For one, for achieving fat loss, it's surely simpler to focus on factors like calories & how full the food makes you. -- With that perspective, yeah it's obvious that fried chicken and sugary chocolate aren't great for your health when eaten frequently.
For another, e.g. it seems that nutritionally, something like "diet coke" is strictly better than the sugar drinks it replaces: you get the same taste, but zero calories. -- I mean, zero-calorie drink is clearly UPF but also nutritionally beneficial. I don't see "UPF" as a practical way to look at it.
The book discusses this a bit, actually. It basically credits the UPF theory to one Brazilian researcher, Carlos Monteiro, and discusses how he developed the theory by applying epidemiological techniques to the obesity epidemic in Brazil. It gives the specific example that, in Monteiro's research, if a family bought sugar at the grocery store, it actually reduced the likelihood that they were obese because, even though sugar is not healthy, it meant they were still cooking at home.
My understanding is that he would probably make similar predictions about your examples: people who eat fried chicken and chocolate as part of a mostly home-cooked diet are less likely to be obese than people who drink diet coke as part of a diet that mostly comes out of wrappers. He would probably also say that there's nothing inherently bad about diet coke, but there is something bad about getting all your food from people trying to make money instead of from people who love you.
I thought that aside from the social context above, there is a theory that artificial sweeteners actually cause paradoxical effects in the metabolism because of triggers associated with the sweetness not the glucose/sucrose content. Ie specifically "diet" soda aside from eating out a Lot, may not be helping.
I'd say "calorie dense food that's highly palatable makes it easy to consume more calories than you expend, and that makes you fat". -- I mean, that's a mechanical model explaining how you get fat.
I think that UPF mostly aligns with that in that the food that's "UPF" is generally calorie dense, highly palatable, low satiation.
But...
> He would probably also say that there's nothing inherently bad about diet coke, but there is something bad about getting all your food from people trying to make money instead of from people who love you.
At this point, it seems more a discussion of morals and social values rather than a scientific "how to lose fat".
Zero calories doesn’t mean it’s healthy, as all those drinks are loaded with artificial sweeteners some of which have a strong insulin response and are also associated with cancer.
Last time I looked into this, the strongest research showed "we looked and couldn't find any evidence it's not associated with cancer".
That is, to hear "artificial sweeteners = cancer, I'm better off with the sugary drinks" was the wrong conclusion to take.
[−]amanaplanacanal · 2026-10-11 Sun 10:20 UTC ·
link
I haven't seen evidence that artificial sweeteners cause a strong insulin response, but would certainly love to. Can you point me to such evidence?
[−]irthomasthomas · 2026-10-11 Sun 11:32 UTC ·
link
Here are a few papers:
1. Sucralose increases peak insulin response when co-ingested with carbs:
"Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load" (Pepino et al., 2013, Diabetes Care)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23633524/
Finding: Consuming sucralose 10 minutes prior to an oral glucose tolerance test increased peak plasma insulin levels by ~20% and decreased insulin clearance compared to water.
2. Microbiome-driven glycemic & insulin dysregulation:
"Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance" (Suez et al., 2022, Cell)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35987213/
Finding: A randomized trial showing saccharin and sucralose alter gut microbiota composition, leading to personalized impairments in glucose tolerance and postprandial insulin responses.
3. Reduced insulin sensitivity from daily intake:
"Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial" (Romo-Romo et al., 2018, AJCN)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30535090/
Finding: 14 days of daily sucralose intake significantly decreased insulin sensitivity in healthy young adults compared to placebo.
4. Direct pancreatic beta-cell mechanism:
"Sweet Taste Receptor Expressed in Pancreatic β-Cells Activates the Calcium and Cyclic AMP Signaling Systems and Stimulates Insulin Secretion" (Nakagawa et al., 2009, PLoS ONE)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352508/
Finding: Sweet-taste receptors (T1R2/T1R3) expressed on pancreatic beta-cells bind sweeteners (sucralose, Ace-K, saccharin), mobilizing intracellular cAMP and Ca2+ to stimulate insulin secretion.
For one, for achieving fat loss, it's surely simpler to focus on factors like calories & how full the food makes you. -- With that perspective, yeah it's obvious that fried chicken and sugary chocolate aren't great for your health when eaten frequently.
For another, e.g. it seems that nutritionally, something like "diet coke" is strictly better than the sugar drinks it replaces: you get the same taste, but zero calories. -- I mean, zero-calorie drink is clearly UPF but also nutritionally beneficial. I don't see "UPF" as a practical way to look at it.
My understanding is that he would probably make similar predictions about your examples: people who eat fried chicken and chocolate as part of a mostly home-cooked diet are less likely to be obese than people who drink diet coke as part of a diet that mostly comes out of wrappers. He would probably also say that there's nothing inherently bad about diet coke, but there is something bad about getting all your food from people trying to make money instead of from people who love you.
e.g. obviously not practical for everyone but Taub's "Twinkie Study" showed fat 27 lbs of fat loss even from a diet of decidedly calorie-dense food like twinkies and doritos. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/comfort-cravings/201...
I think that UPF mostly aligns with that in that the food that's "UPF" is generally calorie dense, highly palatable, low satiation.
But...
> He would probably also say that there's nothing inherently bad about diet coke, but there is something bad about getting all your food from people trying to make money instead of from people who love you.
At this point, it seems more a discussion of morals and social values rather than a scientific "how to lose fat".
Last time I looked into this, the strongest research showed "we looked and couldn't find any evidence it's not associated with cancer".
That is, to hear "artificial sweeteners = cancer, I'm better off with the sugary drinks" was the wrong conclusion to take.
1. Sucralose increases peak insulin response when co-ingested with carbs: "Sucralose Affects Glycemic and Hormonal Responses to an Oral Glucose Load" (Pepino et al., 2013, Diabetes Care) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23633524/ Finding: Consuming sucralose 10 minutes prior to an oral glucose tolerance test increased peak plasma insulin levels by ~20% and decreased insulin clearance compared to water.
2. Microbiome-driven glycemic & insulin dysregulation: "Personalized microbiome-driven effects of non-nutritive sweeteners on human glucose tolerance" (Suez et al., 2022, Cell) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35987213/ Finding: A randomized trial showing saccharin and sucralose alter gut microbiota composition, leading to personalized impairments in glucose tolerance and postprandial insulin responses.
3. Reduced insulin sensitivity from daily intake: "Sucralose decreases insulin sensitivity in healthy subjects: a randomized controlled trial" (Romo-Romo et al., 2018, AJCN) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30535090/ Finding: 14 days of daily sucralose intake significantly decreased insulin sensitivity in healthy young adults compared to placebo.
4. Direct pancreatic beta-cell mechanism: "Sweet Taste Receptor Expressed in Pancreatic β-Cells Activates the Calcium and Cyclic AMP Signaling Systems and Stimulates Insulin Secretion" (Nakagawa et al., 2009, PLoS ONE) https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19352508/ Finding: Sweet-taste receptors (T1R2/T1R3) expressed on pancreatic beta-cells bind sweeteners (sucralose, Ace-K, saccharin), mobilizing intracellular cAMP and Ca2+ to stimulate insulin secretion.
> I mean, zero-calorie drink is clearly UPF but also nutritionally beneficial.
What nutrition do zero-calorie manufactured drinks like Coke Zero provide?