Every 100 Grams Of Ultra Processed Foods Consumed Per Day Increases Risk Of Diseases
Think twice before reaching for a bag of chips or your favorite sugary beverage. With every 100 grams of ultra-processed foods you consume each day, your risk of developing cardiovascular disease, hypertension, digestive diseases, and cancer increases, according to recent research.
'Ultra-processed foods are characterized by high sugar, high salt, and other non-nutritive components, exhibiting low nutritional density yet high caloric content,' said Xiao Liu in a press release, a cardiologist at the Sun Yat-sen Memorial Hospital of Sun Yat-sen University in Guangzhou, China. 'These products may contribute to adverse health outcomes through multiple mechanisms, including but not limited to dysregulation of blood lipid profiles, alterations in gut microbiota composition, promotion of obesity, induction of systemic inflammation, exacerbation of oxidative stress, and impairment of insulin sensitivity.'
Liu and colleagues analyzed 41 studies conducted on ultra-processed foods and their health impacts that had a total of 8,286,940 adult participants from Europe, Asia, the Americas, and Australia. They found that an additional 100 grams of ultra-processed foods consumed each day was associated with a 14.5% higher risk of hypertension, 5.9% greater risk of cardiovascular events, and 1.2% higher risk of developing cancer. The researchers found the strongest association between ultra-processed foods and digestive diseases as consuming 100 grams of it was linked to a 19.5% increased risk of stomach problems.
The most common examples of ultra-processed foods are ready-to-eat meals or frozen foods, sweetened beverages, cooking, mass-produced bread, chips and other savory packaged foods, instant noodles, flavored yogurts, breakfast cereals, and desserts, among others. What makes these products incredibly healthy are the food additives, preservatives, and colorants added during multiple stages of processing.
'Clinicians should clearly explain that ultra-processed foods are typically high in added sugars, sodium, and unhealthy fats while being low in fiber, essential vitamins, and other protective nutrients. This nutritional imbalance contributes to a wide range of adverse health outcomes,' Liu added in the press release. 'Emerging evidence suggests a dose-response relationship between ultra-processed food consumption and negative health outcomes—meaning the more ultra-processed foods consumed, the greater the health risk. Therefore, reducing ultra-processed foods intake, even modestly, may offer measurable health benefits.' Liu's findings were presented at a conference in Singapore earlier this month called ACC Asia 2025 Together.
Another recent study published on May 7, 2025m in the journal Neurology, revealed that people who eat higher quantities of ultra-processed foods like hot dogs, cookies, and breakfast cereal are at a greater risk of suffering from early signs of Parkinson's disease compared to those who limit their consumption of ultra-processed foods.
'Eating a healthy diet is crucial as it has been associated with a lower risk of neurodegenerative diseases and the dietary choices we make today can significantly influence our brain health in the future,' said study author Xiang Gao in a press release, who is a PhD student at the Institute of Nutrition, Fudan University in Shanghai, China. 'There's growing evidence that diet might influence the development of Parkinson's disease. Our research shows that eating too much processed food, like sugary sodas and packaged snacks, might be speeding up early signs of Parkinson's disease.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
24 minutes ago
- Yahoo
2 Undervalued Healthcare Stocks Poised to Dominate the Next Decade
Key Points Pfizer and Novo Nordisk have underperformed the market over the past year. But both should remain major players in important areas within the pharma industry. Investors could see the two drugmakers' shares beat the market over the next decade. 10 stocks we like better than Pfizer › Pharmaceutical giants Pfizer (NYSE: PFE) and Novo Nordisk (NYSE: NVO) have lagged the market over the past year, although Pfizer's poor performance dates back much further. Though these companies have encountered challenges, there are good reasons to be bullish on their long-term prospects. Pfizer could become an even bigger player in the oncology market (the largest therapeutic area in the industry by sales) over the next decade, while Novo Nordisk will be a major player in diabetes and the fast-growing weight management space. Both could produce excellent results along the way. Here's the rundown. 1. Pfizer Pfizer's financial results haven't been great in recent years. To make matters worse, the company will face important patent cliffs by the end of the decade. One of them will be for Eliquis, an anticoagulant that is still one of its best-selling medicines. However, Pfizer has prepared for that eventuality. The company made several acquisitions and licensing deals that significantly boosted its pipeline, especially in oncology. Pfizer spent $43 billion to acquire Seagen, a smaller cancer specialist whose lineup and pipeline were impressive for a company of its size. With the financial and strategic backing of the larger company, it should yield even more key approvals in the field in the coming years. Pfizer also recently made an up-front payment of $1.25 billion to China-based 3SBio for the rights to SSGJ-707, an investigational bispecific antibody, a portion of the oncology market that's gaining traction these days. 3SBio will be eligible for commercial and regulatory milestone payments of up to $4.8 billion, not including royalties. These moves should eventually pay off for Pfizer and strengthen its position in oncology. The drugmaker plans to have eight blockbuster cancer medicines on the market by 2030, up from its current five, while doubling its reach from the current 1 million patients it serves. Of course, Pfizer isn't just a cancer play. The company's extensive pipeline should enable it to launch products in other areas and ultimately get back on track. While its shares have been lagging the market significantly, that could change in the next decade as financial results rebound thanks to its innovative efforts. Pfizer's shares look especially attractive when considering its valuation. Its forward price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio is 8.7, much lower than the healthcare sector's 15.8. From their current levels, Pfizer's shares could go on to generate excellent returns through 2035. 2. Novo Nordisk Novo Nordisk pioneered the market for weight management medicines. However, Eli Lilly seems to have taken the lead in that field, at least for now. Novo Nordisk has faced some clinical setbacks, leading to a poor performance over the trailing-12-month period. Can the company rebound and perform well in the next decade? In my view, it can, and the market may be significantly undervaluing its potential. Its sales of Wegovy, one of the top-selling anti-obesity medications, continue to grow rapidly. Novo Nordisk recently requested approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for oral semaglutide (the active ingredient in Wegovy). That's good for patients who want a non-injected option, and helps counter Lilly's up-and-coming oral GLP-1 medicine, orforglipron. Elsewhere, Novo Nordisk recently started phase 3 studies for amycretin, a next-gen weight loss candidate. Amycretin is being investigated in both oral and subcutaneous formulations, and both are currently in late-stage clinical trials. The company also enhanced its pipeline through licensing deals, including one with United Biotechnology, a subsidiary of the China-based company United Laboratories International Holdings, for UBT251. This potential anti-obesity medicine mimics the actions of three gut hormones: GLP-1, GIP, and glucagon. The transaction cost Novo Nordisk an up-front payment of $200 million and up to $1.8 billion in milestone payments. Thanks to all these developments, Novo Nordisk should remain a leader in weight management in the next decade. Even though competition is mounting, no drugmaker not named Eli Lilly has a lineup or a pipeline as deep as Novo Nordisk's. Furthermore, the Denmark-based pharmaceutical leader will also continue to dominate the diabetes market, as it has done for decades. Novo Nordisk generates consistent revenue and earnings that typically grow faster than those of similarly-sized peers. Yet the stock's forward P/E is 16.7, which is slightly above the industry average. In my view, that's a bargain for a company that generates better-than-average results and has a deep pipeline in a fast-growing area -- not to mention two of the world's top 20 best-selling drugs, in Wegovy and Ozempic. For investors willing to stay the course, Novo Nordisk's future still looks incredibly bright. Should you invest $1,000 in Pfizer right now? Before you buy stock in Pfizer, consider this: The Motley Fool Stock Advisor analyst team just identified what they believe are the for investors to buy now… and Pfizer wasn't one of them. The 10 stocks that made the cut could produce monster returns in the coming years. Consider when Netflix made this list on December 17, 2004... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $652,133!* Or when Nvidia made this list on April 15, 2005... if you invested $1,000 at the time of our recommendation, you'd have $1,056,790!* Now, it's worth noting Stock Advisor's total average return is 1,048% — a market-crushing outperformance compared to 180% for the S&P 500. Don't miss out on the latest top 10 list, available when you join Stock Advisor. See the 10 stocks » *Stock Advisor returns as of July 15, 2025 Prosper Junior Bakiny has positions in Eli Lilly and Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has positions in and recommends Pfizer. The Motley Fool recommends Novo Nordisk. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 2 Undervalued Healthcare Stocks Poised to Dominate the Next Decade was originally published by The Motley Fool Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Medscape
25 minutes ago
- Medscape
The Ethical Minefield of Genetic Testing for All
Dr Arya Anthony Kamyab Imagine being able to screen an embryo's DNA and predict the likelihood of developing diseases such as diabetes or schizophrenia. DNA technology has been knocking on the door of health innovation for some time, and it looks as though it has finally arrived in the NHS. The government's 10 Year Health Plan for England aims to 'provide a genomic test for every newborn baby by 2035,' Health and Social Care Secretary Wes Streeting confirmed to the House of Commons this month. This would require redesigning our current practice. At present, when babies are born, the heel-prick test screens for nine rare conditions using biochemical markers. The plan to introduce genetic testing will entail all newborns in England having DNA screening which, rather than looking for chemical markers, uses whole genome sequencing to look for changes in genes associated with more than 200 conditions that can be improved if identified early. Genetic screening is not intended to replace the heel-prick test, which will continue to be carried out regardless of whether parents decide to opt out of genomic screening. Genomics England is helping lead research. It's 100,000 Genomes Project has sequenced more than 85,000 participants' genomes, with 18.5% of data so far turned into actionable findings. The Generation Study from Genomics England plans to build on these foundations to sequence the genomes of a similar number of newborn babies. This genomics information will be interpreted through AI to help predict and avert genetic illness before the onset of symptoms. Predictive Power DNA is not a deterministic code with a unique ability to predict the future. Modern science has linked certain genetic variants to specific diseases. However, countless others — known as variants of uncertain significance — remain unclassified, their potential harmful, neutral, or beneficial. Some of these variants, which currently evade our 21st century understanding of genetics, will inevitably be associated with diseases. This project could undoubtably illuminate many of those missing gaps and transform our knowledge of inherited risk. So, what undermines DNA's predictive value in determining who we grow up to be? We can break the answer down into three reasons: incomplete penetrance, variable expressivity, and being heavily shaped by environment. Incomplete penetrance is a fancy term used by geneticists. It refers to a scenario in which individuals carry a specific genetic mutation but do not always express the associated disease or trait. We see this with the BRCA1 gene, which increases the risk for breast and ovarian cancer, but not all carriers develop these diseases. Then we have variable expressivity, which often gets confused for penetrance but is a distinct concept. Where penetrance concerns itself with whether the trait (or condition) will appear, expressivity describes its severity or types of symptoms once present. Finally, the interplay between genes and environment is vital for the presence of disease. But have you ever considered how the knowledge of genetic susceptibility may affect one's behaviour? If you were to know that your genes confer a greater risk for, say, diabetes, could that lead to behaviour modification? Fewer takeaways and more exercise? The Ethical Minefield Make no mistake, having access to genetic information will save lives and reduce suffering. It will further our understanding of genetics, a foundational pillar of medical science. This doesn't make the debate a foregone conclusion, however, as the ethical terrain is incredibly complex. The Generation Study is not sequencing parents' genes. However, it would mean universal screening of babies' genomes before they can consent. Few could argue that telling parents that their child has a noncurable condition will unleash significant anxiety and stress. Some may argue it is not worth the potential benefits, while others may prioritise the long-term gains in scientific advancement. Research published in the Nature journal European Journal of Human Genetics suggests that most parents would plan to tell their children their screening results in childhood, whilst some would postpone this news due to the potential negative impacts it may have on their self-esteem. Perhaps, then, this scheme should report only on a predefined panel of conditions where early treatment makes a significant impact on outcomes. What makes a disease "treatable" or not is also not black and white and will raise further difficult questions. But this is where we have to be careful. The argument against screening for diseases that are not treatable in 2025 overlooks the fact that such programmes generate valuable data, which can play a role in the development of future breakthroughs and therapies. Consider knowledge as a burden for a moment. We know of genetic variants that are associated with Alzheimer's disease. How are parents supposed to raise a child that they know has a genetically increased risk of developing Alzheimer's? For some, the answer is simple: Do nothing. The exact cause of Alzheimer's is not understood, which means there is no certain way to prevent it. But this reductionist approach of simply deciding to do nothing is much easier said than done. Regardless of whether you choose to report on only a predefined panel of conditions, patients will know that the data exist. Once the genome is sequenced, it cannot be unsequenced. Doctors, geneticists, and academics will have to carry the moral burden of knowing more than they can responsibly act on. And what about patients? If they know that the data exist but are withheld because conditions are deemed nonactionable, what will stop them demanding the information and paying a third party to interpret the results? If so, we risk creating a two-tier system where genomic knowledge is in the hands of the most affluent. The Slippery Slope to Discrimination The most common fear that populates headlines is the misuse of genetic data. A reference to George Orwell's 1984 is never too far when data acquisition for 'the greater good' is mentioned. Maybe we can begin a new movement, calling this Orwell's Law? But this concern deserves to be taken seriously. In philosophy, a slippery-slope argument is when a decision is rejected because the arguer believes it will lead to a chain reaction that results in an undesirable end. The issue with slippery-slope fallacies is that they are incredibly easy to make and the proponents often fail to do the hard work of logically connecting each step to show why one outcome would lead to the next. So, are the concerns legitimate? Genetic test results can affect insurance policies. In the UK, insurers cannot ask you to take a genetic test, but they can ask for results of a test if you have already taken one. If genetic testing becomes widespread, it may prove difficult to keep this information from insurers. Others may also want access. Genomic data are akin to your identity. The acquisition of this information creates a layer of vulnerability that understandably makes many nervous. Could employers make decisions on whether to hire someone with a predisposition to a mental illness, for instance? And yet despite all this, it would be terse to flat-out ignore what this technology may be able to bring. Identification of, say, spinal muscle atrophy at a presymptomatic stage can significantly improve outcomes and slow the progression of disease. This debate is complex but at the same time fascinating. We are remoulding healthcare and shifting the timescale for where medicine begins. But this comes with risk and ethical questions.
Medscape
an hour ago
- Medscape
TNT Shows Similar Efficacy Across Regimens in Rectal Cancer
TOPLINE: In a multicentre study of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer, substantial variation existed in the choice of total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT), but efficacy was comparable across different regimens and consistent with that reported in clinical trials. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted an international, multicentre study in 21 countries and included 1585 patients (median age, 61 years; 37.1% women) with stage II/III rectal adenocarcinoma from September 2012 to December 2023. The primary objective focused on the type of TNT administered depending on the regimen, timing and type of chemotherapy, and type of radiotherapy. Secondary objectives encompassed safety and efficacy overall and on the basis of the type of TNT after propensity vector matching. Efficacy endpoints included pathologic complete response, complete response, local or distant progression at the time of treatment failure, event-free survival (EFS), and overall survival (OS). Overall, 17.7%, 33.4%, 12%, and 16.2% of patients were treated according to PRODIGE 23-like, RAPIDO-like, OPRA induction-like, and OPRA consolidation-like regimens, respectively. TAKEAWAY: Chemotherapy was given as induction, consolidation, and sandwich for 34.5%, 51.0%, and 14.5% of patients, respectively; regimens were single agent (1.1%), doublet (78.8%), and triplet (20.1%). Radiotherapy was delivered as short-course radiotherapy in 37.2% and long-course chemoradiotherapy in 62.8% of cases. The pathologic complete response rate was 21.3%, and the complete response rate was 23.2%; local and distant progression at the time of treatment failure were 7% and 16.2%, respectively. Three-year EFS reached 68%, and 5-year OS was 79%. In the overall population, PRODIGE 23-like regimens showed better survival outcomes than RAPIDO-like regimens (EFS: hazard ratio [HR], 0.68; P = .03; OS: HR, 0.51; P = .04), OPRA induction-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.66; P = .04; OS: HR, 0.35; P = .003), and OPRA consolidation-like regimens (EFS: HR, 0.64; P = .02; OS: HR, 0.50; P = .05). After the propensity vector matching analysis of 928 patients (58.5%), no significant differences in survival outcomes were observed between TNT regimens. IN PRACTICE: "This case series study illuminates the applicability of TNT to clinical practice," the authors of the study wrote. "TNT decisions should be made based on the individual risk profile and following an accurate discussion about the positives and negatives of each option while considering patient preferences and expectations," they added. SOURCE: This study was led by Alessandro Audisio, MD, Université libre de Bruxelles, Institut Jules Bordet-Hôpital Erasme, Brussels, Belgium. It was published online on July 10, 2025, in JAMA Oncology. LIMITATIONS: The retrospective design of the study introduced potential data collection errors and biases, which were only partially addressed through remote monitoring and data imputation. The relatively short follow-up period may have prevented the detection of differences in long-term outcomes between TNT regimens. Additionally, variations in treatment delivery, staging methods, and supportive care across institutions complicated direct comparisons. Despite involving multiple countries, the predominant European patient population limited the generalisability of the results. DISCLOSURES: This study was sponsored by the Institut Jules Bordet and endorsed by the Oncodistinct Network. Several authors reported receiving personal fees and grants and having other ties with various sources. Additional disclosures are noted in the original article. This article was created using several editorial tools, including AI, as part of the process. Human editors reviewed this content before publication.
