02-028 · EVIDENCE A · SOURCE-SENSITIVE

Eat fewer ultra-processed foods (chips, instant noodles, pastries, ready meals)

少吃超加工食品(薯片、方便面、糕点、速食)

Source cost

There’s no direct monetary cost, but you’ll need to spend time cooking or selecting minimally processed ingredients every day. The real challenge is overcoming the long-standing habit of choosing convenience over health.

Source return

People who consume the most ultra-processed foods have a roughly 20% higher risk of dying during the study period compared to those who eat the least, and a 50% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. However, this evidence is rated as low certainty, so these figures should be interpreted with caution.

Evidence grade

A

THE LOW-ROI DETOURSatire, not advice

Move “Eat fewer ultra-processed foods (chips, instant noodles, pastries, ready meals)” to Future Me's calendar

The excuse

There is no immediate alarm, so the sensible choice can wait for a less busy week.

What feels good now

Today I keep a few minutes, a bit of persistence and avoid interrupting my default routine.

What the source says

The source summarizes the return this way: “People who consume the most ultra-processed foods have a roughly 20% higher risk of dying during the study period compared to those who eat the least, and a 50% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. However, this evidence is rated as low certainty, so these figures should be interpreted with caution.” Evidence grade A. The original states the population, caveats, and sources; this is not a personal forecast.

THE ENGLISH EDITION

Original recommendation and evidence

Source commit a994b6a0c905

28. Eat fewer ultra-processed foods (chips, instant noodles, pastries, ready meals)

Cost: There’s no direct monetary cost, but you’ll need to spend time cooking or selecting minimally processed ingredients every day. The real challenge is overcoming the long-standing habit of choosing convenience over health.

In plain terms: People who consume the most ultra-processed foods have a roughly 20% higher risk of dying during the study period compared to those who eat the least, and a 50% higher risk of dying from cardiovascular disease. However, this evidence is rated as low certainty, so these figures should be interpreted with caution.

Benefit: One systematic review combined data from multiple studies, even though those original studies did not group participants by ultra-processed food intake. The results showed that people eating more ultra-processed foods had a 21% higher risk of death (RR 1.21) and a 50% higher risk of cardiovascular death (RR 1.50) compared to those eating less. These findings are classified as “highly suggestive” and “convincing” respectively. Yet when assessed using the standard GRADE criteria, the overall certainty of this evidence is low or very low.

Evidence grade: A

Sources: Lane MM et al. (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310>

Notes: There are three main points of debate here. First, the NOVA classification groups foods with vastly different nutritional profiles into the same category. Second, ultra-processed foods overlap heavily with sugary drinks and processed meat (see items 7 and 18), so it’s hard to isolate which factor is responsible for the observed effects. Third, GRADE ratings for this evidence are also low. Therefore, it’s unclear how much additional benefit this recommendation provides after following the other two. The opposing evidence comes from the same review’s low GRADE rating; no original studies have produced contradictory results to date. For now, focus on following items 7 and 18 — avoiding sugary drinks and limiting processed meat — before placing much emphasis on this recommendation.

Read the complete Chinese source and notes

28. 少吃超加工食品(薯片、方便面、糕点、速食)

成本: 不花钱,换着买而已。要自己做饭,或者花时间挑没怎么加工过的食材,每天都得占些时间。难在要长期对抗「方便就好」的惯性。

说人话: 超加工食品吃得最多的人,同期死亡的概率比吃得最少的人高约两成,心血管死亡高五成。不过这类证据被评为不太确定,数字要往回打折看。

收益: 一篇综述把多项汇总研究又合到一起算,这些汇总底下的原始研究都只记录、不分组。结果:超加工食品吃得多的人比吃得少的人,死亡风险高约 21%(RR 1.21),心血管病死亡高约 50%(RR 1.50)。这两项的证据分级分别是「高度提示」和「令人信服」。但按通行的证据打分法(GRADE)评,确定性是低或极低。

证据等级: A

来源: Lane MM 等 (2024). Ultra-processed food exposure and adverse health outcomes: umbrella review of epidemiological meta-analyses. BMJ. <https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-077310>

备注: 争议在三点。一是这套分类(NOVA)把营养差别很大的食物划成了一类。二是它和含糖饮料、加工肉(第 7、18 条)大量重叠,分不清到底是哪一项在起作用。三是按通行的证据打分法(GRADE)评,等级也低。所以做到那两条之后,这一条还能多带来多少好处,说不准。反方的证据就是同一篇综述给出的低评级本身,目前没有得出相反结论的原始研究。所以先把第 7、18 条(不喝含糖饮料、少吃加工肉)做到,再看这一条。

Author's scope notes: 争议在三点。一是这套分类(NOVA)把营养差别很大的食物划成了一类。二是它和含糖饮料、加工肉(第 7、18 条)大量重叠,分不清到底是哪一项在起作用。三是按通行的证据打分法(GRADE)评,等级也低。所以做到那两条之后,这一条还能多带来多少好处,说不准。反方的证据就是同一篇综述给出的低评级本身,目前没有得出相反结论的原始研究。所以先把第 7、18 条(不喝含糖饮料、少吃加工肉)做到,再看这一条。

YOUR PRIVATE LIST

Choose what to do with this idea

Original content by eternity4719 under CC BY 4.0. English translation is credited in the source notes. HowToLiveWorse adds a clearly labeled satirical response.

Full source and adaptation notes