New Science on What Ultra-Processed Food Does to Your Brain

[neverfstop]

The New Science on What Ultra-Processed Food Does to Your Brain

Studies are finding links between these foods and changes in the way we learn, remember and feel

Original article --> I can't subscribe/can't read the whole thing...
www.wsj.com/health/wellness/ultra-processed-food-brain-health-7a3f9827


Axios Overview

www.axios.com/newsletters/axios-finish-line-8a3bbbe2-c72a-4019-b0e1-6b1a64789fb5.html

We know how ultra-processed foods like chips and sugary cereals affect our bodies. New research is digging into how junk food hits our brains.

Why it matters: Beyond elevating risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease, heavily processed foods can harm mental health, mess with sleep — and even be addictive like alcohol or nicotine.

Some scientists are proposing a new mental health condition — "ultra-processed food use disorder," The Wall Street Journal reports.

[Jalapeñomel]

One of those studies was on 49 people. 49.

I have a lot of issues with these food studies. Were people controlled in their environment? Did they have the same family life/jobs/etc? What is the metric for which an individual is deemed healthy? Is it their BMI? Waist size? Exercise level?

[neverfstop]

I guess my initial reactions were 1) food impacting the brain makes sense & I thought we'd already established that?? 2) what's the definition of ultra processed food vs. regular processed food?

[pixy0stix]

Mar 13, 2024 8:43:36 GMT -5 Jalapeñomel said:

One of those studies was on 49 people. 49.

I have a lot of issues with these food studies. Were people controlled in their environment? Did they have the same family life/jobs/etc? What is the metric for which an individual is deemed healthy? Is it their BMI? Waist size? Exercise level?

Instead of posing questions that you know will rile people up, you can always go find the source study and see for yourself what the controls were.

[Jalapeñomel]

Mar 13, 2024 9:04:15 GMT -5 pixy0stix said:

Mar 13, 2024 8:43:36 GMT -5 Jalapeñomel said:

One of those studies was on 49 people. 49.

I have a lot of issues with these food studies. Were people controlled in their environment? Did they have the same family life/jobs/etc? What is the metric for which an individual is deemed healthy? Is it their BMI? Waist size? Exercise level?

Instead of posing questions that you know will rile people up, you can always go find the source study and see for yourself what the controls were.

I did. I didn't see any controls with their environment. I didn't see any mention of if they have the same jobs/family life. They labeled it "healthy" and then listed their measurements. Why was this deemed healthy? We've had numerous discussions as to why BMI is problematic, so they're measurement of BMI is how they deemed it healthy (25kg/m^2)? Why this particular number?

Also, according to the data, "From this, 127 participants commenced the experiment, 25 failed to complete it, leaving 102 cases for analysis." Is 102 people enough to make an informed decision? Can we make conclusions based only on 102 cases?

[wanderingback]

Fwiw here is the original study - www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1550413123000517

I have not read all of it. Yes it was a small study (many area) and I 100% don’t agree with BMI metrics but I personally find the study itself interesting (I do need to read it further in depth). The MRIs, etc.

Journalists reporting on scientific studies usually isn’t great and isn’t meant to get clicks. For example the axios article calls it "ultra processed foods" whereas the study title is "Habitual daily intake of a sweet and fatty snack modulates reward processing in humans."

[wawa]

is anybody here a WSJ subscriber who can give me the cliff notes on this: 

www.wsj.com/health/wellness/is-that-food-ultra-processed-how-to-tell-5bf8db05
(followed through from clicking into the OP article)

Because that's always my question.  Like, chips, crackers, etc are often "junk".  But what makes them ultra processed?  are they all ultra processed?  what if I make them at home?  What's the cut-off and how are is that defined?  this article appears to be my best bet at a straight answer!  

[wise_rita]

I need Emily Oster to go through studies with a fine tooth comb before I even look in their direction.

[wanderingback]

Mar 13, 2024 12:50:28 GMT -5 wawa said:

is anybody here a WSJ subscriber who can give me the cliff notes on this: 

www.wsj.com/health/wellness/is-that-food-ultra-processed-how-to-tell-5bf8db05
(followed through from clicking into the OP article)

Because that's always my question.  Like, chips, crackers, etc are often "junk".  But what makes them ultra processed?  are they all ultra processed?  what if I make them at home?  What's the cut-off and how are is that defined?  this article appears to be my best bet at a straight answer!  

I posted the actual study link above. That is your best bet for a straight answer. It doesn’t call it ultra processed foods, but high fat and high sugar vs low fat and low sugar. If you read the study it gives the info about what criteria they used for the high fat high sugar food.

You cannot rely on journalists to accurately describe scientific studies.

[wawa]

Mar 13, 2024 14:53:32 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 13, 2024 12:50:28 GMT -5 wawa said:

is anybody here a WSJ subscriber who can give me the cliff notes on this: 

www.wsj.com/health/wellness/is-that-food-ultra-processed-how-to-tell-5bf8db05
(followed through from clicking into the OP article)

Because that's always my question.  Like, chips, crackers, etc are often "junk".  But what makes them ultra processed?  are they all ultra processed?  what if I make them at home?  What's the cut-off and how are is that defined?  this article appears to be my best bet at a straight answer!  

I posted the actual study link above. That is your best bet for a straight answer. It doesn’t call it ultra processed foods, but high fat and high sugar vs low fat and low sugar. If you read the study it gives the info about what criteria they used for the high fat high sugar food.

You cannot rely on journalists to accurately describe scientific studies.

I wanted to know what these journalists think they mean they publish a story about ultra processed foods, especially since the study they're talking about didn't even use that term. Hence my wanting to know what the WSJ said when they spent a whole article defining it.

[Susie]

Mar 13, 2024 15:54:49 GMT -5 wawa said:

Mar 13, 2024 14:53:32 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

I posted the actual study link above. That is your best bet for a straight answer. It doesn’t call it ultra processed foods, but high fat and high sugar vs low fat and low sugar. If you read the study it gives the info about what criteria they used for the high fat high sugar food.

You cannot rely on journalists to accurately describe scientific studies.

I wanted to know what these journalists think they mean they publish a story about ultra processed foods, especially since the study they're talking about didn't even use that term. Hence my wanting to know what the WSJ said when they spent a whole article defining it.

A few examples from the WSJ article:

Fage 2% greek yogurt (plain) - no
Chobani flip perfect peach cobbler - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), guar gum (thickener), natural flavors and caramel color

Triscuit original - no
Ritz - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), natural flavor, high fructose corn syrup

Van Leeuwen vanilla bean ice cream - no
Breyers cookies & cream - yes, due to guar gum, tara gum, carob bean gum, natural flavor, mono- and diglycerides (emulsifiers), soy lecithin

Jonesbar (peanut butter flavor) - no
Kind protein crunchy peanut butter bar - yes, due to soy protein isolate and soy lecithin

Quaker Oats (old fashioned, in the round can) - no
Quaker protein instant oatmeal, banana nut flavor - yes, due to whey protein concentrate, whey protein isolate, natural flavor, soy lecithin

The ones that are no's include really limited ingredient lists, like "rolled oats," "eggs," etc. 

[SusanBAnthony]

My family (including a registered dietician and RN) have been discussing this for a week. Reading the ingredient lists of no and yes foods gives me more questions than answers. So whey protein on the "no" ingredients list feels like we need a way bigger study.

I hope scientists keep studying this because I'm sure there is a lot to learn and a shit ton of food that we shouldn't eat, but I'm not quite ready to quit the Kind bars.

[Deleted]

I feel like any time we make food binary (good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, yes or no) we miss a whole lot of nuance about what our bodies and minds need, and about how real people live and feed themselves. It’s fine to eat things simply because they taste good and make us feel good, especially if we also eat a variety of foods that do various good things for our bodies. In general, minimally processed foods tend to do more good things for our bodies than processed foods, but that doesn’t mean processed foods are poison.

And even if processed foods cause a lot of harm to our bodies and brains, it’s all some people have access to, so we can have all the studies we want, but it doesn’t do any good if we foist the burden of “making healthy choices” on the consumer while ignoring all of the social issues around access to a variety of fresh foods.

[wanderingback]

Mar 13, 2024 19:53:22 GMT -5 @villainv said:

I feel like any time we make food binary (good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, yes or no) we miss a whole lot of nuance about what our bodies and minds need, and about how real people live and feed themselves. It’s fine to eat things simply because they taste good and make us feel good, especially if we also eat a variety of foods that do various good things for our bodies. In general, minimally processed foods tend to do more good things for our bodies than processed foods, but that doesn’t mean processed foods are poison.

And even if processed foods cause a lot of harm to our bodies and brains, it’s all some people have access to, so we can have all the studies we want, but it doesn’t do any good if we foist the burden of “making healthy choices” on the consumer while ignoring all of the social issues around access to a variety of fresh foods.

Fwiw, science can help lead to advocacy and policy change. So I don’t necessarily think we can blame scientists for doing research and being completely blind to social issues.

[niemand88f]

Stuff You Should Know did a podcast on what the media/less-sciencey understanding of ultra-processed foods: link

It definitely seems plausible that the farther our food gets from its natural state, our bodies won't use it as effectively, so I hope there are more studies in the works.

[Deleted]

Mar 13, 2024 20:41:01 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 13, 2024 19:53:22 GMT -5 @villainv said:

I feel like any time we make food binary (good or bad, healthy or unhealthy, yes or no) we miss a whole lot of nuance about what our bodies and minds need, and about how real people live and feed themselves. It’s fine to eat things simply because they taste good and make us feel good, especially if we also eat a variety of foods that do various good things for our bodies. In general, minimally processed foods tend to do more good things for our bodies than processed foods, but that doesn’t mean processed foods are poison.

And even if processed foods cause a lot of harm to our bodies and brains, it’s all some people have access to, so we can have all the studies we want, but it doesn’t do any good if we foist the burden of “making healthy choices” on the consumer while ignoring all of the social issues around access to a variety of fresh foods.

Fwiw, science can help lead to advocacy and policy change. So I don’t necessarily think we can blame scientists for doing research and being completely blind to social issues.

Not blaming the scientists at all, more the journalists.

[aurora]

Not to this article specifically, but I have seen a number of times "ultra-processed" meaning things you really can't do in your own kitchen (e.g., due to very high pressures, unusual chemical reactions, etc.), whereas "processed" is what a lot of us do when we cook (e.g., baking, making soup, etc.)

[litebright]

I have to follow a GF/DF diet. Almost every substitute I eat (non-dairy milk/ice cream/yogurt or butter, non-wheat-based bread or crackers, etc) has weirdo/obscure thickeners and emulsifiers to compensate for the lack of gluten and/or dairy creaminess. I keep xanthan gum, potato starch, tapioca starch and similar things on-hand for my own home baking.

TBH, the diet I have to follow to feel healthy is already really restrictive and disheartening sometimes, so I'm grateful for the fact that so many substitutes even exist even though I am sure that a lot of them are considered "ultra-processed."

[wawa]

Mar 13, 2024 16:12:31 GMT -5 Susie said:

Mar 13, 2024 15:54:49 GMT -5 wawa said:

I wanted to know what these journalists think they mean they publish a story about ultra processed foods, especially since the study they're talking about didn't even use that term. Hence my wanting to know what the WSJ said when they spent a whole article defining it.

A few examples from the WSJ article:

Fage 2% greek yogurt (plain) - no
Chobani flip perfect peach cobbler - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), guar gum (thickener), natural flavors and caramel color

Triscuit original - no
Ritz - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), natural flavor, high fructose corn syrup

Van Leeuwen vanilla bean ice cream - no
Breyers cookies & cream - yes, due to guar gum, tara gum, carob bean gum, natural flavor, mono- and diglycerides (emulsifiers), soy lecithin

Jonesbar (peanut butter flavor) - no
Kind protein crunchy peanut butter bar - yes, due to soy protein isolate and soy lecithin

Quaker Oats (old fashioned, in the round can) - no
Quaker protein instant oatmeal, banana nut flavor - yes, due to whey protein concentrate, whey protein isolate, natural flavor, soy lecithin

The ones that are no's include really limited ingredient lists, like "rolled oats," "eggs," etc. 

thank you!  

[ESF]

Mar 13, 2024 16:12:31 GMT -5 Susie said:

Mar 13, 2024 15:54:49 GMT -5 wawa said:

I wanted to know what these journalists think they mean they publish a story about ultra processed foods, especially since the study they're talking about didn't even use that term. Hence my wanting to know what the WSJ said when they spent a whole article defining it.

A few examples from the WSJ article:

Fage 2% greek yogurt (plain) - no
Chobani flip perfect peach cobbler - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), guar gum (thickener), natural flavors and caramel color

Triscuit original - no
Ritz - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), natural flavor, high fructose corn syrup

Van Leeuwen vanilla bean ice cream - no
Breyers cookies & cream - yes, due to guar gum, tara gum, carob bean gum, natural flavor, mono- and diglycerides (emulsifiers), soy lecithin

Jonesbar (peanut butter flavor) - no
Kind protein crunchy peanut butter bar - yes, due to soy protein isolate and soy lecithin

Quaker Oats (old fashioned, in the round can) - no
Quaker protein instant oatmeal, banana nut flavor - yes, due to whey protein concentrate, whey protein isolate, natural flavor, soy lecithin

The ones that are no's include really limited ingredient lists, like "rolled oats," "eggs," etc. 

I came in here expecting to be annoyed, but this list is really interesting to me. It's not that foods with fat, salt, and sugar are "bad" -- the problem to me seems to be the combination of one or more of those things with the other kinds of chemicals. Most foods also have artificial and/or natural flavorings added and while not mentioned, I think that's also an important consideration.

Many food companies do extensive research and testing to make their foods highly palatable because they increase their sales if you eat more of the food. The use of flavorings and chemicals alter how the food feels while you eat it.

I really love ice cream bars, and occassionally buy the Van Leewen ones, which are amazing but expensive, and more often buy cheaper things, like Drumsticks. I find with the Drumsticks, I want to eat 3 more, whereas I experience no such sensation after a Van Leeuwen one. I would have a hard time physically forcing myself to eat a second VL bar in one sitting. They are more delicious but there's a quality to the Drumsticks that makes them more addictive.

It would not surprise me to learn that more consumption of these "ultra-processed" foods would have an impact on brain wiring over time.

I do think the ultra-processed food industry has more in common with the tobacco industry than we've really reckoned with.

ETA - and it's not just the addition of a given ingredient or chemical, but the overall food composition.  The foods have been engineered in a way to make you want to eat more.

[wanderingback]

Mar 14, 2024 9:21:24 GMT -5 ESF said:

Mar 13, 2024 16:12:31 GMT -5 Susie said:

A few examples from the WSJ article:

Fage 2% greek yogurt (plain) - no
Chobani flip perfect peach cobbler - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), guar gum (thickener), natural flavors and caramel color

Triscuit original - no
Ritz - yes, due to soy lecithin (emulsifier), natural flavor, high fructose corn syrup

Van Leeuwen vanilla bean ice cream - no
Breyers cookies & cream - yes, due to guar gum, tara gum, carob bean gum, natural flavor, mono- and diglycerides (emulsifiers), soy lecithin

Jonesbar (peanut butter flavor) - no
Kind protein crunchy peanut butter bar - yes, due to soy protein isolate and soy lecithin

Quaker Oats (old fashioned, in the round can) - no
Quaker protein instant oatmeal, banana nut flavor - yes, due to whey protein concentrate, whey protein isolate, natural flavor, soy lecithin

The ones that are no's include really limited ingredient lists, like "rolled oats," "eggs," etc. 

I came in here expecting to be annoyed, but this list is really interesting to me. It's not that foods with fat, salt, and sugar are "bad" -- the problem to me seems to be the combination of one or more of those things with the other kinds of chemicals. Most foods also have artificial and/or natural flavorings added and while not mentioned, I think that's also an important consideration.

Many food companies do extensive research and testing to make their foods highly palatable because they increase their sales if you eat more of the food. The use of flavorings and chemicals alter how the food feels while you eat it.

I really love ice cream bars, and occassionally buy the Van Leewen ones, which are amazing but expensive, and more often buy cheaper things, like Drumsticks. I find with the Drumsticks, I want to eat 3 more, whereas I experience no such sensation after a Van Leeuwen one. I would have a hard time physically forcing myself to eat a second VL bar in one sitting. They are more delicious but there's a quality to the Drumsticks that makes them more addictive.

It would not surprise me to learn that more consumption of these "ultra-processed" foods would have an impact on brain wiring over time.

I do think the ultra-processed food industry has more in common with the tobacco industry than we've really reckoned with.

ETA - and it's not just the addition of a given ingredient or chemical, but the overall food composition.  The foods have been engineered in a way to make you want to eat more.

I agree with all this. It’s understandable that people might feel that these studies and reporting aren’t good, but I do think there has been a lot of evidence that good can be addicting due to the pleasure signals it sends and showing what actually happens to someone’s brain via imaging is an objective measure.

I won’t call ultraprocessed food "bad" but as you said food companies want to sell and there are obviously certain flavors and textures that are more likely to have you going back for more.

[DotAndBuzz]

I'll echo the dislike for this judgmental and binary labels we give to food (and thus, by silent extension, the people who eat those foods). Good/bad, clean/'dirty?", healthy/unhealthy, whole/processed (and thus "lesser"). Instead of *addressing* societal issues that lead to chronic health problems, we lay SO MUCH BLAME on individuals, and what they put in their bodies. But addressing these issues doesn't make the lifestyle industry money, so we just KOKO giving women unrealistic body expectations, blaming them if they can't meet them, looking down our noses at people who don't eat the "right" foods.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Does the food we put into our body provide fuel for our body? Obviously. But studies/stories like this fail to consider/address/mention:
-disparity between Black, brown, and white women's access to, and disparities in, healthcare
-food deserts and poverty
-the psychology of disordered eating
-the fact that people with food intolerance/allergy would likely be DEAD 100 years ago due to malnutrition and/or an allergic reaction (but now they can eat "processed" food, and thrive)
-how studies like this add to the mom guilt of making sure their kid eats the "perfect" foods (which can then easily dovetail into disordered eating, especially for girls, but also for teens of all genders)

By all means, study how substances impact our bodies and brains, but FUUUUCK continuing to frame it as "whole = good, processed = bad."

[wanderingback]

Mar 14, 2024 9:43:09 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

I'll echo the dislike for this judgmental and binary labels we give to food (and thus, by silent extension, the people who eat those foods). Good/bad, clean/'dirty?", healthy/unhealthy, whole/processed (and thus "lesser"). Instead of *addressing* societal issues that lead to chronic health problems, we lay SO MUCH BLAME on individuals, and what they put in their bodies. But addressing these issues doesn't make the lifestyle industry money, so we just KOKO giving women unrealistic body expectations, blaming them if they can't meet them, looking down our noses at people who don't eat the "right" foods.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Does the food we put into our body provide fuel for our body? Obviously. But studies/stories like this fail to consider/address/mention:
-disparity between Black, brown, and white women's access to, and disparities in, healthcare
-food deserts and poverty
-the psychology of disordered eating
-the fact that people with food intolerance/allergy would likely be DEAD 100 years ago due to malnutrition and/or an allergic reaction (but now they can eat "processed" food, and thrive)
-how studies like this add to the mom guilt of making sure their kid eats the "perfect" foods (which can then easily dovetail into disordered eating, especially for girls, but also for teens of all genders)

By all means, study how substances impact our bodies and brains, but FUUUUCK continuing to frame it as "whole = good, processed = bad."

You’re not the only one to say this, but what is the recommendation for scientists in addressing societal issues in the experiments? Most research articles do address what flaws their studies have. What if this experiment showed that the low fat and low sugar items were the items that changed the reward processing in our brains? Would people still have the same feelings.

There are scientists that do use their research for advocacy purposes. I see it all the time in my field. So I do think there is a place for purely science and research even if those scientists aren’t themselves directly addressing societal problems.

@@@@@

For me personally as a mom this research does not make me feel guilty at all. Obviously this specific study was a small sample and I do think it has been shown that food can change our brain and dopamine levels, but I am in favor of science (while recognizing that what gets researched and published isn’t always representative and there are of course flaws in science) and do use it to help parenting choices without guilt.

[DotAndBuzz]

Mar 14, 2024 10:00:05 GMT -5 wanderingback said:

Mar 14, 2024 9:43:09 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

I'll echo the dislike for this judgmental and binary labels we give to food (and thus, by silent extension, the people who eat those foods). Good/bad, clean/'dirty?", healthy/unhealthy, whole/processed (and thus "lesser"). Instead of *addressing* societal issues that lead to chronic health problems, we lay SO MUCH BLAME on individuals, and what they put in their bodies. But addressing these issues doesn't make the lifestyle industry money, so we just KOKO giving women unrealistic body expectations, blaming them if they can't meet them, looking down our noses at people who don't eat the "right" foods.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Does the food we put into our body provide fuel for our body? Obviously. But studies/stories like this fail to consider/address/mention:
-disparity between Black, brown, and white women's access to, and disparities in, healthcare
-food deserts and poverty
-the psychology of disordered eating
-the fact that people with food intolerance/allergy would likely be DEAD 100 years ago due to malnutrition and/or an allergic reaction (but now they can eat "processed" food, and thrive)
-how studies like this add to the mom guilt of making sure their kid eats the "perfect" foods (which can then easily dovetail into disordered eating, especially for girls, but also for teens of all genders)

By all means, study how substances impact our bodies and brains, but FUUUUCK continuing to frame it as "whole = good, processed = bad."

You’re not the only one to say this, but what is the recommendation for scientists in addressing societal issues in the experiments? Most research articles do address what flaws their studies have. What if this experiment showed that the low fat and low sugar items were the items that changed the reward processing in our brains? Would people still have the same feelings.

There are scientists that do use their research for advocacy purposes. I see it all the time in my field. So I do think there is a place for purely science and research even if those scientists aren’t themselves directly addressing societal problems.

@@@@@

For me personally as a mom this research does not make me feel guilty at all. Obviously this specific study was a small sample and I do think it has been shown that food can change our brain and dopamine levels, but I am in favor of science (while recognizing that what gets researched and published isn’t always representative and there are of course flaws in science) and do use it to help parenting choices without guilt.

Totally agree

I think my main beef isn't with the scientists, but with the journalists and "lifestyle/health" influencers who will pick up the little nuggets of new data, and run with it, excluding to consider other factors mentioned. This isn't new in health research, it just ticks me off. 

Also *really* pisses me off because people will take smaller studies like this as settled fact, and spread the word to make changes, but will then refuse believe it, much less take action, when faced with insane amounts of data around other things (climate change, for example).

The food topic, in particular, is a sensitive topic for a few things in my personal life, so I'm going to bow out now, but will end with saying yay science, boo judgement/guilt.  

[gretchenindisguise]

Mar 14, 2024 9:01:50 GMT -5 litebright said:

I have to follow a GF/DF diet. Almost every substitute I eat (non-dairy milk/ice cream/yogurt or butter, non-wheat-based bread or crackers, etc) has weirdo/obscure thickeners and emulsifiers to compensate for the lack of gluten and/or dairy creaminess. I keep xanthan gum, potato starch, tapioca starch and similar things on-hand for my own home baking.

TBH, the diet I have to follow to feel healthy is already really restrictive and disheartening sometimes, so I'm grateful for the fact that so many substitutes even exist even though I am sure that a lot of them are considered "ultra-processed."

Agreed. I'm allergic to egg, dairy and peanuts. A lot of my substitutes are "ultra-processed" and I can get stuck in a feeling of I just can't win. 

[kitty]

Mar 14, 2024 9:43:09 GMT -5 DotAndBuzz said:

I'll echo the dislike for this judgmental and binary labels we give to food (and thus, by silent extension, the people who eat those foods). Good/bad, clean/'dirty?", healthy/unhealthy, whole/processed (and thus "lesser"). Instead of *addressing* societal issues that lead to chronic health problems, we lay SO MUCH BLAME on individuals, and what they put in their bodies. But addressing these issues doesn't make the lifestyle industry money, so we just KOKO giving women unrealistic body expectations, blaming them if they can't meet them, looking down our noses at people who don't eat the "right" foods.

@@@@@@@@@@@@@

Does the food we put into our body provide fuel for our body? Obviously. But studies/stories like this fail to consider/address/mention:
-disparity between Black, brown, and white women's access to, and disparities in, healthcare
-food deserts and poverty
-the psychology of disordered eating
-the fact that people with food intolerance/allergy would likely be DEAD 100 years ago due to malnutrition and/or an allergic reaction (but now they can eat "processed" food, and thrive)
-how studies like this add to the mom guilt of making sure their kid eats the "perfect" foods (which can then easily dovetail into disordered eating, especially for girls, but also for teens of all genders)

By all means, study how substances impact our bodies and brains, but FUUUUCK continuing to frame it as "whole = good, processed = bad."

Here's a quote from the study wanderingback linked that compared people who ate high fat/high sugar yogurt for 8 weeks to people who are low fat/low sugar yogurt:

"Collectively this emerging work suggests that frequent exposure to HF/HS snacks alone can alter physiology to create risk in non-dieting individuals who have maintained their regular diet as well as a healthy weight and metabolism by reducing preference for healthier food options while simultaneously enhancing neural reward responses to palatable food. This insight is important because it partially removes the onus of blame from the individual to the environment. Specifically, the current findings raise the possibility that even healthy-weight individuals with minimal or no trait level risks, exposed to an unhealthy diet because of a lack of access to healthy foods, incur adaptations that promote overeating. It also follows that those with genetic risk might even be more susceptible. Consistent with this possibility, a recent human genetics study found that polygenetic risk for obesity was partially mediated by poor diet. Thus, dietary exposure and the resulting neural adaptations may play a critical role in the strong association between socioeconomic status and BMI, given the established inverse association between food price and energy density."

The scientists agree with you!

In another part of the article, they point out that from an evolution standpoint what they see makes sense:

"From an evolutionary perspective, upon encountering a food environment with increased availability of highly palatable energy-dense foods, adaptations to neural circuits that enhance learning about food availability (associative learning and increased responses to food sensations), while promoting intake of higher energy-dense options (decreased preference for low fat), could reasonably lead to an adaptive advantage given the likelihood of the transient nature of such an opportunity. However, following prolonged exposure, longer-lasting changes to neural circuits might promote dysfunctional behavior leading to weight gain and metabolic dysfunction."

So they are saying that the problem isn't necessarily what they foods do to your brain itself but what they do to your brain combined with constant access to "highly palatable energy-dense" foods. This study was just one of several cited in the original wsj article and wasn't even specifically about ultra processed foods though.