Oh, studies, I love them! I love them all... A recent study on UPF tried to prove that it is really, really bad for you. But when you actually read it (well, who got the time?) the picture is quite a bit different.
Now I didn't read the study, but somebody did, so I am going to quote him. The study:
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q793
Reddit discussion that I strongly encourage to read:
I was already surprised that the mortality only increased by 4% for heavy UPF consumers. I mean what is 4% among salami eaters? But wait:
"And there is no effect whatsoever on cardiovascular or cancer mortality, which are the mechanisms many advocates propose UPFs are harmful through - the highest UPF consumption quartile actually had a nominally lower cancer mortality,"
"The 'base' model that only adjusts for energy intake finds a 22% risk.
Then they adjust for a range of factors (race, smoking, alcohol, activity, etc) and it drops to 4% risk.
Then they account for the fact that people change their diets after getting a CVD diagnosis, or they adjust for overall diet quality, and it literally drops to -1% and 1% respectively (supplementary table F)"
-1% means that IT IS GOOD FOR YOU!!!!
But wait, there is more! The study accidentally proved that:
" how sweets and cakes are protective against cancer mortality."
Cake anyone?
Now I didn't read the study, but somebody did, so I am going to quote him. The study:
https://www.bmj.com/content/385/bmj.q793
Reddit discussion that I strongly encourage to read:
I was already surprised that the mortality only increased by 4% for heavy UPF consumers. I mean what is 4% among salami eaters? But wait:
"And there is no effect whatsoever on cardiovascular or cancer mortality, which are the mechanisms many advocates propose UPFs are harmful through - the highest UPF consumption quartile actually had a nominally lower cancer mortality,"
"The 'base' model that only adjusts for energy intake finds a 22% risk.
Then they adjust for a range of factors (race, smoking, alcohol, activity, etc) and it drops to 4% risk.
Then they account for the fact that people change their diets after getting a CVD diagnosis, or they adjust for overall diet quality, and it literally drops to -1% and 1% respectively (supplementary table F)"
-1% means that IT IS GOOD FOR YOU!!!!
But wait, there is more! The study accidentally proved that:
" how sweets and cakes are protective against cancer mortality."
Cake anyone?