new research debunks trad views on nutrition

[Perris]

thanks @RoyalChick ; I look forward to reading it.

 

[Perris]

"These findings on the relative importance of food processing should complement and expand, not displace, current understanding of diet-related health. A House of Lords committee report highlighted the need for a healthier UK food environment35. The wider food system is key in driving diet-related poor health and obesity by enabling ready availability to cheap, unhealthy food36. Little success13 has been achieved in addressing obesity since 1992, despite 14 government obesity strategies in England37. Many obesity policies focus on person-level actions, rather than system-level changes. The concept of Nova and ultraprocessing shifts the focus onto the environmental drivers of obesity and the influence of transnational food companies in shaping unhealthy food environments36,38. Reductionist approaches focusing solely on nutrient reformulation or individual-level action insufficiently address environmental factors. Stakeholders across disciplines and organizations must align and focus on wider actions to improve the food environment (for example, taxes and subsidies), to enable affordable, available and desirable healthy diets for all8,36."
I agree with that wholeheartedly; thanks again for linking RC.

I understand the importance of statistical analyses in studies like this, but it does lead to sections in which there are more numbers and codes than words and the 'text' looks more like a cipher than English; sadly, very offputting even for those interested in the topic.

 

[RoyalChick]

"These findings on the relative importance of food processing should complement and expand, not displace, current understanding of diet-related health. A House of Lords committee report highlighted the need for a healthier UK food environment35. The wider food system is key in driving diet-related poor health and obesity by enabling ready availability to cheap, unhealthy food36. Little success13 has been achieved in addressing obesity since 1992, despite 14 government obesity strategies in England37. Many obesity policies focus on person-level actions, rather than system-level changes. The concept of Nova and ultraprocessing shifts the focus onto the environmental drivers of obesity and the influence of transnational food companies in shaping unhealthy food environments36,38. Reductionist approaches focusing solely on nutrient reformulation or individual-level action insufficiently address environmental factors. Stakeholders across disciplines and organizations must align and focus on wider actions to improve the food environment (for example, taxes and subsidies), to enable affordable, available and desirable healthy diets for all8,36."
I agree with that wholeheartedly; thanks again for linking RC.

I understand the importance of statistical analyses in studies like this, but it does lead to sections in which there are more numbers and codes than words and the 'text' looks more like a cipher than English; sadly, very offputting even for those interested in the topic.

Yes. As someone who grew up analyzing scientific studies even I have to concentrate not to go cross-eyed! Well-written abstract and conclusions sections are essential to sanity.
But I would argue that the inclusion of the statistical data is important to ensure rigor and to allow others to challenge the findings.
This is where science journalists can prove their value (or sadly, sometimes not).
Here is the journalism version that led me to read the original article. Not horrible but some unfortunate mistakes in the writing and too obviously coming in with a bias.
https://futurism.com/scientists-processed-food-research