Hysteresis (00:7:23) – Why Talk About Hysteresis Now? (00:10:55) – Stagnation Trap (00:16:07) – The Medium Run (00:22:25) – Managing Expectations with Automatic Stabilizers (00:28:48) – What About Population Growth? (00:31:47) – The Empirical Side (00:39:24) – Directing Capital Flows (00:42:30) – The Scars of Supply Shocks (00:48:57) – The Nominal GDP Targeting Solution (00:51:28) – Fiscal Stagnation (00:59:21) – Outro

【VANA 全新髮品系列上市】 5/31 前官網 https://www.vanaliving.com 下單輸入〖mindy〗(全小寫) 立享全站88折最低優惠 限時組合優惠還可以折上折 推薦的樺樹禮讚＆光之季節髮品系列都有母親節檔期超值優惠喔!!! . . . 【印花樂 x OMBRA 聯名超輕量自動傘】 ☂️比手機還輕，出遊攜帶超便利 ☂️防曬係數 UPF 30 晴雨兩用 ☂️高密度傘布，超快乾不怕濕 5/14 前輸入敏迪專屬折扣碼【mindi01】享9折優惠，晴雨日和系列滿千再享免運！ 立即擁有：https://url.inblooom.com/UOl1w . . . 本集重點： 00:06:41 印巴大規模空戰 00:25:55 加拿大選戰逆轉 00:53:33 尼泊爾機場和中國問題 01:19:59 回答QA . . 會員專屬版本： 00:05:08 印巴大規模空戰 00:24:19 加拿大選戰逆轉 00:50:06 尼泊爾機場和中國問題 01:16:32 回答QA . . . . 這裡可以找到所有的敏迪 portaly.cc/mindiworldnews -- Hosting provided by SoundOn

As tennis players, we know the sun can be just as much of an opponent in our sport from finding the right SPF and avoiding sun damage. Enter BLOQUV.  Founder and sun sport enthusiast, Corina Biton, joins us in this episode to help educate us on all things UPF apparel. As someone who loves to run, walk, paddleboard and play tennis.  After noticing white spots on my arms, she founded BloqUV when finding skin damage even though she always wore long-sleeve T-shirts. Turns out plain T-shirts only block 5% of the sun's rays! Corina created BloqUV with BloqTek, their proprietary fabric with minimum Ultraviolet Protection Factor 50 that blocks 98% UVA/UVB rays; the protection is chemical-free, inherent to the fabric and unaffected by laundering. After 15 years, BloqUV has emerged as a market leader in sun protection: unique in design, fit and sun protection technology; they're moisture-wicking and quick-dry, allowing for a wide range of uses on land and water!  Learn even more & stay tuned for a chance to win some BloqUV gear!  If you have any further questions or want to continue the conversation?! Email us at podcast@tennis-warehouse.com   Shop with us for all your TENNIS needs all over the WORLD: